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

[mbsmith]

Thanks for doing this comparison. I like the side-by-side comparisons of different films used on the same subject because it helps my feeble mind understand/remember the characteristics of each type. Which is "better" means very little to me, especially in this instance, as I like and use both Ektar and Pro 400H for portraits.

I must also say that I really like the photos. So, thanks for taking the time to post these.

[thuggins]

The first image has too much red in the color balance and needs to be neutralized before a comparison can be made.

Both slides were scanned at the same settings, and are as close to the original appearance of each slide as the limitations of the digital copy will allow. If anything the VS has even richer reds than the scan can reproduce.

[segedi]

I happen to like saturated photos, even for portraits, even when not recommended by Kodak or the other "pros". So Ektar is my choice and you illustrated the differences nicely. I have a bunch of 160S and it looks almost spot on to Fuji's 400. A bit too low in contrast or saturation for my liking. What I really do like about it though is that with the lower contrast the details really pop. When comparing the original examples, the higher contrast in the Ektar shot doesn't really keep the details, especially in the shirt. But since this is a portrait and not a product shot for a shirt, I really like the Ektar!

[benjiboy]

These are very different films, the OP is comparing chalk with cheese, what would be more interesting would be to compare Ektar with Fuji Reala and Fuji 400H with Portra 400.

[Klainmeister]

Awesome armadillo shot!