Portra 160 or Ektar 100 - latitude in highlights - interiors photography

[sperera]

I'm shooting property interiors/exteriors and shot with Portra 160 (on Hasselblad) the other day with beautiful highlight rendition. Shot on the 50mm CF lens. This is a very sunny/hot part of the world so I need my film to caress the highlights into place and see them roll off like a linen curtain rolls along the floor with the cool summer breeze (haha the sun's getting to me). So, I need to stock up on 120 film. Ektar is cheaper than Portra 160. I don't get sucked into the marketing hype that tries to pigeon hole film for different uses.
Which treats highlights better? the same? thanks.....
This shot attached was taken on expired Portra 160NC, which I rated at 100 asa

 

[sperera]

Here they are.....same scene different angles. Look at those highlights roll on this film from 2012!!!!! (I'm more excited about the way the film has performed than my shot haha)

 

[sperera]

I said interiors! Even the sun on the bed is a great highlight rendition. My 'job' is to showcase interior design not the spaces themselves. I'm working for an interior designer.

 

[BrianShaw]

Given what you’ve written and the photos you’ve shown that seem to meet your goals, the only attribute of Ektar that may be favorable is price. Stick with Portra!

 

[koraks]

Kyle's got a nice place and I have to say I share his preference for linen in warm weather.

Having said that, I think Portra is really what you want for this kind of thing. Ektar can do funny things in the highlights. Probably not much of a problem if you scan and digitally correct; in that case, you may find the very fine grain (even compared to P160) a bonus. For wet printing, you may have to resort to some trickery to get highlights to not go too cyan with Ektar.

I'm alerting @DREW WILEY so he can share his views. He tends to bias strongly towards optical printing; in a hybrid workflow, there's a much bigger fudge factor, color-wise.

 

[BrianShaw]

One additional thing to be aware of... the current Portra 160 is not quite the same as the Portra 160NC, like you used. That had a very special look. The current Portra still should better meet your needs than Ektar, especially due to Ektar's restricted latitude and puchy colors.

 

[sperera]

Thanks for the comments and yes I think Portra is what I'm favouring at the moment. I have used Ektar on a couple of occasions and it goes well but Ive never done the big highlights shots with it. No wet printing happening, it's all for his social media to promote his interior design business. Look forward to hear what @DREW WILEY has to say....and yes linen is what I wear every day at the moment too haha

 

[sperera]

One additional thing to be aware of... the current Portra 160 is not quite the same as the Portra 160NC, like you used. That had a very special look. The current Portra still should better meet your needs than Ektar, especially due to Ektar's restricted latitude and puchy colors.

good point cos I have never shot the 'new' Portra. I bought loads of NC 160 and 400 and still have stock (2012) I'm getting through.....I dont like slide film, so has to be colour negative for me.....

 

[sperera]

or maybe go with Portra 400????? the grain is no issue given the 'final product' surely.....

 

[runswithsizzers]

Here they are.....same scene different angles. Look at those highlights roll on this film from 2012!!!!! (I'm more excited about the way the film has performed than my shot haha)

Are those both Portra, or are these two a comparison between Portra and Ektar?

 

[koraks]

or maybe go with Portra 400????? the grain is no issue given the 'final product' surely.....

For scanned and digital output, I don't think it matters all that much. For optical printing, I'd prefer Portra in your use case in terms of tonality.

 

[BrianShaw]

For scanned and digital output, I don't think it matters all that much. For optical printing, I'd prefer Portra in your use case in terms of tonality.

Which "it"; Portra (versus Ektar) or 400 (versus 160)?

Regarding 400 vs 160, I prefer 160 since in bright light situations it often affords just a bit more options for exposure settings. I ofgten like to avoid the fastest shutter speeds and the smallest apertures.

 

[sperera]

Portra 160 v Ektar 100. I mentioned the 'new-er' Portra 400 as a by the by. I know the old Portra 400NC version very very well

 

[koraks]

Which "it"... Portra (versus Ektar) or 400 (versus 160)?

"it" = film choice, i.e. Portra 160 vs 400 vs Ektar vs. Lomo 100 vs. ....whatever, within somewhat reasonable bounds.

