EKTAR 100 vs PORTRA 400 - A Review and Comparison of Two Kodak Color Negative Films

Kodak Portra 400 vs Kodak Ektar 100 - In this video I compare and review two of Kodak's most popular color film stocks........ Get the FREE Portrait Photographer's Ultimate Resource Guide www.danbullman.com/store
KODAK PORTRA 400 (Amazon affiliate links)
35mm geni.us/35mmportra400
120 geni.us/120portra400
KODAK EKTAR 100 (Amazon affiliate links)
35mm geni.us/35mmektar100
120 geni.us/120ektar100
EKTAR 100 REVIEW
• KODAK EKTAR 100: Fine ...
PORTRA 400 REVIEW
• KODAK PORTRA 400 | Exa...
When I first started shooting film I was overwhelmed by all the different options. I often heard other photographers recommending Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Ektar 100, but I had no idea what their strenghts and weaknesses were. So I just shot a bunch of both films to get a sense of where they performed best.
Portra has a reputation as a premier portrait photography film, but it is also suitable for landscapes and street photography. It produces true-to-life colors that remain neutral, yet vibrant at the same time.
Ektar has a tendency to produce very saturated, vibrant colors. It tends to favor saturating red/orange tones, while green tones remain truer to life. One area where Ektar tends to flounder is portrait photography. Since it saturates red tones, people with lighter skin tend to have a sunburnt look, which isn't very flattering. Your results may vary.
SIGN UP TO MY EMAIL NEWSLETTER :)
eepurl.com/cOpm4D
Gear That I Use (Amazon affiliate links):
CAMERA (Sony A6000): amzn.to/2ef4bDq
FAVORITE LENS (35mm f/1.8): amzn.to/2kmdNPJ
AUDIO KIT: amzn.to/2km1frG
SD CARD: amzn.to/2l5gTf9
LIGHTING: amzn.to/2kXSDt9
TRIPOD: amzn.to/2kXZWBb
TRIPOD HEAD: amzn.to/2lzlg2M
JOBY TRAVEL TRIPOD: amzn.to/2khPsiI
Connect with Me:
WEBSITE: danbullman.com/
PODCAST: / user-485283474
INSTAGRAM: @danbullman
FACEBOOK: / danbullmanphotography
MEDIUM: / danbullmanphotography
PODCAST: / user-485283474
TWITTER: @danbullman
Disclaimer: This video contains affiliate links, which means if you click on one of the product links I may receive a small commission.

[@quintaviusoliver8149]

I dont want this to turn into a black people vs white people thing BUT I've got to say that when photographing people with more melanin in their skin, Ektar REALLY shines! You show a black woman her portrait made with that stuff and she will fall in love. It's my main portrait film and even when making pictures with white people, theres always a bit more life and pop in the photos. Doesn't really matter if its 35mm or medium format. Portra 400 does have a distinct look to it and it comes in an easy close second for me but it just doesn't have that intensity. A good balance between Kodachrome tones and Portra 400, in my opinion.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Quintavius Oliver I think that's an important point. I'll be exploring that deeper in a future video about Ektar and portraits :)

[@floex831]

Quintavius Oliver In contrast, this is one of the biggest reasons I love shooting in black-and-white film. Due to the fact that you can add a color filter and really bring out the tones you want or recede the tones you don’t. Applicable to any type photography.

[@awynterphotos]

I was wondering what a black persons skin tone would look like with these films. There are almost no examples. I guess, I'll do my own tests.

[@floex831]

Alicia Wynter you’ll want to use Portra for black and dark skinned people. I myself, although not black I am dark as if my wife. This is contingent on having good light 💡

[@ChicJae77]

Portra has not been kind to me when shooting brown people. It always makes us too orange, red, or just muddy.

[@ChrisOBrien666]

I used to shoot a lot of film in the late 80s / early to mid 90s and also worked at Ritz Camera for a few or more years. If my memory is correct, Ektar came out around 1990 and it was great at the time because it was a nice low ISO film with extremely fine grain. I also recall that the original Ektar was 125, not 100 and it was great for bright outdoor photography. The Ektar 25 stock looked similar to 125 but the grain was amazing and photos could be enlarged by a ridiculous amount before the grain was even visible. Haven't thought about those days in a long time, thanks for the memory refresh!

