I've used Portra 400 for a few events, like weddings and such, but I do think Ektar looks amazing if you can get the light for it. I've used it for personal stuff like holidays, cars and my pets and the results are outstanding to my eye; much preferable to Portra 400. It's just not quite as flexible as Portra 400 I guess.
Shot many rolls of Ektar several years ago professionally. This new version has some of the warmth of the old E100S, while avoiding the super saturated look old E100VS. Seems better with skin tones now. Hopefully, will get some projects lined up in the next year, and try out the new film. My favourite of older chrome films was Fuji Astia 100.
This was a really good video. I appreciate it. A Kiev 60 just fell into my hands... I immediately bought cheap B&W to see if it works. And two rolls of Portra... 160 and 400. Now I want to head right back and get Ektar. Yes you were shooting a Contax but , regardless, the colors and details were SUPERB. Thanks again!
for ektar it really depends on the models skin tone so i feel like since shes fairly olive toned than it worked out but someone with more red pigmentation showing it would look kinda weird since it would make those reds pop out more
I'm just getting back into film photography, and I've shot some of both Ektar and Porta (specifically the 400)... I think I like Ektar a little better. Have you done a comparison between Ektar and Portra 160? I'd be interested in seeing that!
I feel like the difference on my cell phone was hard to see with the overexposed shots at the start, other than more contrast with Ektar, but then when you shot at box speed the differences jumped out. There were different colors all around, especially in the sky and the red of her lipstick. The one reason I don't shoot ektar very often is that the contrast can be really harsh when there are shadows on someone's face. New lesson for me from this video: I'll have to remember to just shoot Ektar at 50 when I'm worried about too much contrast! :)
Film stocks do different things when over exposed and by how much. We’re posting another video with Ektar next week with landscapes and the contrast is striking.
I shot several rolls of Ektar and many rolls of Portra. I've used a roll of 35mm ektar for a recent trip, where I shot some landscapes and it looked pretty good
I love shooting Ektar. It's my favorite color film. I don't shoot people often and haven't with Ektar and have heard people complain about skin tones, but these looked great. IDK.
That’s a big reason why we filmed this one - to show off Ektar next to a film that most people consider their favorite or go-to film. Ektar is gorgeous
So when you over exposed the backlit photos, was it just over exposed by one stop and meter for shadows? Pleasantly surprised by the ektar in the backlit photos but overall portra takes the cake.
Great video! Thanks. Ektar looks to have a little more contrast, tends towards aquamarine in blue sky and picks out reds. Anyone with a red-ish skin tone will have that enhanced. The Ektar enhances any blotches in the skin - compare the model's legs in the shots at 1:15. This can also be seen in the detail shot of the model's hand in the shot of the forearm tattoo at 1:53. Ektar is an amazing film but does need care. If the makeup artist knows that you are going to need to avoid reds and pinks in the skin (except where wanted) they can work with that. It would be a very poor choice for a sunburned caucasian or ruddy faced farmer (unless you re going for that Martin Parr look!) I wonder whether the additional Ektar contrast might not flatter anyone without perfect skin especially in direct light. I have seen beautiful portrait results from Ektar, but generally in soft light. Has anyone used much Ektar on darker skin tones? Has anyone used any filters (pro-mist etc) on Ektar?
Great video. Kodak Ektar is awesome. Lips can get over saturated sometimes. When shooting front lit, do you use the exact light metering reading or are you increasing the exposure?
Doing some research before buying an Ektar camera but it's such a toss up when looking at these. Does the Ektar 100 film consistently develop with very rich color contrast like in this video? Does it lean towards a cooler tone rather than warm? The portrait looks better overall to my eye but maybe he's just a great photographer!
I really love the results I’ve gotten when shooting Ektar! It can sometimes make faces a bit red depending on the skin tone, but that can be fixed in post nowadays
How do you shoot Portra 400, do you rate it at box speed or at 200? And Ektar, at 100? I’ve only shot Ektar once, and it gave me a kind of a reddish look.
