What's your favorite currently available 120 color negative film?

[Kirks518]

Just as the title says.

I want to get the 'best' overall film for my (new to me) MF camera. I shoot a wide range of stuff from portraits to art, to landscape, etc. I'm looking for the best color, contrast, finest grain, and one that allows upto 16x20 enlargements with little to no loss in image quality.

I've never really use any of the currently available color film, so I don't know the differences between the Portra/Ektar/Pro H familes of film out there. Any other current offerings are welcome as well.

Thanks!

 

[Doc W]

Kodak Portra 160. I have used it for ages. The Fuji equivalent is just as good and probably about the same price.

 

[BrianShaw]

My fave is Portra 160 also. But if you don't know the difference I suggest you shoot a roll of each. I tried Ektar and found that I like it sometimes and don't most other times. I don't think I would understand that as well as I do if I hadn't tried it myself.

 

[Fixcinater]

My fave is Portra 160 also. But if you don't know the difference I suggest you shoot a roll of each. I tried Ektar and found that I like it sometimes and don't most other times. I don't think I would understand that as well as I do if I hadn't tried it myself.

This is similar to what I've found myself. I like either Portra for general use and it does well in nearly every situation, but if I know I want punchy colors and contrast, I'll bring Ektar along. Otherwise it's E6 and Portra.

 

[Truzi]

Well, there is some quality about Kodak Portra that I can't find anywhere else. Also, there is some quality in Fuji Pro I can't find anywhere else, and...
... you know what? You really can't go wrong with the color films out there

Personally, I tend to like Fuji and Ektar more for outdoor/nature/architecture photos, and the Portras for photos concentrating on people - but that's just my taste (and likely lack of ability). However, I typically use whatever I have at hand regardless of situation, and am always perfectly happy with the film (if not my abilities).

Current color film choice is like a small but elegant buffet; they are all wonderful, so sample every one. Try each film across different situations, and find which best suits your tastes.

(Regarding contrast and saturation of films like Ektar or Velvia, I am not good, so am still learning them; but I like them immensely. For me, the learning is more when to best use them, not whether to use them.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak Portra film is a professional film and therefore provides the color consistency and quality for dependable print quality.

 

[Kirks518]

Portra 160 it is then. That was easy.

 

[benjiboy]

I like Kodak Portra160 or 400 for portraits and Kodak Ektar for general photography.

 

[Roger Cole]

I like Portra 400 because I see little difference between it and 160 (some, but little) and like the extra speed. As others said, Portra for flattering people and realistic rendering, Ektar 100 for sharpness and saturated colors.

They're all good today.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

 

[RattyMouse]

I shoot Fuji 400H exclusively when I need color negatives. I can still buy Reala here in China, but the cost is pretty high so I've switched over to 400H. I find the colors that come with this film vastly superior to Portra. Any medium format film can enlarge to 16 x 20 easily so that isn't even part of the equation in my opinion. It's all down to color preference and for me, 400H wins hands down.

 

[hoffy]

Ektar by far. I like the Saturated colours, but it can get out of control wildly. Just need to know when and where.

 

[Shootar401]

I sont shoot color neg that often, I'm an E6 guy. But when I do its Portra 400 or Ektar.

 

[Pioneer]

Kodak Portra 400

The most flexible color negative film I know of.

Nuff said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak Portra film is a professional film and therefore provides the color consistency and quality for dependable print quality.

I have my stash in the freezer of Kodak Porta 800, Kodak Porta 400, Kodak Porta160, Kodak Ektar 100, Kodak Normal Color 400, Kodak Vivid Color and Kodak Ultra Color in 120 film. Also most of these in 35mm and 4"x5".

 

[film_man]

Just as the title says.

I want to get the 'best' overall film for my (new to me) MF camera. I shoot a wide range of stuff from portraits to art, to landscape, etc. I'm looking for the best color, contrast, finest grain, and one that allows upto 16x20 enlargements with little to no loss in image quality.

I've never really use any of the currently available color film, so I don't know the differences between the Portra/Ektar/Pro H familes of film out there. Any other current offerings are welcome as well.

Thanks!

There is no "best" really.

I generally use Kodak Portra 160 as I prefer the colour pop and look a bit better than Portra 400 (though they are similar). However that is too slow once the light starts falling so then I move to Portra 400 which is by far the most versatile film. However, that is too fast if the light is good as my RB tops at 1/400. I have pushed 160 one stop and it looks good though too so it can work like 400.

On the other hand, I have been using lately a lot of expired Portra 400NC, I got a stash of rolls for nothing on ebay and that has its own look. I recently finished another stash of expired 160VC, which I think is my favourite film of all but sadly is no longer made.

Ektar is also pretty cool if I want that look though I find myself using it more in 35mm than MF. Probably to do with subject matter as I tend to do more people shots with MF and city/landscape with 35mm.

I also like Portra 800 in MF, I rate it 200 and it looks fantastic but it is so expensive that I just switched to Portra 160 as it is very similar at nearly half the price.