[@dirtywater5336]

really poor examples for film comparisons. You can't use two different shots with two different lighting situations to show the differences between two different films and expect good comparisons. Ideally they need to be the same shot taken at the same time. And the pictures of your friend Rose at 7:08 is a bad way to compare any film because it is taken at dusk where there is of course going to be a blue cast from he sky. Even with Portra, I bet it would have looked pretty blueish simply because i's being taken at dusk

[@ilyasemiankovich8254]

Great film comparison by examples Dan! Wish you more amazing photos.

[@lukasmadesign]

Super interesting video! So well explained where Ektar and Portra do their best work. Thanks a lot!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

You're welcome Lukas! Thanks for watching

[@CholoSerrano]

super informative dan. keep it up, the videos help a ton!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Thank you!

[@anthonyfernandez4775]

Thank you bro for this informative video

[@HardChair]

Good to know! I have my first roll of Ektar that I was going to shoot soon. Gives me a better idea of what I will use it for. Thanks!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

You're welcome! Thanks for watching! :)

[@scottedwards5191]

Thanks for sharing! Liking the boldness of Ektar on my Kiev 60 but you're right about skin tones being a bit much. I take that back a bit in post. Sometimes.

[@solosynthesis]

IMO the ektar for portrait might make the skin tone more red, but it does produce a very cinematic kind of tone and feel. :)

[@ManuelGuzmanPhotography]

I love, love, love the saturated look of Ektar 100. Although I believe that's because I've been hitting a lot of locations with tagging for my portrait shoots and Ektar just makes that graffiti POP. Admittedly, though, I think that's because I'm spoiled by that Sunny 16, California weather and shoot a lot of models with darker skin tones. If I were to shoot with the people in your video, I'd definitely reach for Portra instead. ANYWAYS - Great video, Dan! Keep pushing!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Manuel Guzman Thanks dude! Yeah I think I'm going to shoot more portraits with Ektar for another video later this fall. I'll have to come out to Cali sometime and check out the portrait scene :)

[@ManuelGuzmanPhotography]

Dan Bullman Photography You should! The beach sunsets here are amazing. Plus, we have In n Out.

[@anatoliebaldabac2969]

I really enjoy your channel. Keep up the good work! Subscribed!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Anatolie Baldabac Thanks Anatolie!

[@thewhiskychef_nl]

this was very helpfull in my choice for my mexico trip.. if been on the fence on this one. porta it is

[@floex831]

I really like both the Ektar in the Portra. However, when doing weddings, I do prefer the look of the Portra. IMO, it feels and looks more professional as opposed to the Ektar, which feels more artistic. That’s my take.

[@RobertNuttmann]

Both great films. Ektar 100 is my favorite landscape film. Portra 160 & 400 do a very good job with properly exposed people shots.

[@shawnhollbach395]

Great video, many thanks

[@superkrell]

Kodak Ektar is my first pick for landscapes. It`s a great film for fall scenes and the reds are truly wonderful...!

[@hartist2874]

I really love Ektar for the saturated look, it feel really alive, really pleasant, BUT, I have to take pictures of clothes worn on a model, and I think, I'm not sure but I think, that the portra is a better solution.

[@NicholasAarons]

I like to Shoot with both Films but I do Love (Kodak Ektar 100). But (Kodak Portra 160 & 400) are great too. I guess it comes down to what you have in your Camera at the time and how important the shot is and what you are using the Photo for. Great Video Dude. Keep up the great work. Nick.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Thanks Nick!

[@koko0808008]

thanks for the video, cant wait to shoot with a porta400

[@jiboyoseo]

very helpful! thank u!!

[@cubdukat]

I haven't tried the Portra 400, but I absolutely love the Ektar 100.

[@fotosbylang4464]

I love my results from my 120 exposure of Ektar 100 portrait and landscape images. You are right about shooting Ektar 100 with 35mm film... It enhances persons face too much.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+fotosbylang Yeah I'm going to have to try it in 120!

[@peasantrobot]

You shoot it as 100 ASA, or you overexpose it? Or scan and then reduce the magenta?

[@user-qs8rk4gt1h]

Thanks for video!

[@mugshot749]

I shoot quite a lot of Kodak Portra 400 in low light conditions, but I prefer Portra160 if the lighting conditions allow, because it's much finer grain and will blow up much larger if my client wants a big framed prints.

