Real Differences Between Portra 160 and 400?

[George Mann]

So far, I have shot 160. I see a lot of people claiming that 400 is better.

But what are the real differences here?

 

[pentaxuser]

George, out of curiosity, do they say in what specific way the 400 is better apart from the obvious difference in speed?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

The answers are to be found in the comparator bars in this document. Beyond that, Portra 400 is a little warmer in its native colour balance & the visible granularity kicks in a little earlier.

 

[George Mann]

George, out of curiosity, do they say in what specific way the 400 is better apart from the obvious difference in speed?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Most answers are pretty vague. Some seem to think that the 400 is sharper, or looks better in general.

I would think that the preference would come down to how these films were used more than anything.

I rarely ever have a need for a fast film, and seek to minimize grain.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The grain in Portra 400 is already quite small. I like the sensitivity and latitude so that I can shoot photographs from bright sunlight to dim light without flash.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder if the colour saturation difference is enough for say most people amongst Joe Public to be able to separate say 50 prints from a 160 neg from 50 prints from an identical 400 neg in amounts that met the criterion for statistical significance.

I doubt I could, having seen a few prints from 160 and 400 negs

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

400 is the fastest and most flexible colour film currently available and possibly ever made.

It’s basically daylight balanced C-41 Vision3 500t.

160 and 800 just seem a bit pointless to me. Nice to have the choice though.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wonder if the colour saturation difference is enough for say most people amongst Joe Public to be able to separate say 50 prints from a 160 neg from 50 prints from an identical 400 neg in amounts that met the criterion for statistical significance.

Yes, they would be able to tell - if they were fully optically printed, or properly scanned (and not auto-corrected to some odd understanding of neutral). Portra 400 is noticeably warmer and has a little more saturation, without adding contrast. 160 is close to neutral - may be even a hair to the cool side (but that's likely human perception of colour talking). Ektar seems very neutral, but contrastier and more saturated - and with narrower latitude. Portra 800 is actually a bit more saturated than 400.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, they would be able to tell -

I believe so, also.

 

[138S]

So far, I have shot 160. I see a lot of people claiming that 400 is better.

But what are the real differences here?

400 IMO it is not better... it is faster.

First difference is enlarging capability while conserving "acceptable" graininess... no doubt that the 160 allows quite larger prints



Then spectral response of 160 is more suitable for caucasian skin tones/portraiture, but here YMMV because it's about taste.

The 400, instead, sports a larger latitude, the 400 allows a larger overexposure (+6) without a color shift, while the 160 shows a shift by +4 overexposure.

The 160 box says: "For Exceptional Skin Tones" , the 400 says: the finest 400 grain...

I'd say that Kodak promotes the 160 for portraits more than the 400, difference is slight but I would not the use 400 for portraits if available light allows 160, but again this is about taste.

400 is the fastest and most flexible colour film currently available and possibly ever made.

It’s basically daylight balanced C-41 Vision3 500t.

IMO, not at all. Regarding color interpretation, the V3 500T balanced for daylight would be like the V3 250D which offers a totally different color look than Portra 400. Regarding grain the 500T is quite more coarse than Portra 400.

 

[Helge]

I meant technology wise.
The colour interpretation is obviously quite different.
Grain is much the same. 500t tend to be pushed more though.

 

[George Mann]

I find 160 to be on the cool side of neutral, with Ektar being over-saturated in the red-yellow-green-orange spectrum.

I have often wondered if shooting Ektar at ASA-80 might result in neutral colors.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have often wondered if shooting Ektar at ASA-80 might result in neutral colors.

Bad idea. You'll get colour crossover if you overexpose Ektar.

 

[George Mann]

I wish that Kodak would bring back the Royal Gold line!

 

[George Mann]

Bad idea. You'll get colour crossover if you overexpose Ektar.

I guess that I will just have to stick with Ektachrome.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I guess that I will just have to stick with Ektachrome.

If you aren't getting neutral colour from Ektar, you are probably either overexposing and/ or whoever is scanning your negs isn't doing a good job with them. It's not helped by a lot of minilab software being geared towards balancing for 'pleasing' skintones - and the problems of scan Vs output colour gamut.

 

[George Mann]

If you aren't getting neutral colour from Ektar, you are probably either overexposing and/ or whoever is scanning your negs isn't doing a good job with them. It's not helped by a lot of minilab software being geared towards balancing for 'pleasing' skintones - and the problems of scan Vs output colour gamut.

Yes, I am aware of scanning and post-processing inaccuracies, but Ektar was not designed to be a neutral film.

The fact that both Kodak and Fuji fail to currently produce a truly neutral professional color negative film is alarming!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes, I am aware of scanning and post-processing inaccuracies, but Ektar was not designed to be a neutral film.

The fact that both Kodak and Fuji fail to currently produce a truly neutral professional color negative film is alarming!

