Thanks for putting this comparison together! One correction: The film base (the plastic "film" which carries the emulsion) of different film sizes is NOT the same. This is from Kodak's Portra 400 data sheet: 135 film (35 mm) 0.13 mm (0.005 inch) thick, material: acetate; 120 film (60 mm) 0.11 mm (0.004 inch) thick, material: acetate; sheets 0.19 mm (0.007 inch) thick, material: ESTAR (polyester - PET). So they are NOT cut from the same material. The emulsion (the light sensitive layer) is the same, though.
@filmfocused97595 жыл бұрын
Thanks a bunch for the clarification, I really appreciate it! Cheers!
@teleaddict236 жыл бұрын
I like the saturation of Kodak Gold 200. Portra is a beautiful film but for those situations when you want that extra punch of colours like a sunny day at the beach, Kodak Gold will give you that vintage colourful film look in abundance.
@jake65756 жыл бұрын
Fonejacker totally agree. A lot of people seem to be Portra or bust but Kodak Gold outperforms it in some situations imo!
@usanineoneone6 жыл бұрын
Prints beautiful optically in the darkroom and love the colours from it and next to no grain so I use Gold more so than Portra. If scanning then yes Portra is the way to go.
@joyceivanfernando38736 жыл бұрын
I feel the same way! I started with Kodak Gold 200, and I find that the images are more dramatic in a way... I used portra and it was okay, unlike Kodak Gold.
@bradfordstring655 жыл бұрын
I like Ultramax 400 BY FAR the most, especially when it is pushed a stop. Portra feels boring and uninspired.
@jl3nnox5 жыл бұрын
I think shooting Portra for general stuff is a waste of money...in the UK at least, where it costs £10 a roll. I find Gold scans much easier than Portra on an epson scanner
@thijskennis87572 жыл бұрын
Crying out loud seeing these film prices in 2022....
@CrnaInBela2 жыл бұрын
We will never see these prices ever again
@cosmicreciever6 жыл бұрын
Never realised how much cheaper film is in USA than it is here :(
@tallaganda835 жыл бұрын
I did that's why I buy from B&H and get it shipped to Australia
@ObLiFaN5 жыл бұрын
@@tallaganda83 I gotta get on that too haha. I buy from a local store and it's about $20 a roll.
@tommynobaka5 жыл бұрын
@@ObLiFaN jesus christ, just for one roll?? Here depending on which film, a roll of black and white is $3.99, color 200-400 consumer grade is around $3-6, pro grade color 400 is $7-10. Not sure about low light 800-3200. I bought 3 rolls of portra 400 for $29 and 4 rolls of superia xtra 400 for $25
@ObLiFaN5 жыл бұрын
@@tommynobaka I'm jelly dude. Portra 400 is $20 per roll at my store, and another $20 for developing and chucking it on a USB.
@ALittleHungryMonster5 жыл бұрын
Rathanak's Life anything pro grade here is around $90 for 3 rolls...
@neeway1620 Жыл бұрын
If only I could go back and bulk buy at those prices. Paid £28 ($35.60) for two rolls of Color Plus today.
@Mason132456 жыл бұрын
Definitely looking forward to see a comparison of the Portra family. It's a subject that no one truly touched on.
@BenjoC86323 жыл бұрын
I agree. I find each film brings extensive joy for their respective circumstances; I love Gold for sunny daylight scenarios, Umax is strangely nice when conditions are partly cloudy(like recently when I was at the Salton Sea in SoCal), and of course Portra400, not just for golden hour(when it really shines), but also how it optimizes skin tones.
@ldstirling6 жыл бұрын
Please note that in general, most people who opt to buy Portra 400 are not likely to use it in a point and shoot camera if the ultimate image quality is important. Also, if you shop around you can usually find better deals on multi-packs of film that will have a lower per-roll cost than buying them individually. Interestingly, Portra 400 in 120 roll film is cheaper than 35mm rolls with 36 exp.
@marklittrell32023 жыл бұрын
Fast forward: Portra now $18/roll, Ultramax only $10/roll.... comparison still holds up!
@DonFather6 жыл бұрын
Wow, that's good insight on the added flexibility of Portra for digital. I never knew that. Thanks.
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
You're very welcome, glad you enjoyed the video!
@billmanning276 жыл бұрын
The more and more I see ultramax, the more and more I'm considering to buy. Emulsive just posted a review of Ultramax pushed to 1600. I'm quite impressed. Great review!
