Portra 400 vs Fuji Pro 400h

[jonasfj]

Hi,

I made some research online and my conclusion from reading up on those film is as follows:

- Colors are quite similar. Maybe 400h is slightly more saturated, but the difference is small

- Both show excellent skin tones

- Portra 400 show significantly better exposure latitude and thus better detail in shadows

- Portra show less grain

What is the experience of you guys?

Jonas

 

[wildbill]

lots of threads exist on this. here are a couple, some examples as well.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[RattyMouse]

I don't see the colors as similar. Not at all. I have no idea how to quantify the differences but for sure to me, 400H has far superior colors. I hate my results with Portra, but even with shots from others which look good, I don't see the colors as being equal between these two films.

 

[benjiboy]

They are both very fine portrait films I shoot both of them but you can't use other people's experience to choose films it's subjective. I suggest you buy some and shoot it yourself and form your own opinions, it's suck it and see.

 

[skysh4rk]

They both have great skin tones and good exposure latitude, although Portra probably holds up a bit better to underexposure or pushing (I've pushed 400H with some success though). There are differences, but there's not really that much between them; after all, they're both portrait films. The photographer and the person scanning/printing the photograph have a much bigger impact on the look of the image than the differences between these two films will, I would say.

I don't see the colors as similar. Not at all. I have no idea how to quantify the differences but for sure to me, 400H has far superior colors. I hate my results with Portra, but even with shots from others which look good, I don't see the colors as being equal between these two films.

You wouldn't be alone in preferring 400H and there's no problem with that, but there's very little to hate about Portra and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's inferior to 400H in any capacity (what even is 'superior' colour anyway?).

In my experiences, poor results with particular films are typically the fault of the photographer/scanner/printer and very​ rarely, if ever, the films themselves.

 

[benjiboy]

They both have great skin tones and good exposure latitude, although Portra probably holds up a bit better to underexposure or pushing (I've pushed 400H with some success though). There are differences, but there's not really that much between them; after all, they're both portrait films. The photographer and the person scanning/printing the photograph have a much bigger impact on the look of the image than the differences between these two films will, I would say.



You wouldn't be alone in preferring 400H and there's no problem with that, but there's very little to hate about Portra and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's inferior to 400H in any capacity (what even is 'superior' colour anyway?).

In my experiences, poor results with particular films are typically the fault of the photographer/scanner/printer and very​ rarely, if ever, the films themselves.

That's a very good answer that I agree with entirely.

 

[Ashfaque]

You'll find this page linked in one of those threads that wildbill suggested as well. However, to me they are both good. I prefer whichever is cheaper.

They are both very fine portrait films I shoot both of them but you can't use other people's experience to choose films it's subjective. I suggest you buy some and shoot it yourself and form your own opinions, it's suck it and see.

+1

Bests,

Ashfaque

 

[Chris Livsey]

Rather than reading about them I think you will learn much more by shooting them in your camera/s, with your lens/es, in your light, using your subjects and scanned by your usual route. You will thereby learn how they will perform for you. Regretably no amount of reading will provide that information. For what it is worth shot alongside each other I am pushed to distinguish between them under good shooting conditions. Outside their comfort zones they behave differently to each other but I try not to go there.

 

[Les Sarile]

In my experiences, poor results with particular films are typically the fault of the photographer/scanner/printer and very​ rarely, if ever, the films themselves.

I completely agree. However, we all have a different response to color as I found out when I took a very extensive color test. This will also greatly influence our perception.

 

[RattyMouse]

They both have great skin tones and good exposure latitude, although Portra probably holds up a bit better to underexposure or pushing (I've pushed 400H with some success though). There are differences, but there's not really that much between them; after all, they're both portrait films. The photographer and the person scanning/printing the photograph have a much bigger impact on the look of the image than the differences between these two films will, I would say.