I have tried 2-3 rolls of both. As I just restarted with film after 20 years I fell like a complete beginner, and untill now I have shot everything at the designated speed. For Ektar 100, I have experienced that some of the photos are among my favorites, while others are completely off and I can't even fix the in Lightroom - it just get worse (I am a beginner with Lightroom too). Portra400 seems to be more consistent for me and I love the tones.
Great comparison. Just a question about the first couple of shots. You said you exposed for the shadows and even added one stop because you rated the lightmeter at 200iso. Just to verify: you put the meter in the shade, which is set at 200 iso (for portra 400 and set this as middle grey?
Always prefer Ektar 100, since i am not a Fan of the pastel-like look from Portra 400, and i never shoot portraits, so my personal choice is clearly Ektar 100, which i buy from time to time into 135 (35mm) Format :)
Love Ektar so much. Definitely an underrated stock. I particular love shooting it at night. It calls for some long exposure times but results are banger
For people who don’t know what is box speed. I shoot digital. You said in backlit you shot 200 with 400 film does that mean it’s stop over exposed. If yes when you meter the shadows under her chin isn’t that also over exposing and will you blow out the highlights. Front lit box speed meant you expose the highlights at speed native to the film 400 is 400? Just making sure I’m getting this right because that contax with the Ektar some of the nicest photos I’ve ever seen.
Digital is way different than film. Where film (negative color film) typically needs to be over exposed - digital needs more of an exact or under exposed exposure. In digital, you will lose detail in the highlights so you want to make sure you have all your detail there where in film, your highlights hold way better. So when shooting backlit - you want to be exposing for detail in your shadows and the highlights retain their detail as well. Does that make sense?
I see lots of photographers shooting film outside of box speeds... bet they never seem to say how they are developing... same here... Ektar 100 shot at 50 great... but is it being developed at box speed or shot speed???
"Ektar" and "beautiful on skin tones" don´t usually go together in the same sentence but I really like your approach and your images. Ektar´s only downside for me is it´s price but otherwise I would shoot with it every day under the sun.
i'm surprised, but i liked most of the shot with ektar. Film that i ve shot once and didn't love the results, while i loved portra 400. Strange. That tells me that i need to give ektar another shot, and take portraits with it!
Ektar man it looks better skin tones were amazing colors were insanely good and the shadows looked very good too. So portra washed out the colors a little bit and highlights a little bit overexposed. I like ektar a lot because have a fine grain too so it makes it better for studio and for natural light too.
You're getting better results here with the Ektar imo. I think her skin tone looks more true to life than the portra, at least compared to this digital
i really love Ektar in 35mm. the extra sharpness goes a long way for prints. for medium format it matters less in my opinion, both films look amazing in 120!
I'm planning on shooting a model with darker complexion inside a cafè with very muted colors (grey, white, maybe some black) on ektar with my hasselblad. Any advice? I wanted to add some individual elements of colour to pop out but to keep the rest of the saturation at bay and take advantage of the fine grain.
Love your videos. I'm curious if you ever used the Contax N1 and if so, what do you think about the lenses? Are Carl Zeiss lenses comparable to the lenses for the 645 system?
Just looked it up... jesus it shoots 8000th of a second shutter? Wow. They're also dirt cheap. 150 bucks. If it's the same contax/yashica mount as the RTS, damn, seems like a no brainer.
@@urwholefamilydied Sadly the N series of cameras were the last cameras to bear the name before the brand was retired. The N series is not compatible with the C/Y mount and there no adapters available.