@PlaceNameHeere6 жыл бұрын
It's amazing for bright sunny days. The tones are amazing. One of the best budget films IMO. have gotten some beautiful shots.
@thomasfransson2 жыл бұрын
Dude how did you get behind that table? Great video, thanks
@35mmlove_eric6 жыл бұрын
Not all formats are from the same master roll. Look at the base materials. 4x5 and up is on a thicker base, usually Estar (polyester). For most emulsions even 120 is coated onto a different base. The emulsion, however is exactly the same.
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Very interesting, that makes a lot of sense. I can definitely see why sheet film would be on a thicker base than roll film. Thanks for the insight!
@qadiryosdorthproductions2684 жыл бұрын
This was good ! Like really educational for someone who is just getting started, thankyou 🙌🏿
@tom26596 жыл бұрын
Gold 200 is the same emulsion as ultramax 400??
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Basically yes...technically they are not "identical", however, they perform exactly alike one another. Especially being cheap consumer grade films, I can't imagine Kodak spending the time and money to develop a unique emulsion for the two different ISO's. The only true difference I've found is the film speed & apparent grain size.
@tom26596 жыл бұрын
Film Focused how does the grain compare?
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
@@tom2659 As you would expect. Gold 200 has a slightly less muddy look but will be easier to mess up and underexpose. Ultramax has little to no detail in my scans, everything is soft (mind you, I'm using an Epson V850 Pro, not a virtual drum or drum scanner...using a scanner of that caliber might be able to resolve more information that shows the films full potential)
@sheek36 жыл бұрын
Bang on agree with your reflections on the subjectivity of each film's character. Have you ever tried shooting Kodak Gold 200 at 1/3 stop underexposed? I find for scanning purposes it really helps control the contrast and gives you a bit more leverage scanning details in the highlights.
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
No, I haven't tried that before, I'm gonna have to give that a try on my next roll! Thanks for the insight!
@RobertNuttmann6 жыл бұрын
When you say “basically “ the same emulsion with Kodak Gold and Ultramax I hope you are not saying that it is the same. I don’t have the same results from these two films. My results is that they tend towards the red side of the colors like ektar but I find the 400 more tolerant of under exposure and less grainy than the 200, even though the 200 should be less. I think of Ultramax as Ektar lite. Portra in my many rolls of using it likes people shots, forests, weddings, but does not like bright sun western desert, Grand Canyon, Zion shots at all. Just my opinion-results
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Precisely! The films are of the same family, but the two films do have their own individual characteristics. Just like the Portra family. I agree, there are films that lend themselves to different environments and shooting scenarios, and picking the correct film can be a tricky task. The more you shoot, the more you learn. Thanks for sharing!
@lemon584216 жыл бұрын
Thanks Joe!;-) you right all this films are good! on travel I use Agfa vista plus 200, Fujicolor C200 and Kodak Portra 400. different price but I like them all!
@jonhyboy12playsdrum5 жыл бұрын
Kodak Gold is great for capturing the fall season.
@SpeedHunter_96 жыл бұрын
Very informative for first time film shooter like me. Earned yourself a subscriber 👍🏻
@paolazuffinetti Жыл бұрын
Thanks so much for your PRECIOUS information. I'm an amateur photographer (I love reality and I love to capture beauty and bring it home so as to be able to rewatched it and enjoy unique, past moments taken with my analogue reflex cameras, Canon, Olympus and Fujica. I'll keep watching your videos. I also hope traditional films, 100, 200,400, kodak, fuji, and excellent Portra will continue to be sold. Any advice of yours will be greatly appreciated for your professionality and dedication to the art of photography.
@MichaelSeneschal5 жыл бұрын
This was a really good video. Very informative with good examples. Really, this is exactly what I was looking for.
@azdave27215 жыл бұрын
Great presentation. If I wanted to enlarge my prints, which of the three would you suggest? Thanks
@filmfocused97595 жыл бұрын
Portra, hands down. Best color rendition and tightest grain structure of the three. Happy shooting!
@jameslane38465 жыл бұрын
Hmm, I use Portra only for pro work which is basically medium format. I think that for happy snaps, I'll go with the Gold or Ultramax
@Fourtitude445 жыл бұрын
Great video. I learned a lot. Thanks
@theideastring47065 жыл бұрын
Never thought about different formats being created from one strip. I feel informed. Here in UK my local camera shop has Gold 200 at £6.50 and Ektar 100 £7.50 and Portra 400 at £8. So not much cost saving with consumer grade films here.