[@JN87FR]

Glad to have come across your channel! Binge watching lots of film photo channels like a maniac, also thanks to a list you put on your website :D Actually looking forward to have my first go at a "fashion" shoot using Portra400, as I've read it's more suited, in addition to rendering skin tones nicely. That said, do scans differ from one another of the same film? Might I suggest a comparison of film negative scanners? And any post-production applied to the examples of Portra shown here? Thanks, Dan! PEEEAACE! :)

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Franco Rizzo Thanks Franco! Glad you're enjoying the channel. Best of luck with your fashion shoot. I'm sure the Portra pics will be dope :) ✌

[@timheiberger9134]

Thanks Dan great video. I agree with you. Portra=Portraits & Street Photography . Ektar= Landscapes & Architectural Photography

[@jamesfraser980]

funny that you compared the two in this video, because ektar 100 and portra 400 are my choices for which im shooting next!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Ayyyy :) Hope you enjoy shooting with both these films

[@karlbailey2113]

Side by side comparison with same camera would have been the best way to really compare the two film stocks no?

[@MB-ml3er]

Dan, I enjoyed watching your video. I am also shooting with both Ektar 100 and Porta 400, and I have seen the same difference. You could have added that Ektar 100 has a tendency to blue tint in shadow/darker areas which you can also see in your photo with the stop sign. I like Ektar for landscape and object related photography - where in digital photos the sky is white/blown out, Ektar still keeps a nice looking slight bluish tint in the sky.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Thank you! Yes there is a noticeable blue tint at times. That is important to note. I think Ektar can be very, very pleasing if you play to its strengths

[@jbliborio]

Thats two of favourite stocks excluding movies stocks like Vision 3 that is in the top. I cant agree more with your review concerning the use of Ektar to portraits. Thanks for this review and regards from Brazil.

[@DPhillipsStudios]

I scored a bunch of expired Ektar 25 and it still looks awesome!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+D Phillips Studios Whaaaaat???? Where'd you get that?!

[@DPhillipsStudios]

Dan Bullman Photography I bought them from a local guy that hoards film for whatever reason haha

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+D Phillips Studios That's awesome

[@Xingqiwu387]

So glad we live in Arizona!!!

[@alanpods______8260]

I love Ektar. It's a beautiful film stock, especially when used in the right light. It produces gorgeous saturated colours in sunlight, especially around the 'golden hour' times of day. It also works well in overcast situations, providing interest and depth on days when everything appears to look flat and dull. It loves browns and creams, stones and brickwork, especially on those days. Portra is a wondrously forgiving, and versatile film, with fabulous (light) skin tones, but it is so neutral that to my eye it begins to appear a little 'dull', compared to Ektar. The only limitations I've found with Ektar are how strongly it responds to red colours - so much so that any red objects often completely dominate the image (as evidenced by the car image in your video). Finally, Ektar should be used with caution on really bright sunny days. Highlights in bright sun will blow out very easily - and areas of deep shadow will be lost too. It just doesn't have the dynamic range to deal with this. With careful use, Ektar is fantastic, but nowhere near as forgiving as Portra!

[@SPTSuperSprinter156]

agreed with all of this... it's somewhat counterintuitive when used to digital which loses DR as you push the ISO up, not down.

[@MontyMagnum]

I LOVE the Ektra 100 feel

[@mezarikian]

Dan, Ektar really shines on bright sunlight, if not it gets muddy.

[@dectel257]

Portra 400. I’ll try shooting landscape with it this weekend. Happy 4th 🇺🇸💥🇺🇸💥🇺🇸!!!

[@James-gz6iq]

Ektar 100 turns light skin tones to orange-red. RZ67Pii, 110mm F2.8, subj in shadow in front of coffee shop window. Cerulean painted background. I've also seen Velvia 100-120 film do the same, but Velvia 100 creates a rich tone for dark skin in bright daylight while under shade.

[@yukonchris]

I have never liked the over-saturated, and over-sharpened, look that seems so popular in digital photography today. Needless to say, I am a huge Portra fan. It offers a true-to-life aesthetic that, I feel, is one of the incredible strengths of film photography. There is a roundness and three-dimensionality to film that I feel is never fully realized with digital imaging. Portra builds on these inherent strengths with somewhat muted colours, that as you say, seem very natural. Ektar also has its place, and I can understand why it is also a popular choice, but for me, Portra is a wonderful film with a truly beautiful aesthetic when used properly.

