Ektar 100 vs Portra 160 - what's the exact difference?

brainmonster

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
206
Location
Honolulu
Format
35mm
So I know there's an ISO difference - so Portra should be 1.6 times more sensitive to light than Ektar 100. I also know there's a color balance difference - some people complain about Ektar 100 being "too red" for skin tones. Portra 160 is probably better for portraits. Grain difference is probably negligible.

I bought some Ektar 100 because I live in Hawaii and usually shoot in bright light, at the beach, in noon light, etc. Also I'm taking a trip to Thailand, and I thought the brighter colors would suit well for Hawaii nature photographs and bright colors in Thailand.

However I'm worried about portraits. Is there some technological difference in the two emulsions or is it just about color balance? In that case, I could just change the color balance after scanning on the Ektar 100 to match skin tones for portraits only, by reducing the reds (true?). Or is there some technological difference which makes Portra superior? Ektar is cheaper, does that mean Portra is better technically?

Thanks for helping me understand these two films and feel free to correct any assumptions I've made especially about suitability for my environment (Hawaii and Thailand). I notice that film sold at stores here at Hawaii is only 200 speed in big box stores, I think this is because of the weather. In Ireland, I've heard the standard film speed sold in big box stores is 400 (overcast skies are more common).

Did I choose the right film speed?
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,127
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Portra is particularly good for skin tones and is certainly the one I'd use if I specialised in people pictures but Ektar does a reasonable job as well especially if people are only part and not the major part of the scene. Have a look at Macfred's shots in the gallery. He uses Portra. Then look at others such as the Flying Camera. He has used Ektar and his shots are good as well.

pentaxuser
 

Rudeofus

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
5,087
Location
EU
Format
Medium Format
The "too red in skin tones" does not come from different color balance - it comes from very different levels of color saturation. Portra creates these beautiful portrait colors with best skin tones, whereas Ektar creates colorful images, something closer to slide film. If strong color is an important message of your pics, then Ektar is the way to go. As far as grain is concerned, both films are excellent, but Ektar claims to be even finer grained.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,370
Format
8x10 Format
These films are quite different. Portra 160 is a low-contrast film designed to give pleasing skintones, in the lineage of numerous other color neg films, just improved. Ektar is fine-grained, more saturated, higher contrast, and not artificially warmed with respect to shadows. If you take a portrait in the shade under a blue sky, the deeper shades will turn out bluish, and you'll need an 81A amber filter to correct this. The look of Ektar is more reminiscent of what color slide film provides. If you want something which can really bag turquoise tropical water, Ektar does it. But you have to be careful with blemished complexions - it's certainly not for high school yearbooks and kids with red zits!
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,854
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
Just personally, I find Ektar much more "primary" and Portra more "pastel".
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
7,020
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
Actually the film speed isn't different for me I shot both at ISO 100. The grain is different though. Ektar is significantly finer grain than Portra.
 

NortheastPhotographic

Advertiser
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,534
Location
Maine!
Format
Medium Format
Re Ektar and skin tones, I find that E100 manages to have the color of Ektar and the skin tones of Portra. It's a remarkable film!
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,370
Format
8x10 Format
Ektar is still lower contrast than any slide film. I haven't tried the new E100, but it's allegedly a revival of E100G, which, in my opinion, was Kodak's most versatile chrome film ever. I shot quite a bit of it in 4x5 and 8x10. Then I transitioned mostly to Ektar.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,324
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
The portra series is (was) aimed at professional Photographers, so it has extra care taken in the design to produce great skin ones, and separate the lace trim from the bodice in a picture of a wedding Gown. Ektar is aimed at being the finest grained general purpose film. NOW, that is their heritage, and I don't think either has any drawbacks for almost any use. Enjoy both!
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
24,458
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I wouldn't call Ektar a 'general purpose film'. Given its high contrast and saturation, it has a somewhat more focused application range than true 'general purpose' films like the consumer films. And I wouldn't consider Ektar as any less 'professional' than Portra.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
15,178
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Portra is my all time favorite color negative film. It's a more accurate film than Ektar. However Ektar is an amazing film, if you want killer saturated color of autumn leaves, red balloons, golden light Ektar knocks it out of the park.
Both 160 and 400 Portra is very fine grain, as is Ektar. Both films are very easy to print with in the darkroom. I have a heck of a time scanning negative film, but to be honest I've never really tried very hard.
 
OP
OP

brainmonster

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
206
Location
Honolulu
Format
35mm
What's ektar good for? I'm assuming landscape shots, high colors, etc. Seems like it'd work well at the beaches here in Hawaii. I'm not sure how it handles greens, but there's a lot of green in Hawaii, and a lot of nice blue skies and also people dressed in colorful outfits, etc. so I was skeptical about Ektar for my use.

I'm also visiting Thailand, so I thought that Ektar might be better because of the colorful temples, scenery, night markets, fruits, etc. etc., so I'm worried I'd be disappointed with Portra losing that stuff.

Any input?
 

Rudeofus

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
5,087
Location
EU
Format
Medium Format
The way you describe your subject matter would certainly suggest Ektar to be the film of choice. Ektar has strong colors, but resulting images still look quite realistic. If you go the hybrid way, you may have to bring some skills in color correction. Those without the necessary skills have reported cyan skies in their images. Real wet prints allegedly don't have that problem, therefore cyan skies are likely a hybrid processing error.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,647
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
In my experience, Ektar has "strong" and "vibrant" colours....others have described it as "popping". I've had truly great results photographing flowers with Ektar, and have used it also for photographing the exteriors of old buildings, the sea and some landscapes. I'd definitely pick Ektar over Portra for all of the above. Though my "go to" films for landscapes are Kodak Color Plus and Fuji Superia. Portra would do well in photographs where a human subject is the main focus and area of the shot. Ektar does OK with humans (be careful not to over-expose much for people with caucasian skin, especially pale skin or ruddy cheeks) and would be very suited to beach scenes where you're possibly photographing people as well as the beach, sea etc.

And any over-blown reds which sometimes happen with Ektar can be mitigated later in the darkroom or on the PC. With Portra, I rarely do portrait type shots but that's what it is best at. I've also had some great results photographing the exterior of old stone buildings with it. It has lower contrast and is far less "punchy" than Ektar.

Both films will get you results which can be tweaked to please but it sounds like you're looking for Ektar as a better bet in this case.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
macfred said:
Portra 160 vs. Ektar :

FUJI GW670III - EBC Fujinon f/3.5 90mm - Portra 160

FUJI GW670III - EBC Fujinon f/3.5 90mm - Ektar
Click to expand...


Finally someone in such kind of thread came around with a true side by side comparison!
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,127
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
I said that he should look at your pictures, macfred, for Portra not realising that you had done same scene comparisons with Ektar. You have been kind enough to give the OP everything he needs now

pentaxuser
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,854
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
Amazing images! Thank you Macfred!
 

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,771
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Macfred Those appear to be accurate comparisons. One comment about the first with the old boats. There also seems to be more contrast in the Ektar. With the more saturated colors, higher contrast makes it "pop" even more. I don;t know if the higher contrast is from the film or how you post processed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…