Kodak Ektar vs. the Portas

Tim Gray · Aug 31, 2011

Athiril said:
160NS and 160NC are being made as far as I can tell. You can get it from Japan Exposure if you really like it, but they only have the 160NC in 4x5" for some reason.

For what it's worth, 160NC and 160NS are both listed on Fuji Japan's website, but neither are listed in the price list (JAN page) in 35mm. 160NC is listed in 4x5 and quick loads, while 160NS is listed in 120, 220, 4x5, 8x10, and quick loads.

hpulley · Aug 31, 2011

Tim Gray said:
For what it's worth, 160NC and 160NS are both listed on Fuji Japan's website, but neither are listed in the price list (JAN page) in 35mm. 160NC is listed in 4x5 and quick loads, while 160NS is listed in 120, 220, 4x5, 8x10, and quick loads.

This is the Ektar vs. Portra thread but overall it does beg the question, what on earth is Fujifilm doing??? Reala is just available in 120 as well. Are they only coating some of these films on certain thicknesses of film now or are they just cutting up the last runs? It is hard to tell...

I mainly shoot 120 for color these days from short rolls, so the fact that I can't get much 35mm color from Fuji is OK with me. I spool my own 35mm from long rolls of short dated Portra 160NC (haven't seen long rolls of new Portra or Ektar yet, coming or gone?).

Jedidiah Smith · Aug 31, 2011

Yeah, it is interesting. Only 400H shows up as portrait neg film on Fuji's USA site.

TSSPro · Aug 31, 2011

I've probably shot 80 rolls of the new portra and about 1/2 that of the ektar since it came out- I was hesitant to shoot the ektar because of review that I had read, irrational fears about color ballancing it....so on- But along side the new portra they are clearly a good compliment to one another. The portra is kinder on skin tones than the Ektar, but if you pay attention to what you are doing you can still get good results from the ektar with Caucasian skin. I've been wanting my photographs to have a bit more pop and go to black quicker, so I've been leaning more toward the Ektar side of things, but you can still achieve deep, rich, velvety blacks on the new portra, too, you just have to light for them.

Athiril · Aug 31, 2011

I wouldn't put much stock in their website catalogues... I've found films that have no catalogue entry... still being made (found some recently).

Ektacolor Pro 160 (in 120!) for the Asian market.. I couldn't find a Kodak mention or listing until recently - http://www.kodak.com.cn/product/proinfo.aspx?id=70

Whats funny is its listed just for 120... but the same market segmet still has/had Portra 160NC and VC too iirc (assume they'll get/are getting Portra 160 soon/now)

iranzi · Sep 1, 2011

Just been rereading this thread. Very interesting. But somehow I can't believe shooting daylight negative film in overcast/cloudy/shadow conditions outdoors will cause any problems. Has anyone here done any testing or seen results of such tests that show necessity of in-camera filtering for colour negative film? It sounds very strange to me that any of the above conditions will cause loss of density in any of the layers so severe that filtering during printing won't be able to restore without introducing color shifts. I've never seen in-camera filtering for negative film recommended in any of the colour photography books either. So, i'd be very grateful if any of you can quote from any reference, books, articles, tests, etc that prove your point.

Athiril · Sep 1, 2011

It doesn't cause problems (imo) as you can colour balance both in printing and scanning, in my example the colour vibrance of a very high kelvin temperature light while I was out in the forest was increased with the use of filtering, even though the end result colour balance was identical.

iranzi · Sep 1, 2011

Thanks Athiril, i see what you mean. But a few other posters here insist on filtering (unless i got it all wrong). By the way, your colour experiments on flikr are really inspiring!

Athiril · Sep 1, 2011

The shot I am talking about was on some Konica 120 film.. I took the same shot unfiltered and filtered (adjusted exposure), balanced the same, the filtered image seemed to jump out more. I uploaded the filtered image only.

edit: and thanks for the compliment

markbarendt · Sep 1, 2011

iranzi said:
It sounds very strange to me that any of the above conditions will cause loss of density in any of the layers so severe that filtering during printing won't be able to restore without introducing color shifts. I've never seen in-camera filtering for negative film recommended in any of the colour photography books either. So, i'd be very grateful if any of you can quote from any reference, books, articles, tests, etc that prove your point.

It isn't necesarily a matter of being outside a correctable range but that isn't far fetched either. If you're shooting in the shade and you under expose a bit you could easily make yourself a mess in color balance and detail available at the print.

Color balancing at the camera is akin to setting exposure well. If you get both right at the camera it makes printing a dream. Contact sheets look better too.

brian steinberger · Sep 1, 2011

Just curious, how does a Tiffen 812 filter fit in with the 81 and 85 series filters?

timparkin · Sep 2, 2011

Don't suppose you could post both?

Athiril · Sep 2, 2011

timparkin said:
Don't suppose you could post both?