[@MakeupbyGabby101]

luv the pics of boston

[@SBN3vids]

Thurman Merman with the photo facts this man a god.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Hahahahaha oh man dude

[@SPTSuperSprinter156]

both are excellent films. agree with reds exploding on ektar, but once you know that it can be used to creative effect. Portra 400 is nice and can apparently be pushed well. I only have photos from when I pushed it to 3200, which is probably a bit far, but I'm told it performs very well as a 1600 film.

[@RyanRenteria]

nice shots of boston!

[@yanivgheber4566]

really enjoyed the video! what camera and lens were the pictures in the video taken with? thanks!

[@jpdj2715]

Nice video. I recognize the general idea. As in your comparison of Tri-X with HP5, you sinned against the ceteris paribus principle ;). If you download the product sheets withe these films, you'll see the spectral analysis geaphs. Between Ektar and Portra these are very different. You'll also see that R, G and B density are rather apart. Question is if your negatives looked "thin", meaning they are under-exposed or under-processed. My gut feeling is that the impact of spectral curves overlapping between CMY layers becomes less if you have more density (i.e. slightly over-expose, which is considered a preference with negative film). It is that spectral overlap where the big difference is.

[@brentdrafts2290]

I use ektar for landscape and macro. And portra 400 for portraiture. I iss portra 160 sometimes for outdoor portraits.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Brent Drafts Good way to use those films 👍

[@euso2008]

7:09 I actually really like that photo and the tones

[@andym4695]

Exactly what I needed to see! I'm learning to do jewelry, and need photos of my goods to put online. Sure, my cell phone is ok for snapping cute doggie pix, but for the metals it just doesn't do the trick somehow. I've got an old (Jeez - 35 year old!) Nikon and have decided to use it rather than plunking down $500 on an entry-level DSLR, since I really don't do a lot of photography any more. From the look of it, the Ektar 100 should make those colors scream, and the slow speed won't be an issue.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Thanks Andy! Glad you enjoyed it :) Hope you can get some great jewelry photos with Ektar

[@gigiblack2231]

I actually like the saturated tones in Ektar 100, it gives off a cool vintage vibe. I personally don't want my images to mimic the digital look so I prefer the Ekar for portraits. To each their own I guess.

[@waynedobie]

Great video! :-)

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+waynedobie Thanks!

[@rentedtux1883]

Nice video Dan. You know I love black and white, but I do use color on occasion. Do you think that the lens, as far as coatings, can also make a difference in the tones that come out. With b&w it really is pronounced. Thanks for another cool video and for not taking down the painters tape! You are cool my friend.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+rented tux The painter's tape stays! Hahaha ;) As far as lens coating I'm not sure. I would think maybe? But I always do slight color correction in post if I need to, so I don't worry about it 👍

[@markharris5771]

This is like asking which child you prefer, love them both but they are totally different.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Mark Harris Hahaha that's a great analogy Mark 😂✌

[@teleaddict23]

Just shot my first roll of Portra 400 and will get it developed tomorrow so will let you know what I think. By the looks of it, it gives a very similar look to digital, so might as well shoot digital and save the expense. I prefer films that really do look like film otherwise it's not worth shooting and Ektar has a great warm saturated look that you would associate with film.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Fonejacker Hope you enjoy the results!

[@teleaddict23]

Dan Bullman Photography Hi Dan, I got my first roll of Portra 400 back and I have to say I really like it. The colours look great. I wouldn't say the colours were too muted, there's a nice level of saturation but it isn't over done as I often find with Ektar. I wouldn't say it looked like digital either, not unless edited. I showed my friend who thought it was digital and he thought I had edited it. Really good film, could be one of my faves actually 🙂

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Fonejacker Yeah Portra is great! :)

[@IainHC1]

I fully agree with you. BUT....... somewhere in the not too distant past I have actually seen beautiful Ektar portraits that have been over exposed by a stop and a stop and a half to get that look. Food for thought :-)

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Iain Hamilton-Cummings I will have to experiment with that more. I got some decent results on occasion :)

[@IainHC1]

Would love to see your results :-)

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Iain Hamilton-Cummings I will be happy to share in another video in the future

[@peasantrobot]

Do it before the winter :) or we all we die!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+peasant vasea Hahaha time is running out 😂

[@mariarincon2000]

I shoot Portra 400 rated at 200 for either portraits or landscapes, and Ektar 100 for just landscapes and architecture.

