Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fuji Pro 400h (EXAMPLES!)

[F/1.4]

So I was running some test rolls that I just got back from RPL and I shot a few pictures both on 400h and Ektar 100. This particular one stood out for me, and I thought that everyone would get a kick out of it:

 

[tomalophicon]

Interesting. I like the Fuji better but Ektar is great too.
Is this 35mm?

 

[jbl]

Great comparison. Thanks for doing this.

-jbl

 

[F/1.4]

No problem! I shot these with my Mamiya 645AFD with the 80mm f/2.8 wide open

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting comparison and thanks for that. The Ektar somehow makes the eyes jump out at you and the deeper blues of the iris makes the whites of the eyes stand out more. That combined with a tanned glow effect makes me see why wedding photographers might prefer Ektar. It gives a kind of saturated technicolor look that most younger brides and grooms would want.

Someone marrying in middle age might have a different view. Despite the Fuji shot looking less sharp and duller, I prefer it.

Overall Fuji would be still be my choice for street photography, animals and landscapes

pentaxuser

 

[Ottrdaemmerung]

Kodak Portra might be a better film to compare the Fuji with rather than the Ektar, since Ektar really isn't meant to be a film with which to get good flesh tones, but in this lady's case I think the Ektar works rather well.

 

[dreamingartemis]

I think a better comparison I would like to see is portra 400 with pro400h. now that would be interesting.

 

[JSebrof]

I found this awhile back, comparing new portra 400 with fuji 400h. They also have a few comparisons with Kodak Vision 3 500T movie film which are interesting.

 

[2F/2F]

Big difference. It illustrates why I generally don't like Ektar. It can be great when used for "that look," but it is not a good general-purpose film IMO. It isn't a bad choice here, though I do think she looks better with the Fuji, and the whole pic looks more natural. However, if the idea is to sell hair dye, the Ektar works better.

 

[j-dogg]

You can see the green hue on the Fuji film. I've shot both of these and I prefer the Ektar for general walking around color prints and the Fuji for landscapes and nature.

 

[GeorgK]

Some information on processing (and scanning, printing) would be helpful, before the usual "film specialists" join in to comment.
To me, these look like scanned negatives with massively processed colors (typical "standard skin tone", looking like painted plastic). In that case, film choice would not matter much, anyway.

Georg

 

[Les Sarile]

Saw this Kodak Ektar 100 Portrait posted that I consider to be strikingly good. Of course a child's skin can withstand considerable magnification/resolution!

 

[F/1.4]

I'm glad people were able to get something out of this. Sure Portra 400 and 400H would have been interesting, but I didn't have a back with Portra 400 in it, too bad.

My experiment was to see how these films compared and handled overcast weather, not to mention if shooting at ISO 50 would be do-able hand held with a medium format camera in the typical overcast skies we have here in Portland.


Personally I think the Ektar looks 100x better in this situation. The 400H although having a more even, neutral tone is flat and dull. I just bought a pro-pack to do more experiments with it. I've got some work coming up that I might shoot on Ektar instead of 400h..


As far as shooting/dev info this is all I know:

Mamiya 645AFD w/ 80mm f/2.8 @f/2.8
Ektar 100 @ ISO 50
400H @ ISO 200

Developed/Scanned at RPL using their typical dip-n-dunk and scanned on their Noristu.

 

[brucemuir]

the 80/2.8 for the afd is fantastic even wide open.

I wont comment on the scan because who knows what "RPL" did anyway.

 

[keithwms]

I immediately spotted the Fuji, it looks... real.

 

[alanrockwood]

I liked the Ektar photo better. To me the Fuji photo looked sort of mushy.

 

[ColdEye]

The ektar is better for me. I like colors that are not flat, and I also like colors that are vibrant. Do you have anymore images in different lighting conditions?

 

[F/1.4]

Yeah i've got a few other pictures off the rest of the roll I can show




a little diptych i made, I like the landscape potential (both Ektar)..

more of that landscape potential(Ektar)..

Sorry about the lightleaks, got a back for $45, and now I know why it was so cheap..

Some patchy sunlight (Ektar)..

 

[F/1.4]

the 80/2.8 for the afd is fantastic even wide open.

I wont comment on the scan because who knows what "RPL" did anyway.

It really is pretty awesome wide open...I just wish it was f/2 and said zeiss on it..

 

[benjiboy]

To me as a portrait enthusiast this shot is better shot on a film that is formulated for the purpose either Kodak Portra 160 or Fuji Pro. 160S, because although Kodak Ektar is an excellent general purpose film even Kodak don't recommend it for portraiture in it's literature, IMO it's too colour saturated and high in contrast for this purpose..

 

[perkeleellinen]

To my eye the Ektar looks 'enhanced' and the 400H looks 'neutral'. I think they both work, though. Probably because the model is a pretty girl with smooth skin. I think it would be a different story if this was a blotchy newborn or a ruddy 90 year-old with liver spots.

 

[Bernard_61]

I don't like both. Portra is definitely better in my opinion

 

[stavrosk]

I dont think this comparison is valid for every person being photographed. The lady in the exaple has fair skin so it looks dull on Fuji and nice on Ektar.
Whar if she had a not so perfect skin? With red or redish imperfections? Then the Fuji would look much better.
So in this case it is not better but generally the Fuji is the safe bet.

 

[H.veng.smith]

Thats some pop with the Ektar.

 

[Zygomorph]

I am simply shocked--SHOCKED--that some people prefer apples and some prefer oranges.

Anyway, yeah, I used a ton of Ektar in London this summer. It can definitely make the pastiest people on the planet look sunburned. On the other hand, it makes it a trivial matter to read a menu in a shop window from a block away at 4000 dpi.

I for one never want any part of my body photographed with the stuff unless the lens is dripping with Vaseline.