Portra 160 vs Porta 400 (grain)

[Russ - SVP]

Hello

Has anyone here compared the grain between these two emulsions? I love the 400 version. I am just curious as to if there is much difference in grain between the two films? I've also heard that the 400 version has a tad better acutance and sharpness. Just wondered what you all thought or experienced with them?

Thanks
Russ

 

[DREW WILEY]

There isn't much difference, except that, being lower in contrast, grain is sometimes harder to see in 160. That also explains the acutance. If you need a major improvement in grain and acutance, try Ektar. But it is also more saturated.

 

[LAG]

Escuse me Kiron Kid

To my way of thinking, the granularity on negative films must be evaluated by the printing and the print. Grain depends on many things, in colour film specially "the sky (full of dye clouds) is the limit". I do not think it's a good idea to reconsider a film just for its grain, nor that you have to award one or another "only" for that.

In that case of printing, Kodak 160 could get better result (and not always), even the saturation of colour is quite correct (when working under Box Speed ...) On the other hand Portra 400 has better "working space" (moving stops up and down), has better White Balance, Latitude, Contrast, Speed ... If you want resolution, keep B&W going!

 

[Russ - SVP]

Thanks for the replies. I am going to burn some Ektar this weekend. Are you rating it at box speed, or overexposing it just a little?

Thanks

 

[mshchem]

I'm blown away by Portra 160 and 400 in Medium format, I used to do a lot of color printing and the Kodak Portra films were just incredible. I love 400, in one of my big Fuji 6x9 rangefinders. With those big negatives grain is non existent in 11 X14 optical enlargements. If all you are doing is scanning you are missing out on the true beauty of a nicely executed color print.
My opinion for what it's worth. Have fun with your Ektar, also as fine as there is.
Best Regards Mike

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Portra 400 rated at 200 is in my own mind much better looking than portray 160. Weird I know I should prefer 160 but I do like that 400 rated at 200 better.

 

[Rudeofus]

Kodak's official statements regarding their two Portra films were "measured granularity isn't that much different, but Portra 160 has nicer grain and scans better". I have seen beautiful results with both. Since I have seen profound differences in grain appearance between scanned and optically printed film, and since most color film is scanned these days, there is a good chance that Kodak tweaked their Portra 160 film for scanning.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Thank for the replies. I always burn my Portra 400, at ASA 320 and get beautiful results (35mm). Yes, Kodak did design the Portras for scanning too. I just have no experience with the 160 version.

Thanks

 

[Athiril]

I've found both Portra 160 and Fuji Pro 160NS finer than Portra 400, usually most noticeable in thinner and flat areas. If you're scanning on a flatbed you may not notice it due to the low resolving power. I've found Portra 400 to be much finer than some of my old 400H negatives as well, both which I optically printed.

 

[mshchem]

Last night I ordered a Propack of Portra 160. It's a couple bucks a roll cheaper. If I had the money I would buy 10 rolls of each a week and freeze it. Probably a better investment than the stock market
Mike

 

[RattyMouse]

Last night I ordered a Propack of Portra 160. It's a couple bucks a roll cheaper. If I had the money I would buy 10 rolls of each a week and freeze it. Probably a better investment than the stock market
Mike

I'm up 33% YTD in the stock market so far. I seriously doubt film provides that kind of financial return.

 

[mshchem]

I'm up 33% YTD in the stock market so far. I seriously doubt film provides that kind of financial return.

I've had a good year too. Let's just hope Janet Yellen doesn't take away the punch bowl. I'm still taking a strong long position in Ilford. Sheet film .when Fuji jack their prices 10 to 25% at a time. Peace Mike

 

[jonasfj]

To my way of thinking, the granularity on negative films must be evaluated by the printing and the print.

Exactly!

This is my experience from recently printing medium format 6x6 negatives from Kodak Ektar, Portra 400 and TMAX 100.

My workflow is as follows:

1. I let the lab develop the color films and the B/W I do myself in XTOL 1:1. In this particular case the films were properly exposed, except for the TMAX 100 that looked a little thin

2. I scan using an Epson V700 + Silverfast SE 8 (with the pre-programmed film specific color profiles). I scan at 2400 dpi since the maximum effective resolution is 2300 dpi

3. I do very small adjustments in Photoshop (basically minor cropping or straightening of the horizon, removing dust, output sharpening and sometimes I do minor dodging around the edge)

4. I resize for printing. In the examples I refer to I printed 12 x 12 (or 300mm x 300mm) and the files were 300 dpi

5. I let a lab print for me (modern Epson printers) on Epson glossy paper

Grain is NOT visible at all on the final prints on either Ektar or Portra 400 and only slightly on TMAX 100!

Cheers,

Jonas

 

[BMbikerider]

Previously with Ektar 100 I found the higher contrast too much, especially with medium format, so having recently gone back to med format as well (6x45) I bought some Fuji 160 and found it to be the opposite (Some folk are never satisfied!!) However that wasn't the question. So with 35mm the difference between Fuji CNS and the 400 I have found significant and out of preference will always opt for the slower film.

Apart from 'real' printing (RA4) perhaps 2-3 out of one roll of 120, I always scan the negatives for two reasons, one being that it acts as a reference when I am looking for a particular image out of hundreds and secondly, if I resize the image to that required for my digi projector I can get a better idea of parts of the individual negative that may need extra exposure when printing. When scanned and projected, the difference between the two emulsions is quite obvious. Ektar win every time and I have no doubt that CNS will too.

 

[jonasfj]

Not to be a bore, but differences between films are quite subtle. You need a loop or to zoom to 100% on your screen to see the grain.

It's like this for color and contrast too. If you make side-by-side comparisons, there is a distinguishable difference, but one-on-one, very difficult to tell.

Try to offer your beer expert friend a glass without letting him see the bottle and let him guess. When I was young, I tested this on friends who claimed it was a piece of cake. No one was very successful!

The same holds for prints from different kinds of film. Few can tell which film it was made from and if they can, it may have been a coincidence.

Which film is this?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonas_fjellstedt/15193760217/in/dateposted-public/

Cheers,

Jonas

Rowanberries on Lilla Nassa[/url] by Jonas Fjellstedt, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Neal]

Dear Russ,

Based solely on the Kodak Technical Data Sheets, an 11x14 print from Portra 160 will have roughly the same print grain index as an 8x10 print from Portra 400 (35mm film).

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[Zach-MLT-MD]

Portra 160 is my favorite color film - it just looks so crisp and clean and perfect - the colors are soft skin tones are amazing. I love 400 and 800 too - but 160 just hits every nail on the head.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shoot Portra 160, 400, and Ektar all at box speed, though adjusting for a filter factor if warming filters are needed (typically only with Ektar).
If I were to err, it would always be with SLIGHT overexposure. My meters and technique are consistent, so I'm confident about correct exposure.
I never rely on any "latitude" nonsense. Yeah, it's there, but always with some kind of qualitative tradeoff if the contrast is getting close to the edge.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shoot Portra 160, 400, and Ektar all at box speed, though adjusting for a filter factor if warming filters are needed (typically only with Ektar).
If I were to err, it would always be with SLIGHT overexposure. My meters and technique are consistent, so I'm confident about correct exposure.
I never rely on any "latitude" nonsense. Yeah, it's there, but always with some kind of qualitative tradeoff if the contrast is getting close to the edge.

There it is. Use BOX SPEED for best results and I have similar experience.