[@Bembeleke]

Video was great you also gotta consider that ektar is a sunlight film so a portrait in the snow doesn't give it justice. Be careful with them Bruins...lmao.

[@atxrich]

Nice comparison! Have you tried any post processing (ie. Photoshop) to remove that reddish tone on skin w/ Ektar? Just curious to see if that could be achieved.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Richard Reed I haven't done it for Ektar specifically but I've done localized adjustments on other images using layer masks. So it definitely is possible

[@BullittMustang3121]

Nice channel. GO RED WINGS!!

[@hungerxhunger]

Ektar looks good but I might turn down saturation a bit

[@matteovrizzi]

Portra 400. i shoot it at 200 asa and it works very well both 35mm and 120

[@montyhasanewphone]

Could you do comparison of Ektar 100 and portra 160. Thanks.

[@grincadorna4753]

The ektar actually good for portrait, the portra look so pale overdone on skin

[@Aliothale]

TLDR: Ektar has a cool tone, Porta has warm/neutral tone. I'd recommend just shooting Portra 400/800 though... Ektar is just too unreliable and I would rather just photoshop the Portra stuff if I wanted the Ektar look. Ektar is something to expiriment with, nothing more really. I did find it was really nice on overcast or cloudy days though.

[@rosadurio7342]

Ektar Rules

[@JB-ou6fl]

Personally, I liked the skin tones on the Ektar 100 before seeing the photos with the Portra 400. However, when I realized that the actual skin tones looked different in real life, I think that Portra 400 will work better for portraits for me. I prefer portraits that show more realistic skin tones. I can see how Ektar 100 can produce more interesting landscape photos. But I am wondering whether using an Ektar 100 with a polarizing filter may make some colors for landscape look oversaturated.

[@cryptobyt2403]

For street activities, prefer gold or ultramax. For serious photo: like family photo always choose lowest grain non odd iso film. Like proimage100 or portra400

[@thevalleyofdisappointment]

earned a like just for pronouncing ISO correctly...

[@hosseinasgari9445]

Ektar foe fields and sunny days and portra for shadows

[@mkshffr4936]

Back in the day my absolute favorite color film was Kodachrome (Really ruined my day when they "took my Kodachrome away" but when I was shooting a landscape in which I wanted to make the colors pop (esp. green) such as a time when nature wasn't doing her part I used Fujichrome. It sounds like Ektar doesn't really cut it for that except for fall scenes with a lot of red and yellow. Is there a modern print film that will give you that Fujichrome effect?

[@lonniepaulson7031]

Could you explain your background of classic cameras. Do you collect classic cameras? I agree with your content. Thanks.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

I collect and shoot with film cameras as a hobby. I've been doing it for a few years now. Many of the cameras I've owned are reviewed in various videos on my channel. Thanks for watching Lonnie.

[@wotajared]

Portra 400 is a staple, specially in MF where the speed is very welcome. I've shot Ektar more than I care to recognise and gotten some really fantastic results. Very very important, if no one's printing Optically RA4 is the scan workflow, is the scan flow. I'd love to have one of the Noritsu/Frontiers (with a good neg, TIFFs look good out of the machine). Labs do often give their touch. Kodak page used to have some examples. One of them looked like punchy E6, of a black man on a motorbike shot on open shade. Fantastic, and it went against the widespread "Portra is tame" or bright and airy. Have yet to Push any of these films. There's Canlas that does +2 on Ektar all the time, but if things are crazy at box speed... Again, he's got a lab backing him up and the scanners can do some interesting magic out of weird negs. P160 is the one I've shot little, and strangely doesn't scan as nicely as the others in my V550. Have some of it on 35mm and It'll be the staple for a while.

[@63nuke]

What about Portra 160?