I'll have to find what I did with the neg sheet.

DREW WILEY · Sep 2, 2011

Iranzi and Athril - see my latest post on a related color neg thread. Filtering has been standard on color
neg in the movie industry all along. That trade cannot afford to be wrong. And there's a difference to
what degree a given film has been engineering to create pleasing skintones at the expense of other hues, versus the correct kind of exposure which results in overall optimization. And yes, some of us have
done lots and lots of objective tests with high-end equipment.

donbga · Sep 2, 2011

DREW WILEY said:
Iranzi and Athril - see my latest post on a related color neg thread. Filtering has been standard on color
neg in the movie industry all along. That trade cannot afford to be wrong. And there's a difference to
what degree a given film has been engineering to create pleasing skintones at the expense of other hues, versus the correct kind of exposure which results in overall optimization. And yes, some of us have
done lots and lots of objective tests with high-end equipment.

:munch:

DREW WILEY · Sep 2, 2011

I hope that's not artificial butter on the popcorn, Don, although it would probably be appropriate for a digital movie.

iranzi · Sep 2, 2011

I'm not going to take your word for it, wiley.
I'd love to see some test results though, done on normal equipment, not some "high end" whatever.

DREW WILEY · Sep 2, 2011

Manufacturers use high-end equipment to both develop and monitor their films, things like densitometers, additive sources, sensitometers, and spectrophotometers. Some of us use and understand these devices too. These kinds of things determine how a film is engineered, not by what a casual image might look like on the web. There's no such thing as "normal" equipment. Is it "normal" to use a cruddy lens and broken lightmeter instead of a good one? You can't optimize if you don't understand the standard in the first place. I'm just sharing what I learned the hard way and spent
of lot of money and time testing. Your loss.

TareqPhoto · Sep 3, 2011

For outdoor without people or just general not specific portraiture if i will shoot color neg then the only 2 films i will be using are: Fuji Reala and Kodak Ektar
If shooting people and portraiture then Kodak Portra 160/400 will be the film of my choice.
I can shoot anything with any color film slide or neg, but sure i will get different results, so Velvia 50/100 is my fav for outdoor or indoor for still subjects like nature and landscapes and so, and new Kodak Portra 160/400 my fav for portraiture. so simple as that and no need to check reviews and see all examples, i tested different color films and i got which films i like from beginning.

iranzi · Sep 4, 2011

DREW WILEY said:
You can't optimize if you don't understand the standard in the first place. I'm just sharing what I learned the hard way and spent
of lot of money and time testing.

Thanks for sharing, this is really invaluable information indeed! Theory is all fine and good, anyone can learn it, but real life practical examples/evidence is hard to come by, unfortunately.

Another thing worth mentioning, regarding "objective tests with high-end equipment", is that as we're dealing with colours here, subjective test results might be more appropriate. Colours are relative, that's an "objective" phenomena, and if the scientific/lab/objective test shows for example an increase in blue colour saturation due to a certain cause, that same blue will look different to our eyes depending on context (e.g. surrounding colours and their parameters). etc. etc.

markbarendt · Sep 4, 2011

iranzi said:
Theory is all fine and good, anyone can learn it, but real life practical examples/evidence is hard to come by, unfortunately.

So test for yourself.

IMO one reason examples are hard to come by is that most people don't do formal testing, they go shooting have a problem, find a fix, and then throw out the trash and move on.

I do know from experience that, yes, I can correct an open shade shot on daylight film in an enlarger but that life is easier when I filter for it.

I think part of it is that when I filter I use a filter factor which means I actually get all the layers exposed well, I don't get say film's that have underexposed blues or reds.

Using filters (1) forces me to be honest with myself about the exposure settings I really need and (2) preserves the under/overexposure latitude of the film and (3) makes printing easier.

Seriously, why would you expect us to keep or show off our trash?

iranzi · Sep 4, 2011

markbarendt said:
Seriously, why would you expect us to keep or show off our trash?

No idea what you mean by that. Thanks for your information though.

markbarendt · Sep 4, 2011

iranzi said:
No idea what you mean by that. Thanks for your information though.

You are welcome.

The phase simply means that when I have a photo that obviously fails because of problems with exposure, lack of a filter, focus, or loading the sheets in the holder emulsion down or whatever else might go awry; I feel no need to put more time into "saving" it or sharing it.

I learn my lesson, throw away the ruined film, and move on. I'm happy to share the lesson but the examples I learned from are gone.

iranzi · Sep 4, 2011

I see. Perhaps someone else had done some testing though. Like Athiril's before and after example with the polariser. That one is really astounding. Cheers

iranzi · Sep 4, 2011

Athiril, do you know why the greens in post #37 are much more muted whereas the previous example with a polariser has such electric greens?
Great images though. Definitely worth getting a polarising filter.

Kodak Ektar vs. the Portas

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency