Portra 160 VC vs Ektar 100?

[skorpiius]

Both are (were) meant to have more vivid colours. Anyone on here have any experience with them when they were both around and could explain (or show!) how the resulting images differed?
Thx

 

[BrianShaw]

I don’t think they ever coexisted; my recollection is that Portra VC was retired before Ektar100 was released.

I never liked VC but its vividness seemed a bit more tamed than Ektar. And I think the “latitude” of Petra VC was greater than that of Ektar100. In terms of which has finer grain… I’m not sure. Ive shot Ektar100 and it was alright but not really my style.

For a comparison you might want to find the appropriate Kodak sales sheets on the internet.

BTW, isn’t Ekrar100 still around? You wrote about it in past tense.

 

[braxus]

Portra 160VC was around still at the tale end when Ektar 100 was released. Portra 160VC was discontinued a couple years after Ektar 100 was released. Ektar 100 is the finest grained C-41 film you can get today, and was when it was released as well. Grain is much larger on the VC film. VC was reformulated in around 2007 for finer grain and slightly better and less muddy colors. Colors were brighter on the second generation. I rather liked the VC film and wish I could still get it today. Grain size was finer than Gold 100 as well. Ektar hung around and VC didn't. You can still find old rolls of the VC film, but most are from the first generation. And fog is a concern at this age. VC stood for Vivid Color, while NC was Natural Color.

I wish the current Portra 160 was more VC like. The current stuff is more like NC than anything.

 

[braxus]

Also the VC film was warmer, while Ektar was neutral. Ektar went blue in the shadows, while VC didn't.

 

[skorpiius]

Also the VC film was warmer, while Ektar was neutral. Ektar went blue in the shadows, while VC didn't.

Excellent, that was the kind of comparison I was looking for.

 

[pentaxuser]

And I think the “latitude” of Petra VC was greater than that of Ektar100.

Yes but did it ever get her into trouble?

pentaxuser

 

[rcphoto]

I always felt like anything shot with Ektar, looked like an image shot on Kodak film. Not sure if that makes sense.

 

[BrianShaw]

I always felt like anything shot with Ektar, looked like an image shot on Kodak film. Not sure if that makes sense.

Not really, but after scratching my head I think I might know what you mean. LOL

 

[DREW WILEY]

Current Porta 160 is relatively low contrast along with relatively low color saturation. "Portra" stands for "Portrait". Ektar is higher contrast with greater color saturation. Both are Kodak, so I don't what rcphoto means by looking like it's shot on Kodak film. Porta is more of the lineage of previous color negative films, while Ektar is probably the most capable color neg film ever to simulate the look of a chrome or slide film; so if that is what he is implying, I'd agree.

Now obsolete Portra 160VC (vivid color) was somewhere in the middle, but nowhere near as fine-grained as Ektar.

As far as "latitude" goes - yeah, you need to exposure Ektar at box speed and almost as carefully as slide film for ideal results. Being higher in contrast than typical or traditional color neg films, it doesn't have nearly as much wiggle room or forgiveness for exposure error. Expect only about half a stop each direction with Ektar of quality color information compared to a typical chrome film. I know, I know ... someone always wants to give pushback to that assessment to that statement and tell me how much more they can retrieve with a scanner and some curve bending. But that's kinda like dumpster diving - sure, you can retrieve "something" way down in the bottom of it, but it might not smell or taste very good.

Another notable difference, which Braxus already pointed out, regards color balance. Traditional color neg films like the Portra lineup are designed to give "pleasing skintones", so are artificially warmed in a manner to enhance skin tones, yet at the cost of warm tans, yellow, oranges, and gold hues all becoming lumped together and poorly differentiated. Ektar, on the other hand, is more neutrally color balanced without any artificial warming, but often struggles to cleanly differentiate cyan hues from blue ones. There are ways to correct for much of this blue-cyan error in Ektar using appropriate filters like an 81A or 2A Skylight filter at the time of the shot itself, which I have explained many times before. Trying to post-correct it afterwards is much more difficult.