[@jme92685]

Here are my two cents. I can't live without either one. I love and shoot them both. These truly are my top 2 films. Putting it as simply as possible, Ektar has more vibrant colors and very punchy contrast while Portra is more subtle and has a pastel look to it. The pastel look of Portra really gives it a more vintage look and is the better choice for portraits while Ektar has a slightly more modern look when compared to Portra and excels at landscapes. They're both superb and exceptionally versatile, it just boils down to personal preference... or you just carry both like me, haha!

[@avsf91]

Why Ektar 100 vs Portra 400? Why not Portra 160?

[@fer_fdi]

Ektar needs sunny days and pretty accurate exposure. Ektar pictures here look underexposed and with lots of shade material in them which Ektar dislikes.

[@The8TrackChap]

Compare similar ISO speeds. I use Portra 160 more. To me, Ektar had the same kind of saturation as Ektachrome slide film. Lots of color shifts with blue tones.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

I'm also going to do a comparison of Portra 160 and Ektar 100. I need to shoot more of each film stock first to get the photos for the video. Thanks for watching.

[@The8TrackChap]

Probably similar characteristics as for the results, just closer in the ISO. I'd compare Ektar to Ektachrome.

[@lit_wick]

I just shot a whole family trip to Mexico (to visit more family) using Velvia 50 and Ektar 100. I used Velvia mainly for landscapes and the ektar as a leftover and for the family parties. Ektar handled the skin tones really well. I feel maybe Ektar just isnt a good film for pale people that have red in their flesh tones. All of my family looked beautiful with Ektar. Their skin tones were saturated, but no more saturated than everything else Ektar saturates.

[@iankendall75]

Let's go Pens! Sub'd

[@facehole3]

lmao i thought the ektar portraits were nicer. Overall great vid though, very informative!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Thanks for watching! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@doplinger1]

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Ektar 100 to Portra 160? I've heard that the higher the ISO, the more "washed out" the colors are with Portra; do you find that to be the case? I think I prefer the look of Portra vs the saturation of Ektar, though there are instances where Ektar looks great. I suppose you can always do some post to get it to look the way you want it to.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Yes I could see how it would make sense to compare Ektar 100 and Portra 160. A few others have done so on KZbin. I like comparing apples and oranges though :) So I went for Portra 400 and Ektar 100 (which were two of the first color films I used when I started shooting film). I haven't heard about the washed out colors with higher ISO in Portra. But I haven't done extensive testing either. I've seen some very great colors out of Portra 400 and 800 when I've used it.

[@homesickphotographycomau4107]

why would you not put portra 160 against ektra 100 and not 400

[@MS-jl1tl]

Dan. Where did you go? We miss you

[@joseuribe1552]

portra 400 for skin tones

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Jose Uribe 👍👍👍

[@lizochoa4462]

For white skin tones lol

[@mugshot749]

I suggest Dan that if you don't absolutely need a 400 ISO film if you want the best possible results that you shoot with Kodak Portra 160 or Fuji NPS 160 Professional they are fast enough for most common lighting conditions especially because portraits are usually shot with pretty large apertures and they both produce beautiful results and you should always use the slowest film you canso you can get the highest photo- technical quality in your work. Kodak Ektar is an exceptional film probably the best 100 ISO film of all for general photography, street scenes and landscapes etc. but not for portraits, it makes human skin look like raw meat.

[@DimiArhontidis]

I wonder how the two would compare if you brought down the saturation in the red tones a bit in post.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

That could be an interesting experiment. The main reason I didn't do it like that is because I wanted to see what the characteristics of the film are with minimal editing. If I'm going to do a bunch of post-processing on my photos, then I might as well shoot digital. At least that's my approach to photography. I like shooting both film and digital, each for different purposes/reasons. Thanks for watching :)

[@teleaddict23]

I would've thought it would be quite difficult to de-saturate ektar in post processing, seems harder to edit film photos.

[@hilldweller8605]

I thought Portra 400 looks great. Really nice warm look to it right? I'm going to have to pick some up.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Hill Dweller Yeah it's great! Definitely check it out :)

[@Arzenteart]

Go Boston

[@Kevin-finity]

wow Nice job！

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Thanks!

[@maxfactor4209]

Good old days.. sadly in this part of the world (Singapore) it is pretty hard and expensive to get Film

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+max factor Bummer :(

[@Dezdirectz]

max factor Not really man

[@majoraswrath9590]

Does portra 160 have the same tones as portra 400?

