Kodak Portra 160 & 400 compared to FujiFilm 400H and 160NS
My friends have asked me to photograph their newborn baby.
Traditionally, I have always used Fuji films, partifcularly Pro 400H (http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/fuj...400h-183-c.asp) and Pro 160NS (http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/fuj...60ns-184-c.asp).
However, the cost of 400H for single 35mm rolls seems to have skyrocketted since I last bought any to about £10 a roll give or take unless bought in bulk.
So, I thought I'd look at the Kodak Portra ranges. I've onyl ever used Kodak once and I found it to be a bit washed out so never used it again. The Fuji films I've used meanwhile have always looked really rich and vibrant. However I can't ignore what everything on the web seems to say about Portra and that is that it is amazing, great for portraiture and weddings etc. But I've never dared used it after my last effort.
Is it fair to say that my first attempt was just bad luck - perhaps the wrong kinds of lighting or improperly exposed?
Put it this way - if were asked to photograph your best friends baby, would you use Kodak Portra or Fuji Pro? I've not decided whether to go 35mm or medium format yet - I assume there's only the usual differences to speak of regarding Portra in 35mm vs medium format and that the film itself is essentially the same regardless of format?