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.
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!
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.
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.
I immediately spotted the Fuji, it looks... real.
I liked the Ektar photo better. To me the Fuji photo looked sort of mushy.
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?
Yeah i've got a few other pictures off the rest of the roll I can show :)
a little diptych i made, I like the landscape potential (both Ektar)..
more of that landscape potential(Ektar)..
Sorry about the lightleaks, got a back for $45, and now I know why it was so cheap..
Some patchy sunlight (Ektar)..
It really is pretty awesome wide open...I just wish it was f/2 and said zeiss on it..
Originally Posted by brucemuir
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..