Portra 160VC or Ektar 100 for outdoor vacation pics?

Hello. I have both types of film in the freezer. I'll be going to Asia in about a week and will be shooting in a variety of lighting situations,

but mostly outdoor settings. Any recommendations on film choice (35mm)? All things being equal, I do like the extra speed offered by

the Portra but I'm not sure about general usage (as opposed to portraiture, as it was typically marketed). Thank you.

<p>If flesh tones matter, use the Portra. I think Portra 160VC had a bit more contrast than 160NC, in addition to more saturation. (160NC is so flat you can need to add contrast in post-processing. But that's also a blessing -- means you get exposure latitude.)<br>

If you expect to shoot in open shade a lot, Ektar 100 will accurately render it as blue, since it's lit by blue sky. It is also high contrast, exposure accuracy counts.</p>

<p>There are times when I love Ektar and times when I hate it.<br>

Basically it works like this: if the scene has little colour and perhaps it's dull, or greyish, and I think I might just shoot it in B&W, then usually Ektar works miracles and adds colours where there were none before. Weird blues and reds and so on.<br>

On the other hand, if I find a scene that I like mostly for the colours, as they are, then Ektar always spoils it because it makes the red blue and the green purple and I don'w know what else.<br>

If in doubt, Portra is much like shooting RAW with digital: very neutral and you can photoshop as you want it with little effort.</p>

<p>If your shooting style is to tighten up, move close , head and shoulder shots, then Portra is the answer, because flesh tones become the priority. </p>

<p>For vacation snapshots, not sure if makes any difference. But you can definitely use Portra for just about anything you want to. Back when I shot more film, I was frustrated that the consumer color negative films (Fuji Superia for example) were too contrasty, especially for people pictures. So I stocked up on Portra 400 and used it for just about everything. Portra VC more contrasty than Portra NC but probably still less contrasty than the Ektar. Keep in mind that with a lower-contrast film, you can always boost the contrast in printing or Photoshop, where it's not as easy to do the opposite.</p>

I use both Portra and Ektar, in 4x5 and 645. I use both Portra and Ektar, in 4x5 and 645. I like Fujicolor Pro 160S too, it's more like Ektar in color balance (favoring blues and greens). My choice of films has more to do with time of day and whether I want a warmer or cooler renditon, much like the old Kodachrome v. Ektachrome decision.

 

As someone who for decades used only slide films like Kodachrome, Velvia, and Astia, any neg film--even Ektar-- is worlds simpler by comparision, having a lot more latitude and dynamic range than any slide film. Ektar holds about 12 stops and Portra 14 stops. (Ektar is also just 2/3 the price of new Portra these days.)

 

Portra has an almost giddy amount of latitude and dynamic range, and very little reciprocity failure at long exposures, so one really has to work at it to louse up an exposure. Incidence metering is just fine.

 

Ektar, exposure had better be very close to where you want to be in shadows, so spot metering is a better choice.

<p>I don't think Ektar can be beat outdoors, at least not for me. I like its high contrast and saturation, as well its very high resolution, and find that it does a pretty respectable job of skin tones, although obviously not as good as Portra does.</p>

<p>If I were you, I'd take both types of film, say 2/3 Ektar and 1/3 Portra, or 3/4 and 1/4.</p>