 

[sperera]

"it" = film choice, i.e. Portra 160 vs 400 vs Ektar vs. Lomo 100 vs. ....whatever, within somewhat reasonable bounds.

if there are other alternatives pray tell yes....

 

[BrianShaw]

"it" = film choice, i.e. Portra 160 vs 400 vs Ektar vs. Lomo 100 vs. ....whatever, within somewhat reasonable bounds.

OK... for anyone who likes digital post-processing I think that makes sense. I do not...

 

[BrianShaw]

if there are other alternatives pray tell yes....

Have you looked into the newly-released "amateur" color negative film from Kodak - Gold 200 in 120? A little bit grainier than Portra and somewhere in between Portra and Ektar in terms of color rendition. Also quite affordable.

 

[sperera]

Have you looked into the newly-released "anateur" color negative film from Kodak - Gold 200 in 120?

I saw it added to the Kodak Alaris offering but have not used it.......at 32 dollars for a pack of 5 it's certainly worth looking at?

 

[koraks]

OK... for anyone who likes digital post-processing I think that makes sense. I do not...

To each their own, but that's the use case here.

if there are other alternatives pray tell yes....

Lomography Color negative 100, 400, 800
Gold 200 as said by @BrianShaw
If you're very adventurous, CineStill - but I think the halation will not be to your liking given what I see on your website in terms of how you prefer things to look (very beautiful work btw). You might be able to find someone who slits & spools Kodak Vision3 into 120 format but leaves on the remjet, and also find someone willing to process it for you. But this would be a lot easier in 35mm than in 120.

Frankly, I think you'll be fine with any of the Portra's. Don't discount 800 if cost is not an issue and you don't mind a little extra grain!

 

[BrianShaw]

Here are examples of Portra 160 vs Gold 200, both with Hasselblad and 80mm lens, probably not great photography and not great scanning...

Portra 160 (indoor, natural light, tripod)

Kodak Gold 200 (outdoor, natural light, monopod)

 

[sperera]

To each their own, but that's the use case here.



Lomography Color negative 100, 400, 800
Gold 200 as said by @BrianShaw
If you're very adventurous, CineStill - but I think the halation will not be to your liking given what I see on your website in terms of how you prefer things to look (very beautiful work btw). You might be able to find someone who slits & spools Kodak Vision3 into 120 format but leaves on the remjet, and also find someone willing to process it for you. But this would be a lot easier in 35mm than in 120.

Frankly, I think you'll be fine with any of the Portra's. Don't discount 800 if cost is not an issue and you don't mind a little extra grain!

Thanks for your very nice comments.

Portra 800 is my favourite film of all. I have used it on many many shoots. It's exceptional. BUT it's the most expensive. It's all going to be tripod and f11 to f16 on the Hasselblad with the Zeiss 50mm f2.8 CF lens so Portra 160 v Ektar 100 was the original 'battle' in my mind.

Cinestill no 'cos the client will be looking at accurate colour of the sort furnishings etc that he's styling. Remjet halation etc is not what I want. As mentioned earlier I didn't stick a colour chart in there and will do so next time.

I also shoot 16mm motion picture film on my Aaton XTR XC (currently 1,300 feet shot of Vision3 500T of my latest project)

 

[sperera]

Here are examples of Portra 160 vs Gold 200 (both with Hasselblad and 80mm lens, probably not great photography and not great scanning...

I disagree....look at those beautiful tones.....the roses look so painterly......so what are your comments on Kodak Gold?

 

[BrianShaw]

I disagree....look at those beautiful tones.....the roses look so painterly......so what are your comments on Kodak Gold?

I like the price of Gold and LOVE the look of Portra. Beyond that, I'm a bit conflicted as I think I can use either for most things I photograph.

 

[sperera]

another example of Kodak Portra 400NC in this case working great with backlight and highlights....have posted somewhere here before but relevant to this thread I think

 

[sperera]

I'm kind of talking myself into the corner I wanted to be at really....Portra is my love....in all flavours.....that being said, again, highlight rendition is what I am focusing on.....