Kodak Ektar vs. the Portas

[brian steinberger]

I've begun shooting some color again and have shot a few rolls of 120 Portra 400 and a roll today of Ektar 100. I know that the Portra films are excellent and always deliver stunning results. However, I have never used the new Ektar 100 before. From reading reviews on the internet it seems to be a "love, hate" film.

So what differences besides speed can I expect in Ektar 100 vs. Portra 160 or 400?

[Franswa]

Ektar is going to have more punchy colors and noticeably more contrast. If it's people you're shooting, Ektar may not be the best choice as it's not the best for skin tones.

[brian steinberger]

Thanks, so the color saturation is higher as well as contrast. Something more like a transparency film, like Velvia?

[Franswa]

Thanks, so the color saturation is higher as well as contrast. Something more like a transparency film, like Velvia?

Indeed, as close as you can get to transparency film, but with more exposure latitude

[CGW]

Indeed, as close as you can get to transparency film, but with more exposure latitude

For me, it's been more like E6 films in terms of exposure latitude--namely, there isn't much. Ektar isn't very tolerant of exposure errors relative to Portra.

[Franswa]

For me, it's been more like E6 films in terms of exposure latitude--namely, there isn't much. Ektar isn't very tolerant of exposure errors relative to Portra.

More means more, no matter how it's sliced

I was speaking in relative terms to the exposure latitude of slide film, since that's what the OP and myself were currently discussing.

[2F/2F]

More contrast, less latitude, less realistic color. If Portra is your full set of Crayolas with the sharpener built into the back, think of Ektar as the more basic 24 color back to school set. Far less subtlety of color, but what colors you do get are very bold. Because of the film's high contrast, exposure variations change results quite a bit, and proper color correction in camera becomes more important.

[brian steinberger]

Thanks guys, very helpful! So if you were shooting for scanning which film would you prefer? I'm thinking the Ektar would be great for nature, landscapes and the Portra great for people, industrial. What about reciprocity failure? Same?

[CGW]

Thanks guys, very helpful! So if you were shooting for scanning which film would you prefer? I'm thinking the Ektar would be great for nature, landscapes and the Portra great for people, industrial. What about reciprocity failure? Same?

Both the new Portras and Ektar scan well with proper exposure+development.

You might want to loosen your concepts about FilmX "is great for portraiture," but Film Y "is great for landscapes." Why? You're potentially cheating yourself out of great shots by following generalizations. Ektar works beautifully in high contrast lighting with strong primary colours, whether portraits or landscape. Same goes for the new Portras that can render more subtle colours and lower contrast far better than Ektar. I've done landscapes with the old chalky NPH when the colours and contrast just wouldn't work with bumped saturation and contrast. Shoot these films in different lighting to get a sense of what looks best to you, rather than accept the current dogma.

Kodak data sheets are worth looking at, too.

[mikecnichols]

Here are a few of my own Ektar examples.

Low lighting (f2.8 - 1/30sec), 24mm Nikkor, Nikon FE, school cafeteria



Nature



Outside Portrait (24mm)



Objects (24mm)