With the "hype" that surrounds Portra 400 I've found myself actively straying away, the instragram tax can be pretty steep sometimes. I like shooting with Portra 160 as an alternative to like Superia 200 but really I think the bigger "competitor" in my fridge is Ektar which I love to death so a lot of situations I may shoot with Portra 160 I'd shoot with Ektar instead. However I've been pushing Portra 160 to 400 and have gotten just fine results with it
Kodak 160's my go-to film, and that's why I watched your video. I didn't know about Kodak's technical data. Kodak 160, to my eyes, had great skin tones and fine grain. It was good to hear your conclusion regarding Kodak 160. I agree with you.
back in the day when I shot film exclusively because that's all there was, when I did portraits my go-to film was Kodak VPS 160. I rated it at 80 and got excellent results. A really beautiful film. I'm getting back into film and I got some rolls of Kodak Portra 160. Haven't used it yet. Not sure whether I should rate it at 160 or 100. Under studio strobes I don't need a 400 speed film but wouldn't shy away from using it.
Portra 160 is a better choice for people shooting older rangefinder cameras that have a top shutter speed or 1/500. It means you can shoot in sunny conditions around f8 or f11 instead of f16 or f22 if you used Portra 400
I like it a lot more than 400, and my only real complaint about it is that 160 is too desaturated for me these days. I rarely get results I like with Portra 400, and if I have to shoot it at 200 to make it look good, I'd rather just shoot Gold , 160, or Ektar. I do like the stuff I get when shooting 160 on 8x10, but I usually just wish it were more saturated when I shoot it on rolls. But ... it's been a while, so maybe I should give it another go.
You are definitely not wrong about gold. I have recently put a few rolls of Gold through my G1 and I have been in love with the look. I can’t wait to try some in 120. You are right about Ektar too. Great stuff! Thanks for watching!
@@Overexposed1 Ohh, Gold 120 is AMAZING. It's become my go-to 120 film, really. Fine enough grain, but punchier colors with a bit more contrast. And you're welcome! I've definitely subscribed.
I like 160 to put in my contax t2 because it has max 1/500 shutter speed and faster speeda tend to blow out shots if taken with flash or during the day
Portra 160 is my favorite color negative stock in 35mm. It scans beautifully for me, the grain is fine, and it's very easy to work with in post.
I love the stuff too. Love the fine grain structure and color reproduction. It’s really great!
With the "hype" that surrounds Portra 400 I've found myself actively straying away, the instragram tax can be pretty steep sometimes. I like shooting with Portra 160 as an alternative to like Superia 200 but really I think the bigger "competitor" in my fridge is Ektar which I love to death so a lot of situations I may shoot with Portra 160 I'd shoot with Ektar instead. However I've been pushing Portra 160 to 400 and have gotten just fine results with it
Kodak 160's my go-to film, and that's why I watched your video. I didn't know about Kodak's technical data. Kodak 160, to my eyes, had great skin tones and fine grain. It was good to hear your conclusion regarding Kodak 160. I agree with you.
back in the day when I shot film exclusively because that's all there was, when I did portraits my go-to film was Kodak VPS 160. I rated it at 80 and got excellent results. A really beautiful film. I'm getting back into film and I got some rolls of Kodak Portra 160. Haven't used it yet. Not sure whether I should rate it at 160 or 100. Under studio strobes I don't need a 400 speed film but wouldn't shy away from using it.
I love portra 160. My prettiest pictures were taken on portra 160 and its just such a beautiful and easy to use film
Portra 160 is a better choice for people shooting older rangefinder cameras that have a top shutter speed or 1/500. It means you can shoot in sunny conditions around f8 or f11 instead of f16 or f22 if you used Portra 400
I honestly prefer it to 400. It’s great stuff!
I definitely agree with this statement.
Portra 160 is great, just make sure you have light and a fast lens.
I like it a lot more than 400, and my only real complaint about it is that 160 is too desaturated for me these days. I rarely get results I like with Portra 400, and if I have to shoot it at 200 to make it look good, I'd rather just shoot Gold , 160, or Ektar. I do like the stuff I get when shooting 160 on 8x10, but I usually just wish it were more saturated when I shoot it on rolls. But ... it's been a while, so maybe I should give it another go.
You are definitely not wrong about gold. I have recently put a few rolls of Gold through my G1 and I have been in love with the look. I can’t wait to try some in 120. You are right about Ektar too. Great stuff! Thanks for watching!
@@Overexposed1 Ohh, Gold 120 is AMAZING. It's become my go-to 120 film, really. Fine enough grain, but punchier colors with a bit more contrast. And you're welcome! I've definitely subscribed.
Good said.
Portra 160 is great, but it needs a lot of light. Anything but and the results can be particularly washed out.
I like 160 to put in my contax t2 because it has max 1/500 shutter speed and faster speeda tend to blow out shots if taken with flash or during the day
On some of these cameras it can be hard to scrub the extra speed. Exactly right!
Portra 160 is constantly out of stock in aus. Whereas 400 is everywhere
That’s so bizarre. Exact opposite here 🙃
shhhhhh if everyone thinks it's good Kodak will start charging Portra 400 prices for it.😉
I love the stuff! My favorite film!
Portra 800 really sucks
It’s very odd. That’s for sure. I don’t love the colors
Portra 800 is king!
I prefer Lomography 800.
@@s0972821 lomo 800 is great too.