@eladbari5 жыл бұрын
Dude! Can you do a comparison of Dynamic Range of Film vs. Digital? I read digital actually has more dynamic range than film by a few stops!! Can't find lots of info on that...
@filmfocused97595 жыл бұрын
That is, in fact, true. Digital does have better dynamic range, especially in comparison to slide film. However, color negative and black and white film have the ability to safely store much more "over exposed" information to be captured or used in the scanning/enlargement process, in comparison to digital. Technically that's the exposure latitude, however proper exposure directly affects the effective dynamic range of an image. Poor exposure = loss of information = loss of dynamic range. Digital and film have an inverse relationship in that regard: Digital can pull information from the shadows but not highlights, and film can pull information from the highlights, but not the shadows. Honestly the difference is so small that in "normal" shooting applications you won't be able to tell the difference...similar to comparing two cameras with a 24mpx sensor and a 34mpx sensor...one isn't inherently better than the other and you can't really tell the difference between the two unless you're looking at the images 1:1
@eladbari5 жыл бұрын
@@filmfocused9759 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! 1. With film I learn that if you shoot not in broad daylight, yet, in an apartment or something- you will get a noisy image (especially in shadows), you'll get a more muddy, less sharp image, and this really sucks! On the other hand- outdoors in broad daylight- even when i meter for the face- I totally could get blown out / white face sometimes. Really horrible! 2. A friend told me to actually try going back to digital and start shooting with -1 or -2 stops underexposure. I always used to expose in the middle, and this approach probably should save some highlights...yet, recovering a -2 stops digital image onto a balanced-exposed image- probably will lose something along that way. As you are skimping on light in some important areas...so probably even when you raise exposure in post [to compensate]- the face of the subject might look more milky..cause of the underexposure.. Any thoughts on this?
@Average-Joe_N6 жыл бұрын
Good idea to put these three up
@ijoefoto4 жыл бұрын
Thanks! Just the info I was looking for.
@RickJohnson6 жыл бұрын
I think I'd favor Ektar 100 over Portra 160 or Portra 400 for landscapes. SUPER fine grain and a bit more saturated.
@john_murch6 жыл бұрын
Hey Joe, my favourite film is Portra 400. The problem is Kodak films are very expensive where I live in Japan. If I order Portra from B&H even after shipping and duties are added, it works out to 50% of what I would have to pay if I buy it here in Japan. In the past when I ordered things from B&H, it takes 48 hours to ship from New York to Tokyo. My concern is the lack of temperature control during shipping. Do you think it's a risk for a normally refrigerated professional film to ship it so far? What do you think? Would you do this?
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Hi John, that's a tough one for sure! I live in Virginia Beach, VA so it usually takes 48hrs for my orders from B&H to get to me as well. But of course, my packages aren't being flown and the potential temperature changes aren't nearly as much of an issue. If you don't have a good local camera store near by I would say you may not be left with any other option. I've only had one bad batch of film from B&H and it wasn't even their fault. It was due to Kodak using poor paper backing on their 120mm B&W films two years ago. I would give it a try and see how that batch turns out...if it's a success, continue ordering from B&H until a better option presents itself. Cheers!
@john_murch6 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your reply, will give it a try. Cheers!
@380stroker6 жыл бұрын
Just be happy North Korea isn't going to nuke you guys.
@nzdigital6 жыл бұрын
Really great comparison video Joe. I loved a lot of the images, and didn’t think the comparison suffered because they were only shot on a point and shoot. Scans looked great (haters are gonna hate). I was considering this very comparison pre Christmas when my wife said she wanted to buy me some film. I was tossing up between Gold 200, Ultramax 400, or Portra. Decided to go for the Gold 200, mainly because of price. Film is twice the price here in New Zealand. Gold 200 cost me just over $8.00NZ per roll, whereas Portra is about $16.00NZ per roll (over $10.00US). Enjoyed the video. Have subscribed.
