Kodak Ektar 100 VS Portra 160 - What's The Difference? 

Ive seen plenty of portra 160 and to me looks like your scans have gone horrible wrong. I've never seen such orangy-magenta cast on everything

thanks for taking the time to make the comparison Max! wonder if you'd be alright to make some of the side by side comparison shots available for download so we could have a closer look? much appreciated.

Thank you for testing and comparing these film stocks. I like the tone of the portra, it’s a bit warmer and the grain provides a slight haze, whereas ektar seems more clear and more neutral in tone. I actually think that the portra is better to mimic golden hour and ektar is better if you want to reduce warmth 🤔

Ektar is def a more saturated film, but this is not seen in some your images. The magenta can be addressed in scanning. What iso did you use for both? What was the scanning? they should both be shot at 100 & the some of the porta look almost underexposed like @04:35.

Shot some portrait with Ektar 100 in summer during day. Very nice colors in in-direct light. Nice contrast too

a great video, but for my reason for watching, almost there, how about the highlights?, and glare rendering, I used a fuji pro 400 in some river side archatecture (120 roll film) and got terrible glare, so switched to a lower asa, and this is one thing about this, how do they both do with reflections and glare?, but knowing that ektar pops colours, fantastic, do great for leaves on the ground, or the colours of buildings and glass as well as "graffiti" on brickwork.

Did you scan these yourselves? If these films were scanned at a lab, they could have programmed their scanner software to handle the film based on the profile for Ektar or Portra. I have been scanning film myself, both with a film scanner and by using a macro lens, and they all ended up very different. The differences could easily dwarf the comparison shown here.

“You can use it for travel if you’re rich.” Hahahaha

The dynamic range looked significantly better on the Ektar vs the portra..? There’s way more detail in the shadows of the Ektar.

What's the difference? Pink Dust. If you've shot Portra 160 you exactly what I'm talking about.

It's simply not the same. You are compairing apples with tomatos. Portra means made for portraits: Fine skin tones and so on. Ektar is made for nature, landscape and so on with strong colours. Sorry. You may conpare Portra with Fuji industrial (which sadly does not exist anymore 😢) Smooth colours, great skin tones and so on. Anyway... thanks for yr video.

Ok, I've come to the conclusion that there must be an incentive of some sort to have bloody annoying plink plink piano music playing in the background in film photography videos, cos they all have it

Portra is too soft for cloudy days

I shot hundreds of ektar and portra rolls. This is not how they look like. Portra seems underexposed, then pushed in developing or maybe scaning.

Those portra images are underexposed. The ektar were well exposed

The grading on your vid and the scanning or printing is just too out to give an opinion. Need to do these tests as technically accurate as possible otherwise you just wasting your time. I have shots hundreds of rolls of Portra 160 and none looked this bad.