Portra 160 or 400?

P

puggie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
889
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
Yes
How much difference is there? I am going to a wedding in a couple of months and will be wanting something nice to take piccies with (EOS1 if I'm feeling strong, Pentax MX if not :)). What is the difference between these two films and which would you run with? I keep thinking ISO-400 will be grainy but I havn't shot with either so really don't know. On the flip side ISO-160 will not give me much to go on in church as I doubt I'll take a flash (how good are they indoors with artificial lighting/flash).

Thanks
 
The 400 is very fine grain for ISO 400, in one review of it in Amateur Photographer, the writer claimed that he had seen ISO 100 films with more grain and after using the film I have to agree. Even underexposing 2 stops by exposing at ISO 1600 with normal processing hardly increases the grain or detail in shadows, it is a truly amazing film. I've not finished my 160 roll yet but that apparently has the same exposure characteristics and is even finer grain. The 400 version worked fine with flash for me.

Personally I would go with the 400 version if your indoors in a church, if your not using flash then it'll likely make the difference between getting the shot or not and the grain is quite fine. Make sure that you get it processed somewhere good though as its not unknown for high street labs using overused or poorly temperature regulated chemicals to ruin the excellent characteristics of films like this.
 
Pretty much all Kodak ISO 400 emulsions are extremely fine grained, even Tri-X isn't that grainy (unless you develop specifically for it).
 
Depends how big your prints will be, 400 will be more flexible, 160 will be better for big prints.
 
I suspect it will be 5X7s, I can't see me going more than 8X10 really, unless I capture something truly amazing that someone wants :) then maybe a 10X16 but they are getting a decent pro tog in for the wedding piccies I'm merely a family snapper for the day.

I'll probably get a couple of rolls of 160 and 400, then maybe try a 800 for in the church. I'll run a 400 off before hand and see how it comes out, test it for under and over exposure and try some truly awful mixed lighting :).
 
I wouldn't bother getting the 800 as well, the 400 works just as well, if not better if you simply underexpose it a stop like I said above; it uses newer technology to the 800 version which has substantially reduced the grain over the previous Portra 400. The increase in grain with the small underexposure is so small that unless you were looking at hugh prints it would be extremely difficult to tell the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top