When shooting back-lit, yes. There’s a big difference. The reason is because your subject is significantly darker than the background if the light is behind the subject so you’re in Camera meter will end up under exposing your subject. The handheld meter is very helpful for this situation
my thoughts: back lit, the ektar looked doll compared with the portra, but in front lit it was the way around (although I think its not portra being doll, but rather ektar being extra saturated here). overall warmer skin friendlier tones on portra and more ektar with very blueish cold tones overcast. Also, overall, ektar was most of the times way sharper than portra! At times I wasnt sure if portra was poorly focused, thats how stark the comparison felt. In sum, gonna try my ektar by myself, just for the kicks and experience. But I do love portra for skins, gona be nice match
First person I've ever seen that's intentionally chosen to demonstrate skin tones using Ektar. As I suspected, there are a few photos where the inevitable "ektar rash" can be seen, but damn, it doesn't look bad at all. To the OP, can you tell me if or how much color correcting you had to do in post with her skin tones? Great video man. Glad to see someone going against the grain with that film stock. ❤️👍👏💪
unfortunately what you see in the video is not the raw ektar.. it's been heavily edited.. Ektar has alot of red in its shadows and from what I see, he's eliminated those shadows.. I hope people will be just show the unedited photos.. once you edit, you're no longer looking at a film comparison..
Develop normally. Rating your film at 200 is technically over exposing the film by one stop, giving it more light. That is mainly the case when shooting when the sun is behind your subject to give your subject enough light compared on the backdrop. You would push your film when you underexpose it make if you rated your film at 800, it would be under exposed by one stop and then you would push it in post.
Loved this one! As a long time P400 shooter, this has me excited to try Ektar! I actually prefer how punchy and vibrant the colors are in the Ektar! Thanks for all the education you put out there for film shooters!
For sure. A majority of people haven't shot with Ektar so we were hopping this would give people some inspiration to try it out in the places it works.
Ektar usually looks miles appart from portra 400. Never seen them look so similar. Provia vs portra would be cool. Provia has bonkers latitude. Like +4 is the sweet spot. Lol
I don’t know why most photography youtubers insist on using sharp/intrusive background music and distracting white backgrounds when they show the photos they’ve captured. Please use subtle, unobtrusive music and dark backgrounds when showing your pictures. Thank you in advance.
For me I’ll take a “consumer” film like Gold 200/400 or Fuji Superia over Portra or Ektar any day. They’re too clean and grainless, and both have odd colors to my eyes.
ektar really punches out and brings everything to life, portra is great for skin tones and neutrality but i found it flat and washed out for landscape and street photography
The film looked as I would expect it. to look. Portra has a somewhat pastel look versus the expected more saturated look of Ektar. I just hope you took that model to get something to eat. Goodness gracious.
You touch your models I see. Good rule of thumb to communicate what you want from them without touching them. The way you twisted her arm like that... was is something that could’ve easily been communicated verbally. As for the stocks, I prefer portra. But I shoot ektar as well. I like to think of ektar as the JPEG of film. It does not have much latitude for post editing. Wheras portra you can stretch pretty far if need be. Portra also handles much better when pushing & pulling. But indeed they are both terrific films to work with.
Why is that surprising? It's a public community website, all self published. This is also a film stock comparison, not their portfolio work. This guy is a good photographer
@@V0idFace fair enough. I just don't think most YT photographers are claiming to be great. They're just sharing their work and talking about film because it's fun
Keep your lame comments to yourself. The point of the video was to prompt people to explore film they possibly haven’t shot. Apologies you didn’t like the title.
Great video inspired me to shoot some rolls of ektar cheers
So glad to hear it!!
I've used Portra 400 for a few events, like weddings and such, but I do think Ektar looks amazing if you can get the light for it. I've used it for personal stuff like holidays, cars and my pets and the results are outstanding to my eye; much preferable to Portra 400. It's just not quite as flexible as Portra 400 I guess.
For me, Ektar knocked portra out of the park in this one, awesome colours, great stuff!
you blind as a bat. Portra clearly smacked Ektar off its high horse.
3:38 I really love portra for this.. the pastely colours are just so pleasing to the eye....
They’re both so great that’s hard to pick. I think I liked backlit Portra and front lit Ektar.
Shot many rolls of Ektar several years ago professionally. This new version has some of the warmth of the old E100S, while avoiding the super saturated look old E100VS. Seems better with skin tones now. Hopefully, will get some projects lined up in the next year, and try out the new film. My favourite of older chrome films was Fuji Astia 100.
