Portra 400 vs. Pro 400H

I shoot with both. Why choose?

*shrug*

>>3085959
No preference at all?

>>3085962
I like the way greens render more with 400H, but Portra 400 is a tad sharper. Both are easy to scan, too.

I find myself shooting Velvia 100 more lately. It's a little pricier, but the results are worth it, IMO.

>>3085956
I've never shot portra. Pro 400H is amazing but in very specific situations. I think it's great for portraits with a lot of light. For general purpose it never impressed me.

Kodak neutered Portra when it combined the old NC and VC emulsions. The new stuff is bland. 400H has more character and is a prettier film overall.

sage because there's a dedicated film thread for this type of question

>>3085956

Provia 400x

>>3085956
400H gives soft, comfy pastel tones and less contrast. I really like it for cityscapes, but it doesn't fit everything. Portra is more of an all-rounder to go for when you need something idiot proof.

File: fujifilm-superia-premium-400.jpg (22KB, 340x197px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 340x197px

>>3085956
how about make it three comparation?

Portra 400 is $3-4 less expensive per roll than 400H. How?

>>3086409
Do you live in the us?

>>3086409
>>3086485
yeah it's the opposite in japan. kodak is a us company, fuji is japanese. theyre each cheaper in their respective domestic markets. for example a 5-pack of 120 portra 800 is ~$110 in japan, and only about ~$50 in america. and the 400 is about $50 in japan compared to $30 here.

Does portra400 make skin tones look good lit with flash?

I used to shoot both a lot. Both are great quality films but they are quite different. 400H feels a lot more modern with cooler blue/green tones that for me suit shooting in a city. Portra is warmer and a fairly good all rounder, but really excels in good natural light. I'd choose Portra over 400H just for the random magical results I get from it, but I think the choice should be more about the mood you want to create.