Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fuji Pro 400h (EXAMPLES!)

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by F/1.4, Nov 24, 2011.

  1. F/1.4

    F/1.4 Member

    Messages:
    235
    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    So I was running some test rolls that I just got back from RPL and I shot a few pictures both on 400h and Ektar 100. This particular one stood out for me, and I thought that everyone would get a kick out of it:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. tomalophicon

    tomalophicon Member

    Messages:
    1,572
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Location:
    Canberra, AC
    Shooter:
    Sub 35mm
    Interesting. I like the Fuji better but Ektar is great too.
    Is this 35mm?
     
  3. jbl

    jbl Member

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Location:
    California,
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Great comparison. Thanks for doing this.

    -jbl
     
  4. F/1.4

    F/1.4 Member

    Messages:
    235
    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    No problem! I shot these with my Mamiya 645AFD with the 80mm f/2.8 wide open :smile:
     
  5. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,253
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Interesting comparison and thanks for that. The Ektar somehow makes the eyes jump out at you and the deeper blues of the iris makes the whites of the eyes stand out more. That combined with a tanned glow effect makes me see why wedding photographers might prefer Ektar. It gives a kind of saturated technicolor look that most younger brides and grooms would want.

    Someone marrying in middle age might have a different view. Despite the Fuji shot looking less sharp and duller, I prefer it.

    Overall Fuji would be still be my choice for street photography, animals and landscapes

    pentaxuser
     
  6. Ottrdaemmerung

    Ottrdaemmerung Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Kodak Portra might be a better film to compare the Fuji with rather than the Ektar, since Ektar really isn't meant to be a film with which to get good flesh tones, but in this lady's case I think the Ektar works rather well.
     
  7. dreamingartemis

    dreamingartemis Member

    Messages:
    286
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think a better comparison I would like to see is portra 400 with pro400h. now that would be interesting.
     
  8. JSebrof

    JSebrof Member

    Messages:
    57
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I found this awhile back, comparing new portra 400 with fuji 400h. They also have a few comparisons with Kodak Vision 3 500T movie film which are interesting.
     
  9. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Big difference. It illustrates why I generally don't like Ektar. It can be great when used for "that look," but it is not a good general-purpose film IMO. It isn't a bad choice here, though I do think she looks better with the Fuji, and the whole pic looks more natural. However, if the idea is to sell hair dye, the Ektar works better.
     
  10. j-dogg

    j-dogg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Location:
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You can see the green hue on the Fuji film. I've shot both of these and I prefer the Ektar for general walking around color prints and the Fuji for landscapes and nature.
     
  11. GeorgK

    GeorgK Member

    Messages:
    83
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Some information on processing (and scanning, printing) would be helpful, before the usual "film specialists" join in to comment.
    To me, these look like scanned negatives with massively processed colors (typical "standard skin tone", looking like painted plastic). In that case, film choice would not matter much, anyway.

    Georg
     
  12. Les Sarile

    Les Sarile Member

    Messages:
    1,362
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Saw this Kodak Ektar 100 Portrait posted that I consider to be strikingly good. Of course a child's skin can withstand considerable magnification/resolution!
     
  13. F/1.4

    F/1.4 Member

    Messages:
    235
    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm glad people were able to get something out of this. Sure Portra 400 and 400H would have been interesting, but I didn't have a back with Portra 400 in it, too bad.

    My experiment was to see how these films compared and handled overcast weather, not to mention if shooting at ISO 50 would be do-able hand held with a medium format camera in the typical overcast skies we have here in Portland.


    Personally I think the Ektar looks 100x better in this situation. The 400H although having a more even, neutral tone is flat and dull. I just bought a pro-pack to do more experiments with it. I've got some work coming up that I might shoot on Ektar instead of 400h..


    As far as shooting/dev info this is all I know:

    Mamiya 645AFD w/ 80mm f/2.8 @f/2.8
    Ektar 100 @ ISO 50
    400H @ ISO 200

    Developed/Scanned at RPL using their typical dip-n-dunk and scanned on their Noristu.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. brucemuir

    brucemuir Member

    Messages:
    2,265
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Location:
    Metro DC are
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    the 80/2.8 for the afd is fantastic even wide open.

    I wont comment on the scan because who knows what "RPL" did anyway.
     
  16. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,070
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I immediately spotted the Fuji, it looks... real.
     
  17. alanrockwood

    alanrockwood Member

    Messages:
    809
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I liked the Ektar photo better. To me the Fuji photo looked sort of mushy.
     
  18. ColdEye

    ColdEye Member

    Messages:
    879
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The ektar is better for me. I like colors that are not flat, and I also like colors that are vibrant. Do you have anymore images in different lighting conditions?
     
  19. F/1.4

    F/1.4 Member

    Messages:
    235
    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yeah i've got a few other pictures off the rest of the roll I can show :smile:




    a little diptych i made, I like the landscape potential (both Ektar)..
    [​IMG]

    more of that landscape potential(Ektar)..
    [​IMG]






    Sorry about the lightleaks, got a back for $45, and now I know why it was so cheap..
    [​IMG]



    Some patchy sunlight (Ektar)..
    [​IMG]
     
  20. F/1.4

    F/1.4 Member

    Messages:
    235
    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It really is pretty awesome wide open...I just wish it was f/2 and said zeiss on it..
     
  21. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,681
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    To me as a portrait enthusiast this shot is better shot on a film that is formulated for the purpose either Kodak Portra 160 or Fuji Pro. 160S, because although Kodak Ektar is an excellent general purpose film even Kodak don't recommend it for portraiture in it's literature, IMO it's too colour saturated and high in contrast for this purpose..
     
  22. perkeleellinen

    perkeleellinen Member

    Messages:
    2,261
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    Shooter:
    35mm
    To my eye the Ektar looks 'enhanced' and the 400H looks 'neutral'. I think they both work, though. Probably because the model is a pretty girl with smooth skin. I think it would be a different story if this was a blotchy newborn or a ruddy 90 year-old with liver spots.
     
  23. Bernard_61

    Bernard_61 Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I don't like both. Portra is definitely better in my opinion
     
  24. stavrosk

    stavrosk Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I dont think this comparison is valid for every person being photographed. The lady in the exaple has fair skin so it looks dull on Fuji and nice on Ektar.
    Whar if she had a not so perfect skin? With red or redish imperfections? Then the Fuji would look much better.
    So in this case it is not better but generally the Fuji is the safe bet.
     
  25. H.veng.smith

    H.veng.smith Member

    Messages:
    16
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thats some pop with the Ektar.
     
  26. Zygomorph

    Zygomorph Member

    Messages:
    25
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    I am simply shocked--SHOCKED--that some people prefer apples and some prefer oranges. :cool:

    Anyway, yeah, I used a ton of Ektar in London this summer. It can definitely make the pastiest people on the planet look sunburned. On the other hand, it makes it a trivial matter to read a menu in a shop window from a block away at 4000 dpi.

    I for one never want any part of my body photographed with the stuff unless the lens is dripping with Vaseline.