 

[film_man]

I have my stash in the freezer of Kodak Porta 800, Kodak Porta 400, Kodak Porta160, Kodak Ektar 100, Kodak Normal Color 400, Kodak Vivid Color and Kodak Ultra Color in 120 film. Also most of these in 35mm and 4"x5".

I suppose you mean Kodak 400NC and VC expired? VC is such a nice film...

 

[cl3mens]

Kodak Portra 400 for it's versitality and good color rendition.

Sometimes I also dabble with Lomography CN 100. It is cheap and seem like a good film, the only problem is the backing paper. The CN400 I've used had the printing visible on the negative, the CN100 seem OK but I noticed some small dots. Not that it ruins the scans like the CN400 tough..

Taken on CN100 with my Kiev 88CM, talk about lo-fi: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cl3mens/10126994195/

 

[JDP]

I also like Portra 800 in MF, I rate it 200 and it looks fantastic but it is so expensive that I just switched to Portra 160 as it is very similar at nearly half the price.

Agree with this, regarding Portra 800, though I rate at box speed (or 1600 ISO with a push development) and use it for low light landscape and night-scape shots. It is expensive, but I but would definitely recommend it's worth trying. Has a certain 'arty' look with night shots which Porta 400 does not replicate, in my opinion.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I love Fuji 400 NPH and use it as my go-to for color, but am also using up some 160C, Reala, and 800 NPZ. I'll be sad when Fuji pulls the plug on color neg film completely, but the Portra films sure are beautiful too.

 

[Roger Cole]

There is no "best" really.

I generally use Kodak Portra 160 as I prefer the colour pop and look a bit better than Portra 400 (though they are similar). However that is too slow once the light starts falling so then I move to Portra 400 which is by far the most versatile film. However, that is too fast if the light is good as my RB tops at 1/400. I have pushed 160 one stop and it looks good though too so it can work like 400.

On the other hand, I have been using lately a lot of expired Portra 400NC, I got a stash of rolls for nothing on ebay and that has its own look. I recently finished another stash of expired 160VC, which I think is my favourite film of all but sadly is no longer made.

Ektar is also pretty cool if I want that look though I find myself using it more in 35mm than MF. Probably to do with subject matter as I tend to do more people shots with MF and city/landscape with 35mm.

I also like Portra 800 in MF, I rate it 200 and it looks fantastic but it is so expensive that I just switched to Portra 160 as it is very similar at nearly half the price.

If the light is too bright for 400 and you're loaded with Portra 400, just over expose it. It won't mind and will print fine, something like what you're doing with 800.

I'm not sure why you'd shoot 800 at 200 though. 800 is for when you need the speed.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not sure why you'd shoot 800 at 200 though. 800 is for when you need the speed.

Because it looks so nice! I am doing the same with my 800 NPZ, shooting it at 200 and developing it normal. I only scan, though, so not sure what that does to printing RA-4.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The really good reason to not do what Thomas is doing is economics - Portra 800 costs twice what Portra 400/Portra 160/Ektar 100 cost. Dunno about Fuji - haven't priced it in ages.

I'm going to chime in with Ektar 100 as my favorite overall C-41 film. I like Portra if I'm doing studio portraiture, or I'm shooting long night exposures. When you need the speed, Portra 800 can't be beat.

 

[film_man]

If the light is too bright for 400 and you're loaded with Portra 400, just over expose it. It won't mind and will print fine, something like what you're doing with 800.

I'm not sure why you'd shoot 800 at 200 though. 800 is for when you need the speed.

400 in sunlight is f/16 at 1/500. If I want f/2.8 that's 5 stops overexposure with a Hasselblad that tops out at 1/500 or the RB67 that is f/3.5 and max 1/400. This is kind of pushing it a bit too much on the overexposure.

As for Portra 800, I think Portra 800 looks great rated 200 and if I need speed Portra 400 works much nicer at 800 and 1600 or even 3200 with one stop push compared to Portra 800. That's just my preference though.

 

[Roger Cole]

400 in sunlight is f/16 at 1/500. If I want f/2.8 that's 5 stops overexposure with a Hasselblad that tops out at 1/500 or the RB67 that is f/3.5 and max 1/400. This is kind of pushing it a bit too much on the overexposure.

As for Portra 800, I think Portra 800 looks great rated 200 and if I need speed Portra 400 works much nicer at 800 and 1600 or even 3200 with one stop push compared to Portra 800. That's just my preference though.

Well ok - I wasn't really thinking in terms of opening up for shallow depth of field, more in terms of exceeding the physical limits of the shutter and diaphragm, which seldom if ever happens to me at 400 even in bright light and even avoiding the smallest stops. I can see that being a problem.

I will say that I far more often have a problem with 100 being too slow, even in daylight (that is, I find myself shooting on bright days but in deep shade and it's too slow) than 400 being too fast. YMMV of course. 200 is just about perfect for an all around daytime including shade film, but since the demise of Ektachrome 200 there isn't much aside from amateur C41 in that speed. Yeah, there's the Witnerchrome and I ought to try it but between reports of yellow results and possible problems with labs processing the polyester base I haven't. I don't know of ANY 200 speed C41 film available in 120, though the consumer 35mm ones are pretty good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.