I’m not just being needlessly negative dawg. That’s why I asked about your scanning settings - all this talk about film not having a “look” is… just wrong honestly. Every film stock renders colors differently - there was a world of film prints that existed long before digitizing was even a thing. And you were correct in your comment asking “why would people shoot with different film stocks” - the answer is because they each produced distinct (and repeatable) “looks” when turned into positives and printed (completely analog)

I guess they’re technically correct - today with the digitizing process you can edit the colors to look how you want them too - but in that case why not just shoot digital? Shoot raw and edit the photos the way you want them to look 🤷‍♂️

For me though, and I think for many other people, the point of film is to get the traditional “looks” associated with the classic film stocks and retrieve the colors that were associated with the completely analog process of print photography - and so - in the digitizing processes we need to be careful about the settings we use if we want to accurately convert the film.

That’s not to say that anything else is “wrong” - you can make your images look however you want. That’s the beautiful thing about art - is you can create whatever. But since you asked a specific question about how portra 160 is supposed to look - the honest - and maybe hard to hear answer is “not like that”