Interesting comparison but I guess you mixed up the images at 2:10.
Beautiful composition, beautiful model and above all amazing shots!! I just dusted off my film cameras after 2 decades...missing that feel..
Most of the shots are overexposed and you're shooting with your sunglasses on..
haha
This was a really good video. I appreciate it. A Kiev 60 just fell into my hands... I immediately bought cheap B&W to see if it works. And two rolls of Portra... 160 and 400. Now I want to head right back and get Ektar. Yes you were shooting a Contax but , regardless, the colors and details were SUPERB. Thanks again!
i am a big fan of ektar, it s my favorite! i think skin tone is more manageable in the shades. beautifull film
It really is beautiful. Used it for some landscapes coming out in a future video and it is stunning.
@@FilmSupplyClub no doubt!! the blues are incedible
for ektar it really depends on the models skin tone so i feel like since shes fairly olive toned than it worked out but someone with more red pigmentation showing it would look kinda weird since it would make those reds pop out more
Totally agree a d great points!
2:11 isn't it the other way around?
I'm just getting back into film photography, and I've shot some of both Ektar and Porta (specifically the 400)... I think I like Ektar a little better. Have you done a comparison between Ektar and Portra 160? I'd be interested in seeing that!
I feel like the difference on my cell phone was hard to see with the overexposed shots at the start, other than more contrast with Ektar, but then when you shot at box speed the differences jumped out. There were different colors all around, especially in the sky and the red of her lipstick.
The one reason I don't shoot ektar very often is that the contrast can be really harsh when there are shadows on someone's face. New lesson for me from this video: I'll have to remember to just shoot Ektar at 50 when I'm worried about too much contrast! :)
Film stocks do different things when over exposed and by how much. We’re posting another video with Ektar next week with landscapes and the contrast is striking.
Two of my fav film stocks 🌸✨ love it.
Do you edit your photos in photoshop like skin retouch , etc... or is it just scanned?
Thank you
Love Portra but I'm sold on Ekar now. Never have used it before but will for my next shoot.
Ektar colors were poppin'!
Ektars colors and contrast are really nice when exposed to box speed. Nice deep shadows and curve to midtones.
I shot several rolls of Ektar and many rolls of Portra. I've used a roll of 35mm ektar for a recent trip, where I shot some landscapes and it looked pretty good
It’s stunning for landscapes. Next week’s video is showing Ektar landscapes
great to hear JMR as the backing track!
I love shooting Ektar. It's my favorite color film. I don't shoot people often and haven't with Ektar and have heard people complain about skin tones, but these looked great. IDK.
That’s a big reason why we filmed this one - to show off Ektar next to a film that most people consider their favorite or go-to film. Ektar is gorgeous
So when you over exposed the backlit photos, was it just over exposed by one stop and meter for shadows?
Pleasantly surprised by the ektar in the backlit photos but overall portra takes the cake.
Correct on how it was metered while back-lit
Great video, however shooting in this harsh light is not good.
Wow…. The Ektar looks incredible!
Great video! Thanks. Ektar looks to have a little more contrast, tends towards aquamarine in blue sky and picks out reds. Anyone with a red-ish skin tone will have that enhanced. The Ektar enhances any blotches in the skin - compare the model's legs in the shots at 1:15. This can also be seen in the detail shot of the model's hand in the shot of the forearm tattoo at 1:53. Ektar is an amazing film but does need care. If the makeup artist knows that you are going to need to avoid reds and pinks in the skin (except where wanted) they can work with that. It would be a very poor choice for a sunburned caucasian or ruddy faced farmer (unless you re going for that Martin Parr look!) I wonder whether the additional Ektar contrast might not flatter anyone without perfect skin especially in direct light. I have seen beautiful portrait results from Ektar, but generally in soft light. Has anyone used much Ektar on darker skin tones? Has anyone used any filters (pro-mist etc) on Ektar?
