Kodark Portra vs Ektar - Medium Format Landscape Photography.

Chungle456

Suspended / Banned
Messages
96
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
Sorry if this has been asked a million times before! I'm looking to try my hand at some colour film photography and I'm wondering for anyone who has experience with both which of these film (Portra/ Ektar) you would pick for landscape photography? Apparently Portra is less contrasty and not as saturated as Ektar? Both look beautiful regardless.

Due to the insane pricing of Kodak these days I can only really afford to try one at the moment. (£14 for roll, £6 for development :grumpy:), so your opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Well I can't answer your question but bought quite a few rolls of 120 Ektar and 160 Portra from 7 dayshop when it was going cheap a few years ago and haven't used it yet.
Anyway side tracking a bit, was reading on the net (if true?) about the film situation and apparently there is no shortage of film in the US only Europe, then wondered what they paid and come across this:- and you can convert to £s https://www.analog.cafe/app/film-price-tracker ....well if American get higher wages/salaries compared to us and if their cost of living is cheaper....then to them film cost is much cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Although I mostly shoot B&W now, I have used both Portra and Ektar for landscape images in the past. I think Ektar is a bit more fussy - when it works well it looks great but when it goes wrong it can look awful. On the other hand Portra could be relied upon more strongly to allow the creation of an image I liked. Whilst Portra is less saturated than Ektar, you can add saturation and contrast in post processing. I'd start with Portra.
 
Seconding Kevin I prefer Portra (400 usually, for me) to Ektar for most "landscape" type uses... by this I mean, I'm going somewhere nice and want to take some pics, rather than your full-blown, up at 4am and yomp 8 miles over the moors for a sunrise type of landscape! A little bit of extra exposure seems to help with saturation, or indeed you can add it in post. All that said, some of my Ektar films have come out really well, and the colour can be quite special, although quite a few photos are strangely muddy. I suspect if you get it right, it's really lovely. Anyway, as Kevin says, I'd start with Portra (400).
 
Portra colours are a bit more pastel while ektar is a bit stronger, particularly towards the reds. Ektar is a great landscape film, moreso in the autumn. But both films have their place in landscape photography.
Something like Fuji NP160, if you can find it, is a lovely film too, a bit stronger on the greens.
 
Thanks for the replies! I'll take a trip to my local camera shop and pick up some Portra. :D
 
Something like Fuji NP160, if you can find it, is a lovely film too, a bit stronger on the greens.
..also if you could find 120 Fujifilm Pro 400h but expensive though.... I took some about 2007 expiry to the meet in Yorkshire a few years ago lovely film.
H0ayoj6.jpg
 
..also if you could find 120 Fujifilm Pro 400h but expensive though.... I took some about 2007 expiry to the meet in Yorkshire a few years ago lovely film.
H0ayoj6.jpg
Woohoo looking in my freezer and have 14 rolls of Fuji pro 400 H left. I'll have to start using the Bronica and Mamiya and shoot somewhere/something interesting.
 
I think RJ (@skysh4rk ) still has some 120 Pro 400H for sale in the classifieds for a very good price.
The link says 5 pack but only shows one at £17.50 ??????
 
The link says 5 pack but only shows one at £17.50 ??????

I mean this thread in the classifieds:

 
Back
Top