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Wow! That's crazy, happy I could help. That a lot like Fujifilm here in the states, way more expensive than Kodak. It's just not worth shooting Pro 400H here, which is unfortunate because I do enjoy the colors that Fuji produces. Really appreciate the comment and thanks for subscribing. Working on some new stuff for 2019 right now
@Raychristofer6 жыл бұрын
Great job on this comparison bro. I shoot color and black-and-white medium format and I have to say for me the black and white is so much easier to work with especially editing to look how I want. I find my color film results are all over the place. That might have something to do with the fact that I develop it myself but I've learned while editing Digital Color you can make it look more how you want but with film I noticed if I tweaked one color or adjust the white balance it throws everything else off so I've lately just been leaving the color adjustments to very minimal. You're a small Channel but what I like is you know what you're talking about and that's all that matters in whatever we are reviewing. Peace
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the support man, I really appreciate it! Yeah, I've been shooting for 12+ years now and finally decided to make a run at the KZbin thing after some encouragement from friends. I've always embraced the fact that I'm a "camera nerd" haha And no matter how big or small this channel becomes, I believe that sharing my knowledge/points of view will ultimately only help others who are interested in film photography. Cheers!
@Raychristofer6 жыл бұрын
Film Focused I hear you man, if you are ever interested in rolleiflex Twin lens type cameras I did 2 reviews on my channel lately about their pros and cons and how to Choose Wisely when buying one. What type of film cameras do you use?
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Raychristofer that’s awesome, a twin reflex camera is definitely on my list, I’ll have to check your videos out. I mainly shoot with a Pentax 67ii and Mamiya 7ii and I like to carry the Nikon L35AF around just for fun. But 6x7 is by far my favorite format. What about you?
@Raychristofer6 жыл бұрын
Film Focused the rolleiflex shoots a six-by-six square format which I love. I also shoot 35mm with several vintage lenses like the Helios and voigtlander. I always bring the digital and the film camera because there are certain scenes I look at and I know immediately which medium will be best for the look I need. You've got good taste with the Mamiya and Pentax.
@awynterphotos6 жыл бұрын
Same here, scanned 5 rolls of colour film (Ektar & Portra), and I struggled with editing the colour film because of being able to control colour in digital like you said. B&W was much easier to keeping it's look according to the brand I shot. Great video by the way.
@arunashamal5 жыл бұрын
My dad hated the yellow hue on Kodak, he always bought Fujifilm or Konica
@rubendekker5 жыл бұрын
Great video man!
@ManuelGuzmanPhotography6 жыл бұрын
Great video, Joe. This was surprisingly informative and a real pleasure to watch. Subbed.
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Thanks dude, I really appreciate it! Just checked out your channel as well, got some really good stuff on there.
@brycepinson86414 жыл бұрын
ultramax used to be marked as "Gold 400". They changed it to "Max 400" and later "Ultramax 400" just to make things obvious for consumers as you said... I prefer gold/ultramax to Portra. I wish they made it in 120 and sheet sizes.
@lorenlloyd1826 жыл бұрын
Hey Joe, great video! Would love to see you review my favorite (Fuji C200) sometime...
@paolocirillo55835 жыл бұрын
Hey what's background music?
@filmfocused97595 жыл бұрын
The mix is called "Beats to Sleep to" link to the artists Soundcloud is in the description. His name is Stzzzy. Cheers!
@nicolasbagatello5 жыл бұрын
great video and great channel! keep it up. Cheers from Argentina
@charliipresley11 ай бұрын
Love these prices!…I’m buying Portra 400 all day everyday at $7.50 a roll!!!!
@enrimt4 жыл бұрын
Excellent video
@turdledive9272 жыл бұрын
Dude these prices
@lucas34174 ай бұрын
Watching in 2024 what the hell are those prices
@mynciee6 жыл бұрын
Good shit bud. Earned a sub outta me -- keep the GREAT work coming
@AeonGotBeats4 жыл бұрын
Have been using Lightroom for over 10 years and did not know you could change filmstrip colors. Mind blown
@djdrh6 жыл бұрын
exactly the way i'm going, my portra films are on the way.
@dominicmcclarey44816 жыл бұрын
Cool video, nice style. I liked your explanation re. grain structure and your comments on choosing a film best suited to how your workflow is evolving...this is an antidote to so much inaccurate and misguided comment on the YT - with regard to analogue especially - so out here in KZbin land we appreciate someone who can give some meaningful and helpful advice and comments, thank you very much FF ;-)
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
You're very welcome, and thank you too Dominic! I really appreciate the kind words.That's the exact reason why I started this channel. Hoping to make a positive impact on the photographic community through YT, especially those interested in film photography. Cheers!