Great video. Kodak Ektar is awesome. Lips can get over saturated sometimes. When shooting front lit, do you use the exact light metering reading or are you increasing the exposure?
Thx so much! Glad you liked it. For front lit images, typically an exact reading.
Doing some research before buying an Ektar camera but it's such a toss up when looking at these. Does the Ektar 100 film consistently develop with very rich color contrast like in this video? Does it lean towards a cooler tone rather than warm? The portrait looks better overall to my eye but maybe he's just a great photographer!
I really love the results I’ve gotten when shooting Ektar! It can sometimes make faces a bit red depending on the skin tone, but that can be fixed in post nowadays
How do you shoot Portra 400, do you rate it at box speed or at 200? And Ektar, at 100? I’ve only shot Ektar once, and it gave me a kind of a reddish look.
Never mind, kept watching the video and you answer it. Thanks!
Ektar ektar is my go to film but I am new so I don’t have a lot of experience with portra 400
Since you're shooting the Ektar at half speed, does that imply this is a safe film to shoot at box speed and push +1 in development?
I have tried 2-3 rolls of both. As I just restarted with film after 20 years I fell like a complete beginner, and untill now I have shot everything at the designated speed.
For Ektar 100, I have experienced that some of the photos are among my favorites, while others are completely off and I can't even fix the in Lightroom - it just get worse (I am a beginner with Lightroom too). Portra400 seems to be more consistent for me and I love the tones.
Reds and greens are super saturated on ektar, I love it
Definitely some stronger saturation with Ektar.
Great comparison. Just a question about the first couple of shots. You said you exposed for the shadows and even added one stop because you rated the lightmeter at 200iso. Just to verify: you put the meter in the shade, which is set at 200 iso (for portra 400 and set this as middle grey?
Always prefer Ektar 100, since i am not a Fan of the pastel-like look from Portra 400, and i never shoot portraits, so my personal choice is clearly Ektar 100, which i buy from time to time into 135 (35mm) Format :)
When you metered for lowered ISO, did you still do your developing as normal at box speed?
Why do you have the Lumisphere on your Sekonic L358 in the in position rather than out when taking incidental light readings ?.
Love Ektar so much. Definitely an underrated stock. I particular love shooting it at night. It calls for some long exposure times but results are banger
For people who don’t know what is box speed. I shoot digital. You said in backlit you shot 200 with 400 film does that mean it’s stop over exposed. If yes when you meter the shadows under her chin isn’t that also over exposing and will you blow out the highlights. Front lit box speed meant you expose the highlights at speed native to the film 400 is 400? Just making sure I’m getting this right because that contax with the Ektar some of the nicest photos I’ve ever seen.
Digital is way different than film. Where film (negative color film) typically needs to be over exposed - digital needs more of an exact or under exposed exposure. In digital, you will lose detail in the highlights so you want to make sure you have all your detail there where in film, your highlights hold way better. So when shooting backlit - you want to be exposing for detail in your shadows and the highlights retain their detail as well. Does that make sense?
@@FilmSupplyClub that’s such a simple but clear explanation thanks! Now I know why all these wedding photographers using film expose for shadows.
Which film would be best for a shoot inside a museum from these two films? Thank You!!1
I see lots of photographers shooting film outside of box speeds... bet they never seem to say how they are developing... same here... Ektar 100 shot at 50 great... but is it being developed at box speed or shot speed???
wow, those ektar shots are stunning 👌🏼
It is a gorgeous film!
"Ektar" and "beautiful on skin tones" don´t usually go together in the same sentence but I really like your approach and your images. Ektar´s only downside for me is it´s price but otherwise I would shoot with it every day under the sun.
Thanks for making this video. I am planning to try film photography and this video is very helpful for my research.
i'm surprised, but i liked most of the shot with ektar. Film that i ve shot once and didn't love the results, while i loved portra 400. Strange. That tells me that i need to give ektar another shot, and take portraits with it!