You wouldn't be alone in preferring 400H and there's no problem with that, but there's very little to hate about Portra and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's inferior to 400H in any capacity (what even is 'superior' colour anyway?).

In my experiences, poor results with particular films are typically the fault of the photographer/scanner/printer and very​ rarely, if ever, the films themselves.

You should have noted that I wrote, "I hate MY results with Portra". This indicates that the fault likes with ME, not the film. I further noted that others produce results that I like, but still seem different from 400H.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Bad form to post again but I previously was on a i-device that I can't post links on.
I wanted to post this link which is complimentary to the one posted earlier:
http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Which in no way negates my advice to shoot the stuff yourself.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the link. The similarities between all the films are remarkable. In my opinion this just about raps up the discussion.

Can we move on to how many angels are able to alight on a pin head?

pentaxuser

 

[Chris Livsey]

Can we move on to how many angels are able to alight on a pin head?

pentaxuser

8.6766×1049 angels
"Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem"

 

[MattKing]

There are real differences between the two films, but it is impossible to state categorically that one is better than another unless you evaluate them under the same conditions - and that means same development procedure/lab and same post development procedure.

 

[Athiril]

From limited experience of when I used to use 400H and switched over to Portra 400 after it came out - much better grain in Portra 400's favor, especially in darker areas, Portra 400 in terms of grain at least looks like it is an entire format size bigger, like 35mm vs 6x7 etc.

 

[JRoosa]

I like the look of Portra overall, but the Fuji colors pop a little more.

I like the portra for general people shots, and Fuji for kids sports with bright uniform colors. That being said, I wouldn't cry if I only had one or the other.

J.

 

[mweintraub]

Bad form to post again but I previously was on a i-device that I can't post links on.
I wanted to post this link which is complimentary to the one posted earlier:
http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Which in no way negates my advice to shoot the stuff yourself.

Best comparison ever. Thanks. I'm going to save this link so I can post it when people ask.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Best comparison ever. Thanks. I'm going to save this link so I can post it when people ask.

Excellent, that will save me the bother

 

[benjiboy]

As I wrote they are both beautiful portrait films, and you couldn't be disappointed with the results either produce.

 

[blockend]

I used to shoot a lot of Pro 400H on a medium format folder, and it looked beautiful. I also shot Portra in 35mm, and while it was nice, I was never as taken with it as some people seem to be. However if you want to push colour film a stop or two, Portra would be my first choice. Fuji films have become damned expensive in the UK, and Pro 400H is no exception.

 

[ME Super]

Thanks for the link. The similarities between all the films are remarkable. In my opinion this just about raps up the discussion.

Can we move on to how many angels are able to alight on a pin head?

pentaxuser

I assume that an angel is too large to fit on a pin head. The answer is zero.

 

[Dismayed]

Accurate Exposure IS Easy

Bad form to post again but I previously was on a i-device that I can't post links on.
I wanted to post this link which is complimentary to the one posted earlier:
http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Which in no way negates my advice to shoot the stuff yourself.

Hmmm. I've never had problems nailing exposure. I consider it a screw-up if I miss than more than +/- 1/3 stop, so I don't really care about missing by several stops.

 

[lxdude]

I dunno about that. I've known some people who were enormous pinheads!

 

[film_man]

Hmmm. I've never had problems nailing exposure. I consider it a screw-up if I miss than more than +/- 1/3 stop, so I don't really care about missing by several stops.

The comparison is not about nailing exposure. It is about knowing how the film looks when over/underexposed deliberately. I rate most of my C41 at 1-1.5 stops slower. Occasionally I have to underexpose film because I run out of light/faster film, it is good to know how it will look.

 

[wblynch]

I love Pro 400-h when it's fresh. But in my limited experience it goes bad quickly and once stale becomes dull, muddy and lifeless.

Portra 400 holds up longer for me. Even years expired and poorly stored I can get wonderful colors from Portra.

I will keep my next Pro 400-h in the freezer and use it quickly.