@Verde884 жыл бұрын
In Switzerland it costs around 10 usd for a roll of Ultramax...
@CyrilViXP6 жыл бұрын
I'm sorry, but there is no silver at all in developed color negative, so there are no 'silver particles' which are organically shaped. Kodak Gold evolved from Kodacolor VR, which has tabular grains, so, I guess, Gold is also tabular.
@certs7435 жыл бұрын
I agree with the second part but the first bit makes no sense. Sure colour film uses dyes but it is the same silver grain as B&W with colour dyes added. That is why you can develop Kodak Gold and other colour films in B&W chemistry like D-76 and get a black and white negative.
@michelleliu4203 жыл бұрын
watching this in 2021. How tf was a roll $3-$4 lol
@rosetta-stxned4 жыл бұрын
dang i wish portra was still $37 for a 5 pack
@santiagogranobles2 жыл бұрын
Damn, good times when film was under $10
@ОстапБендер-е8о4 жыл бұрын
I like pictures from both film. But may be prefer Kodak Gold.
@MinhNguyen-sc1cg6 жыл бұрын
what a hair !
@superultrafabulous5 жыл бұрын
Gold 200 and UltraMax are rather different emulsions. UltraMax is a T-Grain film whereas Gold has the traditional grain. UltraMax has the greatest dynamic range of the consumer films and borrows technology from the Portra line but it’s not quite Portra or 400H for that matter. Pro Image 100 is similar to Gold except that it has neutral skintones; Gold is too yellow for people of color.
@stevensko55863 жыл бұрын
7.50 $ dream today ..
@spieler440 Жыл бұрын
Hard to believe film was that cheap just a few years ago 🤣
@Xenonic24 жыл бұрын
Okay you introduced yourself as Joe and I was like, “alright Joe thanks for the intro.” But then you played CALL ME BY 90’s Flav in the background?! Subscribed in an instant.
@acidsnow59156 жыл бұрын
Portra does have a certain look to it that i love. But the kodak 200 is just so much cheaper
@DANVIIL6 жыл бұрын
Shooting with a point and shoot limits what you can get out of these films. I don't see why you would bother with Pro level films with a P&S. I shoot pro films on my medium format film cameras and when I'm using my quality glass on 35mm with cameras that can focus sharply and I can control exposure. For all P&S just shoot consumer grade film. Also, other than a little cropping and sharpening, I rarely manipulate film.
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Agreed, it's quite silly shooting pro film in such a cheap camera. I pretty much only shoot 6x7 when shooting film. My two other 35mm bodies are in storage and my L35AF is my only 35mm body on hand so I used what i had at the moment. My intention for this video was to create a non-scientific comparison with a common variable (a fun little point and shoot camera) to easily point out the differences between a pro grade film and a consumer film, especially for inexperienced photographers who don't know a lot about the similarities and differences. Cheers!
@mareksvrcina5279 Жыл бұрын
What? A single Kodak gold 200/135-36 costs around 12 dollars when converted from our currency. Now I feel like I am being robbed.
@fotomaxk62994 жыл бұрын
In Germany, in 2020 a roll of Portra 400 costs 11€😭 at least Kodak Gold is still 7,95€ for a 3pack.
@horatiueduard6 жыл бұрын
I buy my Kodak Portra from Amazon.
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
You're very brave haha If you live in the US like I do, It's actually cheaper and safer to buy from B&H or Adorama. At the time of this comment 35mm 5packs run for $48 and 120mm 5packs are $33 on amazon...on B&H they are $37 for 35mm and $31. You also get the reassurance that the films are handled/stored property and you won't get short dated film.
@ricdonato43285 жыл бұрын
Film Focused: When on Amazon check the seller, often I see it is Adorama, B&H, or other well known retailers. Thus they have a storefront on Amazon. Their cost difference was about zero, however being Amazon Prime I did not have to pay shipping.
@voyagersquaremuzika6 жыл бұрын
Gold 200 is a great film, it gives this real analogue charm , Ultramax is very close to that ,while Portra is an excellent film it does not have what these two film have at least for me! Why do you do color correction on analog photos? This does not make sense to me ,because then that photo loses that real charm and analog look and feel. I mostly fix the most basic things and that is the exposure and correct the horizon if needed and maybe the shadows and the highlights never color correct!
