Kodak Portra 160 Review, Samples, Tips, Technical Analysis, and Guide | All About Film

In less than a year, I’ll release my All About Film for Kodak Porta 400, too. And sometime after a much awaited and VERY LONG overdue comparison of the three stocks. But as these three Portra-related All About Film videos are now two-thirds done, one thing I can say that is, I think, highly important is that this film is engineered wonderfully and the performance of this film across the stocks, and over time, shows the dedication and care put into the crafting and development of this film. When we put our minds to it, humans can create amazing things - planes that can outrun the sunset, computers that can design buildings, and films that can perform well across an entire series of stocks.
Is Portra missing anything? Yes, of course it is, a 25-ISO offering and a 1600-ISO offering top that list. But is Portra 160 missing anything? As a medium-speed color-negative offering, not really. Ektar makes us whities look like our moms dropped us at the beach for the day and forgot to give us sunscreen. Gold gives people some too-dark shadows around the angles of their faces sometimes. UltraMax - you know what, forget it; I have. So Portra offers photographers who don’t like those other films’ looks with stocks that provide good performance across subjects and speed offerings. Portra 160 is truly a standout among these. And while I still, personally, prefer the look Ektar yields for my own work. I think that anyone who likes Portra 160 more has a well-founded and good mindset on that. And, beyond that, I think a solid case exists for Portra 160 being, empirically, the best Kodak color negative film. I certainly would not argue against that, and might even argue for it.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com/David-Hancock/...
Video Index:
0:00 - Intro
0:13 - Kodak Portra 160 All About Film
0:50 - Kodak Portra 160 Best Tips, Tricks, and Practices
3:15 - Kodak Portra 160 Image Characteristics
7:17 - Kodak Portra 160 Spectral Sensitivity
9:25 - Kodak Portra 160 Reciprocity Failure
10:47 - Kodak Portra 160 Latitude
11:20 - Kodak Portra 160 Review
References:
imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites...
My Instagram:
/ davidhancock
"Rock this Joint" by Edward Joe Myers and "Why Did I" by HATAMITSUNAMI used under active license from Epidemic Sound at the time of this video's upload.

[@tgchism]

I have been shooting my first rolls of this in 120 on three classic cameras. A Yashica 124 G, Ansco Viking 4.5 (6x9cm) and Ansco Speedex Special R (6x6). I'm going to try developing this film myself so fingers crossed that I get some nice images!

[@xwingfighter999]

This playlist is a great resource for comparing film For the scans, in general I prefered the lab scans, with a handful of camera-scanned images.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Yeah, I concur with the lab vs. home scan setup right now. My sincere hope is that, a year from now, I'll have the home C-41 scanning process down well enough that I can make a video about how to do it.

[@oddmanout4256]

The 4x6 and 8x12 prints from 35mm were sooo good, really gave digital a run for its money. A very fine pleasing grain, great skin tone.

[@paolociccone]

Thank you for another excellent review

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@ikorin]

I never liked Porta for anything but portraits. During the daylight landscapes are so muted / washed out that I would argue it is better to shoot a digital camera instead. I know people shoot it 2 stops overexposed to get better results but at that shutter speeds Velvia 50 is clear winner in terms of colors.

[@baransevim3969]

Very much second that statement. Mediocre at best for landscapes.

[@DavidHancock]

I fully agree that digital is best for landscapes. In another comment reply on this video I admitted that when I finish the C-41 stocks for this series, I probably won't buy C-41 except for sheet film use in the future. Digital is just WAY better for most color work. Slide film is a different story, but C-41 is far from the most exciting type of film for me.

[@Casey_Schmidt]

Awesome video, David! I would really like to try 160. If you haven't tried it already, I highly recommend Vision3 250D! It has great color accuracy as well. Talking about doing your own scanning, I only had one roll of film done at a lab when I start film photography last fall. I realized the immense cost of lab work so I immediately decided to invest in my own gear for rolling my own film from bulk, developing, and scanning all my own film. It takes so much work to get good results from the scanner, especially for color. But when I get it right, it's very rewarding.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I have tried 250D as a black and white film (I have a video from a year or so ago about it.) I do want to try it again as a color film with home ECN-2 developing, but that's not on the near-term to-do list.