[@vividvulpe9842]

I read a good review of 160 today.... in short, it's an entirely different film than it's 400 counterpart

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Majora Wrath It looks quite a bit different in my experience. But I want to shoot more Portra 160 before making a video on it

[@muffemod]

in 35mm they're identical, in medium format you see a difference.

[@canturgan]

They are not identical, different contrast and saturation, 400 is better at 200.

[@raininsilver]

Hey man i’m from boston and would like to know where to go to get my film scanned/developed. Having a hard time with that

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Silver Virgo Hey! Colortek does developing and scanning. They're located near South Station

[@raininsilver]

Thanks!

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

No problem! Thanks for watching!

[@lilvrezzb]

One silly question I never get to get answered... Could I use either Ektar or Portra films in a Nikon D3400 Camera? I know it may sound dumb, I want to start in photography and I love how pictures with films are shot. If a Nikon D3400, which I know it's a digital camera couldn't use those films, which camera can? I spend a lot of time searching but my knowledge in photography it's more basic than I thought...

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

No you would need a 35mm film camera. If you're looking for a starter film camera, check out the Nikon FG. You can find them used on eBay or KEH

[@lilvrezzb]

ey thank you so much for the answer. Do you know any 35mm cameras selling nowadays or it's just everything digital now?

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Your best bet is to buy a used one. There are a handful of new ones but they are overpriced

[@w1nterblind]

I feel like at least part of your issues with using Ektar for portraits is in the scanning. I have the same issue a lot of the time, with the positive images having way too much red and magenta in the shadows. This is actually true of a lot of color negative film for me, but some like Ektar definitely seem harder to invert correctly for some reason. A lot of this is very easily fixed by removing some red and magenta from the shadows with a color balance adjustment layer in Photoshop. See the below image for an example of what you can do with a couple of clicks. i.imgur.com/BtoB50Z.jpg

[@badhonebrahim7707]

7:52 bro what canera abd which lense was use d here???

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

Nikon F4 and 85mm f/1.4 lens. Shot by my friend Dian

[@Pipp08]

Ok bro, all the portraits taken with the ektar were underexpose that is why they were looking too reddish.

[@jacobgeyer9903]

Came here to say the same thing. Also, the comparisons to the Portra I think make his point inversely. The red tones bring out more of what skin tones actually look like, the Portra shots are white washed, and he even compares one to digital frame, which looks like it's in a studio with nice soft lighting hahaha

[@hafiz2664]

Ektar seems to have a more vivid contrast for me.

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Hafizuddien Ju Yeah I can see that in many cases :)

[@CostaClicks]

I have to disagree mostly. Based on my own test shots as well as these photos the Portra shots are too bland and lack colour, the reason I am shooting colour and not black and whit is for the colours to pop and use them as elements of the photograph for things like colour contrast (think the Afghan girl) so I personally reach for Ektar most of the time. I also love how it makes blues look almost aqua. I hav also not found any issue with Ektar making the skin tones too red, I fount that much like digital if you overexpose a touch it balances out the redness. I simply don’t like Portra at all, especially not for portraits.

[@newyorkleb]

Costa Clicks interesting. Ektar portraits are only good for those with dark skin tones. You can’t use ektar on say a young blonde 4 year old girl like my daughter. For light, creamy skin you need portra.

[@CostaClicks]

newyorkleb I have shot many caucasians with Ektar in bright sunlight and have not personally had an issue with skin redness at all. But that’s just me.

[@remiwalsarie]

Great video. Now it is clear to me what film I would like to buy! Thanks. I wasn't sure witch one I should buy. But I think I'm more happy with the Portra, now that I've seen your video. So thank you. If you would like to see the results, I'll post them on my insta: @myanalogshots ;)

[@mamiyapress]

I much prefer Perutz film!

[@zguy95135]

Ektar works great for darker skin tones but light skin tones definitely go red. It's such a fickle film, sometimes it just pops like a Kodachrome slide and sometimes it just looks awful. You can go too high or two exposure wise without getting some funky results

[@DanBullmanPhotography]

+Joseph Delgadillo Yeah I've gotten different results. It's not as forgiving lol. I do plan to shoot more portraits with Ektar and make another video :)