{"id":22132,"date":"2019-06-22T11:37:09","date_gmt":"2019-06-22T18:37:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wkoopmans.ca\/notebook\/?p=22132"},"modified":"2019-06-22T11:37:13","modified_gmt":"2019-06-22T18:37:13","slug":"portra-160","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wkoopmans.ca\/notebook\/?p=22132","title":{"rendered":"Portra 160"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Back in 2011 Kodak updated Portra 160 using the technologies from their motion picture Vision films.\u00a0 While Portra 160 does have a finer grain structure than Portra 400 they have it rated for sharpness even a tiny amount bellow Portra800. Its grain though falls between Portra 400 and Ektar 100 which is claimed to be the finest grained colour negative film ever.<\/p>\n

\"Portra160_scale1\"<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Given all this it should perform similar to Portra 400 but with a slightly lower sensitivity and perhaps every so slightly softer which may be why Kodak present it as a film ideal for portraiture.<\/p>\n

You can see that 160 and 400 have similarly shaped spectral curves that differ from Ektar 100. The images from Portra 160 & 400 emulsions properly exposed should therefore give similar results which is what I have found.<\/p>\n

\"Kodak_L1\"<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This is one of the reasons I gravitate towards Portra 400 rather than 160 I rarely find myself in a situation where there is just too much light to shoot 400.\u00a0 And given the abilities of these films to handle over exposure of several stops it just isn’t a problem shooting 400 speed film.\u00a0 Also with a hybrid film to digital workflow there is always the ability to make some adjustments.\u00a0 So while I do use Portra 160 from time to time as seen in the images below I prefer Portra 400 for its versatility.<\/p>\n

You can find more info around Kodak Alaris films here<\/p>\n

Kodak Alaris<\/p>\n\n\t\t