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your insight, I really appreciate it. Color correction is definitely taboo when it comes to shooting film. My short response would be: Consumer flatbed scanners are only sooooo accurate and 99% of the time (especially with scanning C41 film) you will end up with some form of color cast/noise due to the inferior sensors in the scanners. It's very difficult to get your initial scans absolutely perfect so, in my opinion, color correction is a necessary evil when it comes to editing scans. With that being said, if I were having a trustworthy professional lab develop/scan my film, I'm sure I would hardly do anything to my images.
@voyagersquaremuzika6 жыл бұрын
you're right ,in that case, yes
@michaelkaufmann75406 жыл бұрын
@@filmfocused9759 Hi, the question is whether you calibrate your scanner or not. If you don't calibrate the scanning device regularly (min. once a month), neither a consumer flatbed scanner nor a dedicated pro film scanner will produce accurate colors in the scanned images and you are again left with the need to color correct the images (hopefully on a color calibrated monitor). In addition, color negative film has an orange mask on the film; i.e. every scan will end up with a color cast that initially is not in the colors on the emulsion (unless you use a different scan software like SilverFast, which offers presets for a lot of film stocks to compensate for this masking; this software comes with a hefty price tag, but then it has its own driver for each scanner and the scanned results are up to 70% better than what can be achieved with EpsonScan). From my own experience I unfortunately have to say that none of the professional labs I tried (both here in Austria, where I'm located and at the US East coast) produced satisfactory scans--they all came back with a clear color cast (mostly towards green). Cheers, Michael
@filmfocused97596 жыл бұрын
@@michaelkaufmann7540 Thanks for the insight, I really appreciate it! The short answer is no, I haven't recalibrated my scanner in a few months (i usually do it a few times a year but I think I'll take your advice and start doing it every month) I'm surprised that you're a fan of SilverFast, just from my personal experience with the software, I didn't like using it at all. It's been almost two years since I've used it though, so I think I'll give it another go and see if I might be able to get better results than with Epsonscan. Flatbed scanners are notoriously bad with scanning 35mm but I really love the quality of my 6x7 scans...I only shoot 35mm for fun and probably won't print much of anything I shoot on 135 film. I do print a lot of my MF stuff however. But if I can get better 35mm scans maybe it'll become a part of my workflow. Thanks again, I'm going to recalibrate my scanner this weekend and open SilverFast back up and give it a go and see what I come up with. Cheers, Joe
@michaelkaufmann75406 жыл бұрын
@@filmfocused9759 Not really a "fan" of SilverFast (the software and GUI does have its quirks), but the results speak for themselves (especially what you can recover in shadows). Plus I can first scan a batch (24 images) in the scanner's raw format unattended, and then perform the edits later on (using SilverFast HDR Studio software--and don't get fooled by the name, it has nothing to do with HDR photos). I'm printing 11 x 16.5" quite a bit from the 35 mm scans without any problems (A3+ format in the metric world of the EU). The bad reputation of flatbed scanners for 35 mm is greatly due to the inability to adjust the focus plane; if you get this to work, they aren't bad at all (they cannot compete with drum scans or a Hasselblad Flextight scanner--but that's out of my financial range anyway).
@Lavi-Aemilia-Astori4 жыл бұрын
In Rome gold cost 6€ ultarmax cost 7€ and portra cost 14€
@jordanbrazinski82606 жыл бұрын
Very cool comparison...Gold seems to be what I'm looking for as far as the look it gives, especially in the yellows. But for professional, paid work, Portra wins hands down.
@Fe_lix3 жыл бұрын
7,50$ for a Portra, that was cheap when you compare to today x)
@iRumble14 жыл бұрын
i pay for a Gold 200, 8€ ^^ and u get a Portra for the same, wow!
@kasauerkrautimgulasch3 жыл бұрын
Wtf? for Gold 200 i pay 4,80€... Portro 400 is 12€.
@malman10803 жыл бұрын
How I know this is 2018: Portra sells for $7.50 a roll.
@Vik_ru5 жыл бұрын
Аппаратик классный!
@blackxthink5 жыл бұрын
Portra 400 is $15 in canada. :/
@joshmcdzz6925Ай бұрын
it's $35 CAD now
@yhangr6 жыл бұрын
There is actually no meaning in comparing poor, home made scans of different films. The scans are quite off. Both have terrible colors.
@noone-yx3fl4 жыл бұрын
honestly, correcting your film in computer afterwards seems idiotic. then shoot digital.