Is Portra 160 REALLY That Bad? Portra 160 vs 400

Portra 160 is like the weird emo kid under the stairs while Portra 400 in the popular high school jock. But why is this? Comparing portraits 160 vs 400 is tough, but we are going to do it. It's no secret that people in the analog film community have really taken to Portra 400, but are we making a mistake largely ignoring portra 160? In this video I compare two of Kodak's more important color negative films. I review the film technical data sheets and show you some examples. Since I got back into film photography I have had a hard time finding portra 400 in stock so I have ended up shooting a lot of portra 160. I shot portrait 160 120 at night for some of these photos, and loved the look I was getting. Comparing portra 160 v portra 400 was eye opening, and I can't overstate just how similar these two films actually are.

Here's my Patreon if you'd like to donate!

You can buy these films right here!

#35mmfilm #filmcamera #contax

Thanks for watching!

[EM-vebh]

Portra 160 is my favorite color negative stock in 35mm. It scans beautifully for me, the grain is fine, and it's very easy to work with in post.

[nelsono]

back in the day when I shot film exclusively because that's all there was, when I did portraits my go-to film was Kodak VPS 160. I rated it at 80 and got excellent results. A really beautiful film. I'm getting back into film and I got some rolls of Kodak Portra 160. Haven't used it yet. Not sure whether I should rate it at 160 or 100. Under studio strobes I don't need a 400 speed film but wouldn't shy away from using it.

[WittyDroog]

With the "hype" that surrounds Portra 400 I've found myself actively straying away, the instragram tax can be pretty steep sometimes. I like shooting with Portra 160 as an alternative to like Superia 200 but really I think the bigger "competitor" in my fridge is Ektar which I love to death so a lot of situations I may shoot with Portra 160 I'd shoot with Ektar instead. However I've been pushing Portra 160 to 400 and have gotten just fine results with it

[dan.allen.digital]

Portra 160 is a better choice for people shooting older rangefinder cameras that have a top shutter speed or 1/500. It means you can shoot in sunny conditions around f8 or f11 instead of f16 or f22 if you used Portra 400

[JamieMPhoto]

I like it a lot more than 400, and my only real complaint about it is that 160 is too desaturated for me these days. I rarely get results I like with Portra 400, and if I have to shoot it at 200 to make it look good, I'd rather just shoot Gold, 160, or Ektar. I do like the stuff I get when shooting 160 on 8x10, but I usually just wish it were more saturated when I shoot it on rolls. But ... it's been a while, so maybe I should give it another go.

[joelfortin]

I love portra 160. My prettiest pictures were taken on portra 160 and its just such a beautiful and easy to use film

[Gravitys-NOT-a-force]

Kodak 160's my go-to film, and that's why I watched your video. I didn't know about Kodak's technical data. Kodak 160, to my eyes, had great skin tones and fine grain. It was good to hear your conclusion regarding Kodak 160. I agree with you.

[ccc]

I like 160 to put in my contax t2 because it has max 1/500 shutter speed and faster speeda tend to blow out shots if taken with flash or during the day

[Being_Joe]

Portra 160 is great, just make sure you have light and a fast lens.

[TheAnalogNegativeSpace]

Im currently use only Portra for the good stuff and Gold 200 for rhe rest. Gold 200 is simply the best in terms of price & quality.

[miniroll]

Portra 160 is great, but it needs a lot of light. Anything but and the results can be particularly washed out.

[Monageehan]

Portra 160 is constantly out of stock in aus. Whereas 400 is everywhere

[Raevenswood]

if everyone thinks it's good Kodak will start charging Portra 400 prices for it.😉