Neither of both is my choice. I would use Kodak Gold film instead. Less expensive, less hyped but delivers about the same or even better color quality.
treacle wrote:
Film is expensive!
I would like to buy a pro pack of Portra but I can't decide which one, 160 or 400.
Which do you prefer and why?
Thanks
I would choose 160 for 135 format because 400 has too much grain (unless excessive grain is desired outcome) and 800 for 120 format because even 400 is limiting handheld shooting. Tried Gold in both 135 and 120 formats as cheaper alternative, but that proved to me why Portra is more expensive: colors are much better and require almost no post comparing to Gold that required a lot of post to get it where I started to like it.
If you can process on your own, where I live I can buy Vision 3 AHU stocks two times cheaper than Portra line, so probably you can find similar deals locally. It’s better than Gold color-vise, basically Portra pro-level and cheaper than Gold. But for best results should be processed in ECN-2. AHU version can be cross-processed in C-41, but the results won’t be so refined as with native process.
I was able to order individual rolls from Midwest Camera in Ohio so I ordered 2 of each film stock in 35mm. I just didn't want to have 10 rolls of film sitting around expiring since I don't shoot film much.
I used to process my own color film in the 70's but at this point I would send it all out for processing.
I use 800 the most, then 160. 800 has a lot of flexibility for me as an all-around film, but I do like 160 on occasion for just how natural it looks. Don't shoot much 400, now that I think about it.
Would have been helpful to get any info on subject matter, lighting conditions, handheld vs tripod, or even whether it’s about 120 or 35mm (okay we know now that the question was about 35mm..)
I’m also increasingly using Portra 800 over 400 and 160, in both 35mm and 120. But I also ordered some fresh 400 in 120 because I want to be able to shoot at wider apertures without using an ND filter (in the shade or golden hour).
Used 160 quite a bit last year for landscapes. But actually think it’s not really better than 400 for this application - 160 has less grain but 400 is sharper imo and less prone to go cyan in the highlights / blues.
I typically shoot 160 at ISO 100/125 and you can run out of light for hand-holdable shutter speeds fast. Or you have to open up the aperture and then you run out of DOF.. 400/800 are much more flexibel, but of course you can’t shoot wide-open in bright sunlight then, unless using an ND filter.
Jokes aside though - it all depends on whether you need the higher ISO, and whether you prefer the colors of the 160 (a bit more soft, pastel-like) or the 400 (more saturated, bold, in a nutshell).
Both are high quality films, you need to figure out what it is you like / need.
What format? 135, 120, large? Lower light or daytime?
Of the two I'd tend to go 400 on 120 and 160 on 135, purely for the shutter speeds. The look is almost the same, I do like 160 a bit more but they are very similar. I actually prefer Portra 800 out of the lot but if cost is an issue there are other options, as others said. Gold (not a fan), 400D (nice film but the colours are different).
Also, do you scan yourself or send it to a lab? If you scan yourself just pick the ISO that works for you and the rest can be made to look like anything.
panos.v wrote
Also, do you scan yourself or send it to a lab? If you scan yourself just pick the ISO that works for you and the rest can be made to look like anything.