[@letmebereal]

Hope your cold gets better soon.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@EstebanFonsecaAR]

Tip for DSLR scannig with Sony: Use the silent shutter mode, to avoid any vibration from the mechanical shutter. Difference was very noticeable for me.

[@DavidHancock]

Self-timer should help, too. Did you have issues with lighting flicker since Sony silent shutter disables flicker reduction?

[@EstebanFonsecaAR]

@@DavidHancock No, I haven't noticed any issues, only better sharpnes. I shoot using the sony app on windows (Sony Imaging Edge), plus 2 sec. self timer, to avoid vibrations on my desk. I also have a homemade hood blocking all external light, but that's good for 35mm film only, larger formats require the camera to be too far from the negative.

[@arufahc]

I personally haven't had great experience with Portra 160. It's not as fine grained as Extra 100, not as great latitude and not as fast as Portra 400. Maybe the photos looks more flat too. I find usually Portra 400 at iso 100, in medium format gives the fine grained results and saturation that I prefer. I happens to use the A7R4 for scanning too. For negative it's best to use the 4 shot pixel shift mode. You will also need good light source and a good color profile calibrated for your setup.

[@DavidHancock]

That's a good thought on the Sony. I'd have to download imagine edge, which I've never done. It may be worth my time the more that I use this camera instead of my Pentax, though.

[@jameslong1540]

Thoughts on -- Canon R9 - RETRO OF THE F-1 with the Olympic Paris symbol and the winder grip -- that would be awesome!!!

[@DavidHancock]

Would be.

[@jw48335]

Have a look at Negmaster BR. I find it superior to NLP, for Portra in particular, and it avoids the Adobe "tax". I find it odd you would opt for Sony rather than K1 pixel shift - any particular reason? You should review the Valoi Easy35 holder for 35mm - absolutely fantastic device. Look at Luminar Dust AI too - in my testing it doesn't touch the grain - may save you some time😊

[@DavidHancock]

I'll check that out. Part of my Photoshop use comes from owning CS6 outright and not ever upgrading to Creative Cloud. For the A7 IV vs. K-1, the K-1 is seven years old now. I got it the day it came out. Even though I've kept up with the firmware, it's old and having problems. Pixel shift files are also HUGE and I never installed the pixel shift software from Ricoh when I built my desktop (I wasn't using it enough.) My K-1 also has a problem with the LCD screen where in low light it just glows green. This is something to do with either the LCD or the wiring connecting the LCD to the board. It's something I need to have fixed, but it wouldn't cost much more to just buy a used K-1 with half the shutter actuations than mine has. I plan to get it fixed (I've said for the last 18 months) because I like that camera and it's traveled with me a lot. Digitizing film is a low-light process and with the LCD screen issue, I can't even see the negatives on the K-1 to digitize them.

[@jw48335]

@@DavidHancock Make sense on the Pentax vs. Sony. I'd tested a K70 and it was fantastic for scanning. As for Negmaster, similar story here, as I own DxO Photolab and prefer using that. Negmaster BR is $80 and just runs in Adobe Bridge. Since Adobe Bridge is free, there's no recurring fee. My workflow is tethered camera scan -> Adobe Bridge Negmaster Inversion -> DxO for finishing. I used to perform everything manually with home-grown profiles, but not anymore. On a related note, I expect to replace DxO with Luminar Neo soon. I'm testing the dust-removal AI, sharpening AI, as well as other included tools. Testing so far it is so much more automated and simple to get to an end result vs other tools I've used. I'm almost sold on the $250 permanent license for it. It'll pay for itself in the time it saves me. For now keep working with it until my current month runs out. I need to try to larger negatives, and I have a roll of 220 6x8 shots to process:)

[@DavidHancock]

@@jw48335Is there a trial version of Luminar Neo? I'm ramming around on their website and don't see one yet. That's a software that looks interesting, to say the least.

