Portra 160 vs 400

[xtolsniffer]

Hi all,
I was doing a side by side test with my family on prints made from Ektar and those from Portra 160. These were all shot in 35mm on a Nikon F100 or Olympus Trip and were mostly just family shots, noting fancy, and all hand-held. The family generally preferred the look of Ektar 100 due to the vibrant colours, while I actually much preferred the Portra 160 ones with more muted naturalistic tones. I also realised that for hand-held, the extra 2/3 stops of speed on the Portra were very handy. This got me thinking that I should really try Portra 400. The dim and dark winters in the UK make shooting hand-held for me something of a challenge and to have a 400 asa film would be rather nice. Now, I've not shot ANY 400 colour negative film for something like 30 years, and those emulsions from the past were pretty grim. What can I expect from Portra 400 before committing myself to a pack of 5 rolls given that it's about 50% more expensive than the 160? These will only ever make it to 7x5.5" prints.

Ta!

 

[Fixcinater]

At that size, I doubt you'd see much difference in grain and even more flexibility towards underexposure (I've shot it at 800-1600 and lab prints look just fine) than what 160 gives you. You can't buy just one roll in a shop?

Also, they are not just family shots...

 

[Roger Cole]

What he said. If you haven't shot 400 C41 in 30 years you are in for a big surprise bordering on shock. Portra 400 is superb. I doubt you will see ANY difference in grain or sharpness at that size (assuming 35mm - I am sure you wouldn't from medium format.) I have 5x7s made from my C41 35mm and I can't see any grain in well exposed Portra 400. Like all C41 film I'm aware of it gets even finer grained with a bit more exposure. You can shoot it at 200 or 250 when light allows and as high as 800 when needed (I don't like the results at 1600 without pushing though some people, as above, do, and prefer Portra 800 at 800 but the 800 is considerably more expensive.)

 

[Truzi]

In one of my first posts here I expressed my surprise at how good 400 films are now as compared to my childhood. I think you will be happy.

 

[Lamar]

Here's my Portra 400 album on Flickr. Many of the shots are underexposed 1 to 2 stops so check the details to see if it was underexposed and / or processed differently.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/sets/72157648736661309/

 

[xtolsniffer]

Seems like quite a bit of exposure latitude in there!

 

[Terry Breedlove]

For portraits Portra 400 rated at 200 is my go to film now. I think you will be surprised at how flexible it is going from over or under exposure on the same roll. I sent in a 120 test roll shot at 200, 400, 800 , 1600 and processed normal. I just wanted to see how it did and I was really surprised and delighted.

 

[cl3mens]

I's say that Portra 400 shot at 400 is a bit more punchy in colors and contrast than 160 shot at 160, but nothing major. Personal experience..

 

[Pioneer]

Unless I have bought some expired films and Portra 160 is among them, I don't even buy it anymore. Portra 400 is my mainstay. I do use Ektar occasionally but not for people shots.

 

[film_man]

Portra 400 is an amazing film. You can shoot it at anything from 200-1600 without any change in development and it will do just fine. You can push it a stop or two and then expose to 3200 (ie you're still underexposing it) and it will still come out ok.

Saying that, Portra 160 is also a great film and I prefer to use that when I know the light will be good. The reason? It has a bit more pop on colours and a slightly finer look. However you'd be printing at A4 sizes to see much of a difference. I also had very good results pushing Portra 160 one stop however I'd rather had Portra 400 than push 160.

Bear in mind I will generally rate these films at half the development speed, so Portra 160 is rated 80 (or 160 if I push it one) and so on. So my results may differ to others'.

 

[Roger Cole]

Heck as long as you are printing or scanning it yourself and not relying on automation, 400 can be shot at 100 easily and almost certainly even at 50 though I haven't tried that. I'm still the odd man out I guess in not really liking the results at 1600 and preferring Portra 800 at 800, though I certainly find the 400 usable at 800 (without pushing.)

It is a great film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In the UK ISO 400 would be better. In the US I use ISO 400 so that I can cover the SBR and get shadow detail. ISO 100 to 200 is to limited for all day photography except when I use the WideLux camera which has the minimum aperture of f/11 and fastest shutter speed of 1/250 second.