Ektar man it looks better skin tones were amazing colors were insanely good and the shadows looked very good too. So portra washed out the colors a little bit and highlights a little bit overexposed. I like ektar a lot because have a fine grain too so it makes it better for studio and for natural light too.
Both are beautiful and both have their place! Thanks for leaving a comment.
greetings from Indonesia!
hello so can i ask? why u shot 1 pull from the box of speed?
You're getting better results here with the Ektar imo. I think her skin tone looks more true to life than the portra, at least compared to this digital
I prefer Ektar, esp for black and brown skin which all I shoot.
Fuji pro 400h also is great for that too
pro 400H was good for that....discontinued though unfortunately.
Totally agree with you. The Portra lines can lean a bit yellow on darker skin tones.
Can you suggest a website where I can send my 120 film to be developed
i really love Ektar in 35mm. the extra sharpness goes a long way for prints. for medium format it matters less in my opinion, both films look amazing in 120!
Totally agree. They each have their places.
I dont know why Ektar is getting so much hate! I love the tones and in i think it looks better IMO
Where's the model name?
I'm planning on shooting a model with darker complexion inside a cafè with very muted colors (grey, white, maybe some black) on ektar with my hasselblad. Any advice? I wanted to add some individual elements of colour to pop out but to keep the rest of the saturation at bay and take advantage of the fine grain.
Nice comparison. Thank you.
Love your videos. I'm curious if you ever used the Contax N1 and if so, what do you think about the lenses? Are Carl Zeiss lenses comparable to the lenses for the 645 system?
Just looked it up... jesus it shoots 8000th of a second shutter? Wow. They're also dirt cheap. 150 bucks. If it's the same contax/yashica mount as the RTS, damn, seems like a no brainer.
@@urwholefamilydied Sadly the N series of cameras were the last cameras to bear the name before the brand was retired. The N series is not compatible with the C/Y mount and there no adapters available.
thanks for the effort, it is helpful
Do you believe there is a big difference between using an In-Camera Light Meter that uses 'average' and 'spot' mode vs your something like Sekonik?
When shooting back-lit, yes. There’s a big difference. The reason is because your subject is significantly darker than the background if the light is behind the subject so you’re in Camera meter will end up under exposing your subject. The handheld meter is very helpful for this situation
@@FilmSupplyClub Could you get a comparable reading using the in camera spot meter in back lit situations?
my thoughts: back lit, the ektar looked doll compared with the portra, but in front lit it was the way around (although I think its not portra being doll, but rather ektar being extra saturated here). overall warmer skin friendlier tones on portra and more ektar with very blueish cold tones overcast. Also, overall, ektar was most of the times way sharper than portra! At times I wasnt sure if portra was poorly focused, thats how stark the comparison felt. In sum, gonna try my ektar by myself, just for the kicks and experience. But I do love portra for skins, gona be nice match
EKTAR !!
Do you really shoot with shades on? :D
They're prescription....
First person I've ever seen that's intentionally chosen to demonstrate skin tones using Ektar. As I suspected, there are a few photos where the inevitable "ektar rash" can be seen, but damn, it doesn't look bad at all. To the OP, can you tell me if or how much color correcting you had to do in post with her skin tones? Great video man. Glad to see someone going against the grain with that film stock. ❤️👍👏💪
unfortunately what you see in the video is not the raw ektar.. it's been heavily edited.. Ektar has alot of red in its shadows and from what I see, he's eliminated those shadows.. I hope people will be just show the unedited photos.. once you edit, you're no longer looking at a film comparison..
wow. gotta go and try some ektar !
I think our next video will make you want to try it even more! It's a rad film.
When you said you rate your porta 400 to iso 200. What would I tell my lab film to push 1 stop or just develop at box speed and not say anything????
Develop normally. Rating your film at 200 is technically over exposing the film by one stop, giving it more light. That is mainly the case when shooting when the sun is behind your subject to give your subject enough light compared on the backdrop.