[@jw48335]

@@DavidHancock When you install it and register, it will start a 1 week trial. From there, I purchased the monthly subscription, which is $14/month. However, in the fine print on their website: "Is there a money-back guarantee? You have 30 days after the purchase to try out our products and see if they suit your needs. If you’re not 100% satisfied with them (we understand that anything can happen!), you can request a full refund by contacting support." I have a few weeks left to decide whether to buy the permanent key. Either way, I'll get the $14 back. I need to do a lot more testing, as so far I've only done a few rolls. I especially want to run some delta 3200 through it and purposely not use the staticvac so I can see what the dust AI does with big grain and dust mixed in:)

[@richardjames3022]

I would agree with you that of the Porta 'family' the Porta 160 is, in my opinion, and along with Ektar 100 the best colour films currently available (I loved Kodachrome 25/II). The problem for me is the cost; as digital film emulations improve, I am hard put to tell the difference between the digital and the 'real' thing. I am a heretic, I know, but the cost and the fact that printing of the film is usually a hybrid system, either as scanned image to be manipulated in a photo-editing package or in the actual printing, if taken to a photolab, is there an appreciable difference?

[@DavidHancock]

Good question and, honestly, for me, I find myself doing more landscape work either exclusively in digital or in black and white film. Just as a general preference for my own work, C-41 film is taking up an smaller role in the process each year. I suspect that when I finish the C-41 film stocks on the market in this series I probably won't find myself buying them again (outside of sheet film, which I do still enjoy using for color film photography.) But 35mm and 120, and also sheet formats, I really enjoy working in black and white a lot more.

[@richardjames3022]

@@DavidHancock You have hit the nail on the head for me too. I have some colour stock in the freezer and when that's gone, it's gone. When shooting film I almost exclusively use B&W.

[@DGLuxton]

Yeah, Portra 160 is magical. But why diss Ultramax? It’s awesome!

[@DavidHancock]

Oh man, I do not like UltraMax. I don't fault anyone for liking it, but the images it creates aren't what I'm looking for.

[@thevoiceman6192]

I don't think about it. Whatever fiilm i have I use for whatever.I have a fridge full of Expired film. Love Ektar. It is my favorite film even when it turns Blue in shade. I have a fridge full of Expired film.The reason I shoot film. To quote Bob Ross. There are no mistakes just happy accidents.

[@VariTimo]

I disagree that 160 is the strongest. I’ve rigorously tested all the Portras and it’s certainly the most tricky. The grain isn’t so significantly finer grain than Portra 400 to justify its trade offs for me. Especially the highlight retentions isn’t on the same level as 400 and 800. I’ve had sunlit faces burn out at box speed exposure for the shadow side which never happened to me with 400 and 800. This all pertains to Frontier scans, so it’s not the scanner. It’s sure nice that it has a different color reproduction than the other but I do prefer the others for most cases. It certainly underexposes really well and unsurprisingly handles tungsten light the best. But as you said you need to learn this film to use it well. Portra 400 and 800 are more flexible, give more pleasing skin tones. On a different topic. I recommend you look at the curves for Kodak Vision3 5207 and 5219 for you Portra 400 video. You’ll find that Portra 400 seems to have been built on the look of these two Vision3 films. Lastly since Portra 800 can be shot at 1600 without push processing, I don’t think we need a 1600 offering. What I miss most is a high speed, fine grained tungsten stock. Something like Kodak 5219. A 500T variant of Portra that I can shoot in all lighting conditions and obtain accurate colors.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and that would make sense about the Porta-Vision comparison. I recall the TMax 100 and Double XX stocks having some strong similarities in their characteristic curves. I would hope that Kodak borrows a lot of engineering from their Vision stocks for using their still stocks because the Vision stocks are incredible.

[@VariTimo]

@@DavidHancock They all seem to be related to some degree. But shooting Portra 400 and scanning it on a Frontier with it print emulation is the closest way for non color scientist to get close to the look of 5219 or 5207 printed onto Vision 2383. They also say it’s based on Vision tech like Ektar and Portra 160. But Portra 400 was developed in the same time the Vision3 series was being developed and when Kodak started to scale down a lot, probably letting stills and motion people work together for the first time. Looking at the curves and having shot a lot of Portra 400 and Vision3 developed in ECN2 and having seen photochemical movie prints of Vision3 films, Portra 400 really just seems to be a stills Vision3 film.

[@iNerdier]

5:30 repeating audio

[@DavidHancock]

Weird glitch. Wish I could fix it now.