Portra 160 is excellent for demanding colour accurate studio work.

 

[George Mann]

Portra 160 is excellent for demanding colour accurate studio work.

Except for the fact that it's only true claim to accuracy is in its rendering of skin tones.

The rest depends on specific light temperatures.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Except for the fact that it's only true claim to accuracy is in its rendering of skin tones.

The rest depends on specific light temperatures.

As you are regurgitating lines from the the data sheet, try reading the sentence after the one you paraphrased - specifically: "PORTRA 160 film is the ideal choice for portrait, fashion and commercial photography, either in the studio, or on location." It delivers colour reproduction that is very good indeed in terms of making the object you are photographing actually look like you want it to look - and is nowhere near the PITA that transparency can be in terms of colour reproduction or colour balancing.

 

[138S]

I meant technology wise.

Technology wise, probably all Portra and Vision films shared advances in the color film technology. IMO mentioning Vision 3 in the datasheet is basicly a commercial resource. Vision 3 has an impressive prestige from the Hollywood results, results come from impressive budgets and from impressive technicians an cinematographers that make the medium shine, every proficient photographer gets amazed by Hollywood's photography.

In the 160 datasheet they also mention Vision 3, not only in the 400 one:

Grain is much the same. 500t tend to be pushed more though.

Vision 3 500t is the same than Cinestill 800t, which IMO is a grain larger or comparable at least to Portra 800.

500t tend to be pushed more though.

This is the 500t curve. Note that Speeed point (D = F+B+0.1) is at near -5 stops, while in pictorial film you have rated speed point at -3,3

The same effective speed is rated EI lower in cinematography, for this reason Cinestill's people do sell the Vision 500T as Cinestill 800T with no change in the sensitometry (They only remove the Remjet layer to make regular development, isn't it? )

For this reason V500T has quite more grain than P400 as it is a well faster film, V500T is even faster than P800, or at least as fast than it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

There are very considerable differences between Portra 400 and Vision 3 500T - they have drastically different characteristic curves - and the couplers differ significantly too (ECN-2 uses CD-3; C-41, CD-4) - the similarities relate to the sensitisation technology with antennae dyes/ supersensitisers and colour reproduction aims (within the relevant ECN-2/ ECP and C-41/ RA-4 systems) - done within a unified emulsion design and manufacturing system, which allows quite sensitometrically different films to be designed/ made faster and more cost effectively.

 

[laser]

In "Making KODAK Film" I describe the rather elaborate procedures used in determining the customer aim for PORTRA Films. Prints made from PORTRA 160 and 400 will have very similar color and tone reproduction, i.e. VC vs VC. The NC and VC versions of the films will have differing contrast and saturation. The need for NC/VC differences were no longer necessary with the use of digital printing rather than optical printing.


Speeds, sharpness, and grain characteristics have the classic relationships. Motion picture films (Process ECN-2) and color negative films (Process C-41) will be different because they use different components and have different aims. The film manufacturing equipment is used and some of the processes.
Robert Shanebrook

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[138S]

Prints made from PORTRA 160 and 400 will have very similar color and tone reproduction
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

Robert, of course I agree they are very close, but let me tell the nuances I find. IMO there is some difference in the red channel spectral response, while P400 peaks at 650nm the P160 version peaks at 625nm. My interpretation is that P160 provides an slightly different color separation for caucasian skin, around 600nm it happens two important things for the depicted the skin texture,

we have an step in the reflectiveness:



And hemoglobin (capillary blood) decreases its absortion:



Datasheets show that P400 is more sensitive to deeper reds and P160 to less deep reds, sensitivity in this graph is Log scale, so impact may not be totally evident in the graph:





Of course we can correct many things in post, but I find the particular color separation P160 makes is benefical to depict some subjects that show pinky hues in the flesh. Well, for sure also this is a matter of taste, but personally I never found 400 as great than 160 for certain subjects, specially when illumination is the good one, while I can easily match the average skin color P160 vs P400 I find quite more easy to get a nice skin texture with P160, specially when the shot was made close enough to make the skin texture important, let me repeat that this is about personal taste, and talking about nuances.

 

[Helge]

There are very considerable differences between Portra 400 and Vision 3 500T - they have drastically different characteristic curves - and the couplers differ significantly too (ECN-2 uses CD-3; C-41, CD-4) - the similarities relate to the sensitisation technology with antennae dyes/ supersensitisers and colour reproduction aims (within the relevant ECN-2/ ECP and C-41/ RA-4 systems) - done within a unified emulsion design and manufacturing system, which allows quite sensitometrically different films to be designed/ made faster and more cost effectively.

They are part of the same overall package of technology so to speak.
Of which two electron sensitization and tabular crystals are the most well known.
Of course the sensitometry is quite different. All it takes is a glance to determine that.