Fuji Pro H 400 or Kodak Porta 400?

[ToddB]

Hey guys.

Preparing to buy supplies for big trip next month. Which do you like better the Fuji Pro H 400 iso 120 or Kodak Porta 400 iso 120 color print film?

Todd

 

[jspillane]

Portra is a a bit cheaper in my neck of the woods (and available in 220), which is enough to pretty much kill the Fuji which doesn't offer any major advantage that I am aware of. I've used and liked both-- Fuji is a little grainer, which can be nice but might be a negative if you do really big enlargements.

 

[MattKrull]

I've only shot both in 35mm, and I much prefer Porta.

I had the 400H enlarged to 11x14 and I was not impressed with the results. I expected much finer grain than I got. I haven't enlarged Porta as much, but what I have suggests a finer grain. Since you'll be shooting 120, I doubt that the grain will matter, it will come down to colour tone. Personall, I prefer Porta's colour palette. Portas colours are a bit softer, so if you are looking for punchy colours, I'd go with the Fuji.

 

[StoneNYC]

Portra, is what I would choose,I didn't like the Fuji color pallet as much for "natural" color cast. Porta has both some good color but more natural skin tones. If you want some pop to the colors, a bit pink skin, and that "this was shot on film" look, go with Fuji.

BUT to throw a wrench in... I would prefer Velvia50/velvia100 and Provia100f over any of the others

 

[ToddB]

Anyone else..? This shoot is very important. So I want to make sure I maximize my options.

Todd

 

[jonasfj]

It's a matter of taste and depends on what you're planning to shoot. The difference might be less than you think. I believe you need to hold prints side by side to spot the difference. Portra probably gives more natural skin tones and slightly less gain. I wouldn't worry.

Skickat från min GT-P5210 via Tapatalk

 

[BrianShaw]

Not knowing what you are shooting I would follow my instincts and say Portra. But I tend toward 160 rather than 400 in almost all situations except low light. I also rarely go on trip with one film. Consider adding Ektar 100.

 

[MattKrull]

ToddB,

What will you be photographing? Saying it's an import shoot is one thing, but you don't say the subject matter (people, landscapes, architecture, whatever else), and what your planned use for it is (digital display, small/medium prints, big enlargements, etc).

You want to "maximize your options"? Bring both. Add in some Ektar 100 and your B&W film of choice. If your camera uses backs, bring an extra back or two so you can always have the right film for the shot at hand.

Have fun on the trip!

 

[mweintraub]

They both are good, but I've been falling for Portra 400 as of late. 400H is grainier, but it's a pretty grain sometimes. You could easily expose it at 200 to minimize it a little.

Here is a blog post of someone doing some comparisons.
http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html

More comparisons:
http://madeonfilm.com/2013/06/05/fujifilm-400h-vs-kodak-portra-400/

 

[wblynch]

I have used Pro 400H and got wonderful results. Sharp, pretty colors with nice saturation and contrast.

Then last week I found a 1 year expired roll of Pro 400H and shot it in my M645. Unfortunately I forgot to set the meter from 100 to 400 and overexposed the roll by 2 stops.

The results were flat and lifeless. Even scanning and using all my Photoshop tricks couldn't really save it.

So, I would prefer Portra 400 since it's more forgiving and seems to hold its age better.

If you use Pro 400H be sure to watch your exposures.

 

[skysh4rk]

Hey guys.

Preparing to buy supplies for big trip next month. Which do you like better the Fuji Pro H 400 iso 120 or Kodak Porta 400 iso 120 color print film?

Todd

You haven't really given us much information to make a firm recommendation either way.

I've used both quite extensively and I like them both for slightly different reasons, although they probably have more similarities than differences. For 120, neither has obtrusive grain.

I probably prefer the Fuji colour palette, which is a bit more neutral to the sometimes yellowy Portra, although both have nice, soft colours and great skin tones. Portra is heaps better as the sun goes down though as it tends to hold much better shadow detail and I've pushed it up to three stops with considerable success.

Here is a sampling of travel photos from both film stocks including some landscapes and portrait shots. Obviously individual mileage will vary and this is far from any sort of scientific comparison:


Fuji Pro 400H:






Kodak Portra 400:

 

[TheToadMen]

It depends on what you're gonna shoot, but personally I would go for the Fuji Pro 400H. I've used it a lot and I like its colors and all.
Never had any problems with it. Not even when expired for 5 years.

Shooting nature? Definitely Fuji!!
Street photography? Probably Portra.

 

[RattyMouse]

I have never enjoyed the results I got from Portra 400. But with 400H, I am usually overjoyed with the beautiful colors.

 

[MattKing]

If you are using a lab for prints, get their input.

I much prefer Kodak.

 

[lxdude]

You could get a roll or two each and try them out before your trip. Maybe a roll of Ektar while you're at it. You have time to do it and decide before you go.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like Portra 400 better than Pro H 400.

 

[pentaxuser]

You could get a roll or two each and try them out before your trip. Maybe a roll of Ektar while you're at it. You have time to do it and decide before you go.

This would certainly seem to be the way to go. It doesn't matter what we think, we aren't the OP

pentaxuser

 

[Nuff]

I like both and I also like their 160 versions.

I also usually shoot both of the at ISO 200, sometimes even ISO100.

Like others have said, what are you shooting for this important shot?

Pro400H:

Snowy horse by Jarek Miszkinis, on Flickr


Waiter by Jarek Miszkinis, on Flickr

Portra 400:

portra400_015.jpg by Jarek Miszkinis, on Flickr

 

[ToddB]

Thanks for the picture comparison. That's huge help to see side by side. I still dig the the fuji , It just has a little punch of color than Kodak.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

I would say that 400H is a little less forgiving of underexposure and Portra 400 is a little flatter in its color palate. In 120, either one is great. In 35mm, I would probably go with Portra due to its finer grain although I still have a stock of 400H in the freezer to work through.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks for the picture comparison. That's huge help to see side by side. I still dig the the fuji , It just has a little punch of color than Kodak.

For 135 and 120 I keep a supply of Kodak Portra Vivid Color and Kodak Portra Ultra Color in my freezer where the hoarders cannot get it.

For 4"x5" I have Kodak Portra Vivid Color 160.

 

[bluemooze]

How did you get hired for an "important shoot" without knowing about the film you're going to be shooting with? You're starting to sound like a troll. :confused:

 

[pdjr1991]

Thanks for the picture comparison. That's huge help to see side by side. I still dig the the fuji , It just has a little punch of color than Kodak.

If you like that extra punch of color ektars for you. Be aware that its only available in iso 100. I like it more than portra. Portra was pretty low in contrast compared to ektar and shifted a bit yellow for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How did you get hired for an "important shoot" without knowing about the film you're going to be shooting with? You're starting to sound like a troll. :confused:

For a newbie, you really jumped into it.

1. I KNOW when I am going to the red rock area of the US West.
2. I have multiple 35mm cameras include ones dedicated to black & white and one dedicated to color.
3. Hasselblads can change film backs mid-roll.
4. 4"x5" cameras have two sheet film holders and six shot Grafmatic backs.

In reflection it sounds as though if you are looking for a troll, try the bathroom mirror.

 

[lxdude]

How did you get hired for an "important shoot" without knowing about the film you're going to be shooting with? You're starting to sound like a troll. :confused:

Todd did not say he was hired.
He said it was "a big trip" and and "This shoot is very important."
Nothing about being hired.