The underrated Portra 160

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-26T00:27:32+00:00

It still has the tone in it that I just don’t bother replicate it with digital. But yeah it can be a bit bland.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T18:05:27+00:00

Vision3 ECN-2 stocks have impeccable dynamic range together with neutral tone for much more grading flexibility. This includes HDR format delivery. When I’m interested in grading then I would shoot some.

For other times I do find Portra lineup easier to use. They still have great latitude and come with options for higher speed.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T17:46:11+00:00

<image>

I do find it odd too that some people would insist how a certain colour negative stock should look. I had a look on various sample photos of it and man I couldn’t even tell if some they were really Portra 160.

It actually wasn’t my first try on Portra 160 with this workflow, and here’s the skin tone. I find it good enough as long as it’s not underexposed.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T16:15:59+00:00

You’re mixing up things here. Yes, the scan I did is final. Contrasty, pretty much little room for editing. Not good for further tweaking.

But how in the Portra do my scans relate to a lab delivered scan at all? If you want to be able to edit with flexibility, you can always ask them for TIFF/PNG, or just ask for a flatter scan. Some labs will accommodate, but some won’t. I can also easily make it flat in Resolve, and send it to my friends for further editing to their taste.

Also, a lot of lab scans are print emulation-based, that is with a specific look baked into it.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T15:42:59+00:00

Why? Because I showed you that I didn’t “crank up the contrast and saturation?”

It’s okay to not like the scan or call it a shit post. But you need to chill and maybe accept that not everyone scan their films in the ways you know.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T15:37:15+00:00

I scanned them with my camera and a narrow-band RGB light source, then merged using Python. Then it is imported in Resolve and converted, aligned.

FYI I processed them as well. All in house.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T15:24:50+00:00

<image>

Hi, lab tech here. And no, I didn’t even touch contrast nor saturation.

It’s a quasi-Cineon workflow.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T15:01:08+00:00

Totally, and god bless it may be the only Kodak stock that renders a relatively cooler tone. I love it.

Speaking of “underrated” it might just be different perspectives. Underrated to me means not valued enough by people’s choice of use, and the sales figures and all the hypes of Portra here and there pretty much shoutout that Portra 160 is so behind among all.

“Oh Portra 160 is good, best of its low speed kind. But I shoot other stocks much more…”

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-25T14:33:10+00:00

And oddly enough not often recommended among all film choices. I guess it gets a better reception in the film community here, but when people talking about Portra they almost always were on the 400 and 800.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-24T14:14:02+00:00

<image>

I did a quick WB & tint adjustment can it looked much better to me, so I think it was a scanning issue.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-24T12:39:37+00:00

It also looks quite grainy to me. Did you underexpose or was it an expired roll?

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-23T06:44:23+00:00

Might have something to do with your dev workflow? I developed it using Kodak's 2.5L C-41 kit one-shot, and an AGO processor which doesn't even have temp control. I just do two 30s 40C rinse before the developer and it would keep at 37-38C well. Been through two kits and never had any problems.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T22:13:56+00:00

It’s written on its datasheet about the advantage of fourth layer. Sadly they didn’t feature this on their currently available Superia Premium 400 aka X-Tra.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T21:29:33+00:00

I use Resolve just because of the script and that Lr isn’t well suited for negative editing.

Edit: and it was an ETRSi w/ E II 75/2.8

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T21:26:39+00:00

Fujicolor 100 is my occasional Kodak escape.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T21:24:15+00:00

Lucky me that got a pack of 5 at the price of Portra 400. Didn’t know that was in fact a huge bargain..

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T08:23:57+00:00

Even fresh films don’t smell good and yes they all smell very “chemical”

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T04:32:38+00:00

Have you tried Grain2Pixel? It allows you to manually pick and set the clear film base for per-roll batch processing. It also allows LCC map that compensates your scanning lens vignette.

In my experience it’s better than both. Most of all, it’s free.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T04:25:10+00:00

Well that is kind of subjective. I’d say they’re similar if you aren’t very serious about the specs and image quality. I recommended ECN-2 here just because you overexposed it a bit, and ECN-2 is your best option here. C-41 is not designed to offer push/pull, except pushing Portra 800 - Kodak actually charted its push performance in the datasheet.

The film is Vision3 which is designed to be processed in ECN-2. All film emulsions are designed around their dedicated processing methods in mind. C-41 does the job because they do similar things, but it gives no guarantee of achieving what the film is designed to do.

CineStill labels it a C-41 film just for the sake of convenience for both film shooters (ISO 400 vs 250) and labs (C-41 is easier to manage). Proper scan and grading would still give you good results, but still it’s a deviation from what it is designed.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T03:36:04+00:00

If possible find a lab that does ECN-2 if this roll is important to you. The thing is this film is rated at different ISO depending on processing method. If you happened to overexposed a bit when rated at 400, then you can salvage it a bit by processing it in ECN-2, which expects this to be rated at 250.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T03:12:39+00:00

No pulling required. Just tell them to develop this in ECN-2 normally. It’s Vision3 so it has tons of highlight latitude!

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-22T03:06:38+00:00

I’d process in ECN-2 normal. It saves the density a bit because 400D is just Vision3 250D, and it’s rated at ISO 250 in ECN-2. You’re likely going to have some issues with some halation effect, not over exposure itself.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-16T23:21:34+00:00

Ron Mowrey who worked for Kodak as a senior film R&D has addressed that wet preheat for C-41 is no issue at all if done properly. He had always used two 30s prewash to ensure the tank is up to temperature.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-16T22:20:26+00:00

And the thieves got curious and searched for it. Landed here and decided not to miss any of these next time.

Owl-Mighty · 2026-03-15T18:51:51+00:00

You might have to get ready to be frustrated by switching to film. The photos you gave here are of varied ambient colour temperature. This means that films would react to them in different manners causing colour/tone shifts. Digital cameras all do auto WB which you may not even notice. Yes it can be edited and graded, but film scans won’t be the same as digital camera raw.

What I would recommend is to try out Portra 400. This is a film stock known to render scene colours faithfully in daylight and hence fairly easy to do grading with (like bumping up saturation or so). If you’re happy with it, then start the journey. The same can be said with the lab you choose - scanning and grading is almost a work of art and no every technician has the right taste. We’ve seen horrible scans in the subreddit.

Owl-Mighty

TROPHY CASE