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

[brainmonster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Just personally, I find Ektar much more "primary" and Portra more "pastel".

 

[BrianShaw]

Just personally, I find Ektar much more "primary" and Portra more "pastel".

That’s a fact.

 

[Chan Tran]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[brainmonster]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[macfred]

Portra 160 vs. Ektar :

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

FUJI GW670III - EBC Fujinon f/3.5 90mm - Ektar

 

[macfred]

skintones with Portra and Ektar :

FUJI GA645 - EBC Fujinon60mm f/4 - Portra 160

FUJI GA645Wi - EBC FUJINON 45mm F/4 - Ektar

 

[AgX]

Portra 160 vs. Ektar :

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

FUJI GW670III - EBC Fujinon f/3.5 90mm - Ektar

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

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[c41]

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

Yes. These seem like fair examples.

 

[macfred]

a last comparison side by side :

Portra 160

Ektar

 

[Kino]

Amazing images! Thank you Macfred!

 

[macfred]

...Thank you Macfred!

 

[BrianShaw]

a last comparison side by side :

View attachment 232167
Portra 160

View attachment 232168
Ektar

As always... these are great comparisons that show the difference. This one, however, always leaves me scratching my head.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.