Fuji alternative to Portra 160 film?

[tribal-warrior]

I'm after a medium speed colour negative film (eg 100asa or 160asa) that is available in 120 format. Kodak Portra 160 is certainly popular these days for those folks who shoot film. However, Portra 160 tends to produce rather soft, pastel colours. I shoot a lot of landscapes / nature so I prefer more saturated colours. And according to some sources, Portra 160 seems to have limited latitude with regards to overexposure (which is unusual for a negative film.) And apparently, the colours turn out even softer with overexposure (which is definitely something I don't want.)

So just wondering if there is a negative film alternative from Fuji that provides more saturated colours and can handle a fair bit of overexposure? A google search has informed me that from the Fujicolor Pro line, Pro 160 S, Pro 160NS and Pro 160C films have been discontinued. Is there anything similar from Fuji that is still available?

Within Kodak's line of films, there is Ektar 100 which is supposedly the finest grained colour negative film. And it has nicely saturated colours which certainly appeals to me. Though from what Ive heard, the exposure latitude is even narrower than Portra 160.

 

[JoelM]

I use the Ektar 100 and have been pretty happy with it. Might at least be worth a try.

 

[tribal-warrior]

I use the Ektar 100 and have been pretty happy with it. Might at least be worth a try.

I have been checking out more samples and reviews of Ektar 100 and I'm liking what I see. When I first read early reports of Ektar 100, it sounded like the exposure latitude was really tight like a slide film and that it should ideally be rated at box speed. However, more recently, Ive seen some online tests that suggest that this film can handle a decent amount of overexposure. So it does look promising.

One of the things that I like to do is shoot long exposures of seascapes shortly after sunset. And with films like Fuji Velvia 50, I like that monochrome blue look that you get with those kinds of images. Ive checked out some online samples of Ektar 100 shot at twilight and I do see a similar kind of colour rendition which is good - nice and blue.

Kodak Ektar 100 Film Review — Josh Harmon Images

When it comes to landscapes analog photographers traditionally would choose slide film. Before the widespread availability of high resolution digital cameras slide film offered the highest fidelity of image quality. Fine grain, impressive resolving power, and colors that leap out at you are just a f

www.joshharmonimages.com

https://emulsive.org/articles/long-exposure-film-tests-part-three-kodak-professional-ektar-100-portra-160-portra-400-portra-800-and-fujifilm-pro-400h-by-toni-skokovic

In this youtube video, a guy is shooting Ektar 100 at the beach.

Near the end of the video at 3:54, he does a long exposure after sunset and the resulting image doesn't really gel with me. Not only am I not seeing much of the 'blue look' but the colours appear a little dull and unappealing. Judging by the exposure settings he mentions afterwards, I'm guessing he shot quite a while after sunset - likely later than I would be shooting that kind of stuff.

 

[JoelM]

Long exposure with color film (beyond reciprocity) never worked well. I always shot B&W for really long exposures, but perhaps you have a superior technique. Takes lots of experimentation.
Joel

 

[tribal-warrior]

I always shot B&W for really long exposures, but perhaps you have a superior technique. Takes lots of experimentation.
Joel

Maybe I had a bit of luck! Years ago, I used to do a fair bit of long exposure work by the ocean on colour film (including tranny film.) And I did get some nice results. I did try this sort of thing again not too long ago (on B&W film) and I found it really challenging this time around. It was after sunset as usual and the light was dropping at an usually fast rate. It seemed to drop by at least a stop or so during mid exposure which made things really awkward. I don't recall the light changing this fast when I used to do this kind of shooting years ago. I used to use tranny film for this but I'll play it safe now and use neg film and overexpose to compensate for the rapidly dropping light.

 

[Jmaaa]

As you mentioned yourself, there's no Fuji alternative unless you want to shoot slide film. The Kodak medium speed color films available in 120 are Portra 160, Ektar 100 and, as of recently, Gold 200. Gold 200 is pretty decent but it's noticeably warm which I suspect is not what you're after. Portra 160 is optimized for skin tones (although, let's face it, probably they mean white skin tones specifically) which accounts for the softer colors. Portra 400 is a bit more punchy and has a lot of latitude, so that's an option, but overexposure tends to reduce the contrast. That basically leaves Ektar 100. In my experience it tends to emphasize cyan and magenta a bit more than other films which is not good for portraits (makes caucasian skin look a bit too pink) but it's nice for landscape work. As for the picture in the video, you might be misled by the photographer's edit of the picture. He clearly went for a warm, yellowish tone which will mute the blues.

You haven't mentioned what your workflow is with film. Do you want to hand print the pictures in the darkroom? Do you scan the film yourself? Do you have the lab scan it? For darkroom printing I find that reduced contrast in the negative is a good thing when I'm printing on Kodak paper since it tends to be quite contrasty. Fuji (non-DP paper) is a bit less contrasty because they still have separate papers for digital and analog c-prints whereas Kodak's Endura paper is made for both types of printing.
If you're scanning it's really all about what scanner and what settings you use when scanning and editing the picture. There are lots of things that influence the look of the image. Negative film always needs to be inverted with some kind of interpretation to account for the orange base and there's no such thing as a "correct" interpretation.

Long story short, try Ektar 100 and Portra 400 and see if any of those work for you.

 

[tribal-warrior]

You haven't mentioned what your workflow is with film.

Like the majority of people who shoot colour negative film, I would be having my films scanned.

For darkroom printing I find that reduced contrast in the negative is a good thing when I'm printing on Kodak paper since it tends to be quite contrasty. Fuji (non-DP paper) is a bit less contrasty because they still have separate papers for digital and analog c-prints whereas Kodak's Endura paper is made for both types of printing.

Generally, I prefer Fuji paper for printing from digital files - especially when shooting winter images over here in South Australia. In SA, the grass is green in winter. I don't like the way green is rendered with Kodak paper.

Long story short, try Ektar 100 and Portra 400 and see if any of those work for you.

For the time being, I'm in need of a medium speed film with fine grain so Ektar 100 should fit the bill. I would like to try Portra 400 later down the track for other projects.