I personally shoot Ektar in multiple formats all the way from 35mm to 8X10, and print it on various Fuji RA4 papers in the darkroom.
Prior to that I shot and printed a fair amount of 160VC in 4x5 and 8x10; but I'm obviously familiar with current Portra films as well.

 

[Pioneer]

I've still got a couple of boxes of Portra 160 and one box of Ektar. The Ektar just came in a few months ago but the Portra is now quite expired. I may use some of it in my focus trials while I am getting back into large format. It should do all right as long as I adjust the development.

I do like Ektar in 120 but it has been quite awhile since I shot any in 4x5. Shouldn't look too different between 6x6 and 4x5 beyond negative size.

 

[BrianShaw]

My little Portra museum. Expired 2008. Foolishly, I gave away my vintage 4x5 160NC.

 

[Les Sarile]

Both are (were) meant to have more vivid colours. Anyone on here have any experience with them when they were both around and could explain (or show!) how the resulting images differed?
Thx

I really like the vividness of 160VC and it was not a "Portra" film back when. I shot many rolls of this . . .

Kodak 160VC-06-35 ICEN by Les DMess, on Flickr

But before Kodak the re-released the name Ektar, there was 100UC (Ultra Color). Was supposed to be Velvia in a color negative!

Kodak 100UC-0031 by Les DMess, on Flickr

I seem to remember it wasn't on the market long before they re-released the Ektar name in 100 speed. If I remember correctly, it was supposed to end their slide E100 as it had the fine grain of that slide film.

Kodak Ektar 100_11-26 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Most definitely Kodak improved on the grain of 160VC in 100UC making it finer. They had many poster size prints from 35mm at their booth in the PMA show looking extra vivid. They handed out a lot of free rolls. I am very satisfied with Kodak Ektar 100 although I recall quite a lot of complaints of "poor" colors from it. I believe that is just because of poor scanning and color negative conversion. I've experimented with Ektar 100 more than I did with the others and it has always delivered.

 

[skorpiius]

I really like the vividness of 160VC and it was not a "Portra" film back when. I shot many rolls of this . . .

Kodak 160VC-06-35 ICEN by Les DMess, on Flickr

But before Kodak the re-released the name Ektar, there was 100UC (Ultra Color). Was supposed to be Velvia in a color negative!

Kodak 100UC-0031 by Les DMess, on Flickr

I seem to remember it wasn't on the market long before they re-released the Ektar name in 100 speed. If I remember correctly, it was supposed to end their slide E100 as it had the fine grain of that slide film.

Kodak Ektar 100_11-26 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Most definitely Kodak improved on the grain of 160VC in 100UC making it finer. They had many poster size prints from 35mm at their booth in the PMA show looking extra vivid. They handed out a lot of free rolls. I am very satisfied with Kodak Ektar 100 although I recall quite a lot of complaints of "poor" colors from it. I believe that is just because of poor scanning and color negative conversion. I've experimented with Ektar 100 more than I did with the others and it has always delivered.

Thanks for the samples!
I have a 5 pack of supposedly 'always refrigerated' Portra 160 VC in the mail, will be interesting to side by side it with Ektar.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak VC and UC [UltraColor] were produced for increased color saturation and yet hold the skin tone of all races in an acceptable and usual range. I use UltraColor for red rock in the Southwest US [Arizona and Utah] or when the general color is relatively flat. I used VC for generally flat colors, but I never bought or used much of it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ektar 100 is the best neutral hue balanced color neg film ever, but is certainly not perfect. It took me awhile to master its learning curve; but fortunately, 160 VS was a helpful stepping stone first. Earlier Ektar 25 was simply too idiosyncratic, and not available in sheets anyway. So yes, for all practical purposes, Ektar 100 has replaced chrome film in my case, all the way from 35mm to 8x10.
It enlarges so well that I don't shoot anywhere near as much 8X10 color film as I once did.

In sheet version, 160VC was always labeled as Portra, along with Portra 160NC. It even came in Readyload sleeves that way. I never shot it in 120 roll version. My brother had my MF gear at that time.