You would push your film when you underexpose it make if you rated your film at 800, it would be under exposed by one stop and then you would push it in post.
@@FilmSupplyClub thank you and love your channel
Thanks tons. So glad to hear that!!
What's the song at 3:19?
Damn I didn't realise Ryan Reynolds started a film photography channel.
Ektar gets a lot of flak for shooting people, but I have found it to be from fine to really pretty. For me, I like it on darker skin tones.
let's see Portra 160 vs 400. Haven't seen a good skin tone test using the 160.
I don't think there is a big difference. Ektar seems to get more red in the skintones.
Loved this one! As a long time P400 shooter, this has me excited to try Ektar! I actually prefer how punchy and vibrant the colors are in the Ektar! Thanks for all the education you put out there for film shooters!
Ektar has become a favorite over here for landscapes and travel. It's beautiful.
Both have their place...
For sure. A majority of people haven't shot with Ektar so we were hopping this would give people some inspiration to try it out in the places it works.
Beautiful model. And mr Ryan Reynolds on the camera
Ektar usually looks miles appart from portra 400. Never seen them look so similar.
Provia vs portra would be cool. Provia has bonkers latitude. Like +4 is the sweet spot. Lol
I'm sure he did a lot of post. Ektar has a ton of range as well. Just gotta know what you're doing which I don't think a lot of UA-camrs do.
I am a big fan of Ektar. I think the colors are more rich.
There is definitely more saturation and contrast with the Ektar
I think the Portra would only look great for fashion photography and wedding photography. Ektar is an all around film
Shoutout to Heidi though
I don’t know why most photography youtubers insist on using sharp/intrusive background music and distracting white backgrounds when they show the photos they’ve captured.
Please use subtle, unobtrusive music and dark backgrounds when showing your pictures.
Thank you in advance.
Are the black borders on the sides of the video intentional? Doesn't look very pleasing.
Nope. Not sure why they showed up and rushed the upload.
@@FilmSupplyClub Well, liked the video a lot even with the borders, very interesting comparison.
Imagine watching a video about portra and ektar and then remembering that you can’t afford neither the first nor the second XD
Film is over rated anyway.....
👍👍👍
Ektar looks way nicer then portra
For me I’ll take a “consumer” film like Gold 200/400 or Fuji Superia over Portra or Ektar any day. They’re too clean and grainless, and both have odd colors to my eyes.
That’s the beauty of having different film stocks to choose between. If only we still had all the options there used to be.
ektar really punches out and brings everything to life, portra is great for skin tones and neutrality but i found it flat and washed out for landscape and street photography
I swear she looks like Sloane from Ferris Bueller's day off
The film looked as I would expect it. to look. Portra has a somewhat pastel look versus the expected more saturated look of Ektar. I just hope you took that model to get something to eat. Goodness gracious.
Just my opinion but the Portra images looked desaturated and dead.
You touch your models I see. Good rule of thumb to communicate what you want from them without touching them. The way you twisted her arm like that... was is something that could’ve easily been communicated verbally.
As for the stocks, I prefer portra. But I shoot ektar as well. I like to think of ektar as the JPEG of film. It does not have much latitude for post editing. Wheras portra you can stretch pretty far if need be. Portra also handles much better when pushing & pulling. But indeed they are both terrific films to work with.
Thanks Karen
@@Horse6L welcome dummy.
overexposed
It amazes me how many UA-cam photographers have work that can best be described as extremely “meh.”
Why is that surprising? It's a public community website, all self published. This is also a film stock comparison, not their portfolio work. This guy is a good photographer
@@4Dcruz from everything I’ve seen: he is not. He’s… _fine._ Just…fine.
@@V0idFace fair enough. I just don't think most YT photographers are claiming to be great. They're just sharing their work and talking about film because it's fun
Churr
Analog film UA-camrs need to quit these pointless “versus” videos.
Keep your lame comments to yourself. The point of the video was to prompt people to explore film they possibly haven’t shot. Apologies you didn’t like the title.