Portra 400 vs Ektar 100: Which is better?
If you’ve ever stood in front of a fridge full of film (yes folks, your film does need to be kept in the fridge), debating which roll to grab, you’re not alone. The Ektar vs. Portra debate is a classic one, and the answer really depends on what you’re shooting—and the vibe you’re chasing. Both are legendary in their own right, but they couldn’t be more different when it comes to colour, skin tones, and overall feel. So, let’s break it down.
A Little Backstory: Where Did These Films Come From?
Ektar 100 was introduced by Kodak in 2008, marketed as the world’s finest grain colour negative film. And they weren’t lying. This film is razor sharp, punchy, and made for colour lovers. This is the type of film you want to be packing for your Euro summer—believe me.
Portra 400, on the other hand, has been the go to for portrait photographers since Kodak launched it in 2010. It’s all about soft, true-to-life tones and an ultra versatile dynamic range. Whether you’re shooting in golden hour glow or a cloudy afternoon, Portra adapts, making skin look dreamy and colours feel natural.
How Do They Compare?
Colour & Saturation
Ektar 100 is all about bold, punchy colours. Blues are deep and reds are incredibly rich. It’s an absolute dream for landscapes, travel, and anything where you want a little extra drama. The downside? Those same vibrant tones can be a bit unforgiving on skin. It tends to make people look redder than they are—so if you’re doing portraits, you’ll need to tweak things in post.
Portra 400 is the GOAT of natural tones. Skin looks soft and flattering, shadows are gentle, and nothing ever feels too over-the-top. It’s warm but not too warm, soft but not washed out. This is why it’s the go to for weddings, editorial shoots, and anything with people in it.
Grain & Sharpness
Ektar 100 has insanely fine grain—seriously, you can blow up an Ektar shot into a huge print, and it’ll still look crisp. If you love detail, this is the one.
Portra 400 has more noticeable grain, but in the best way. It adds character without being distracting. It also means Portra is more forgiving if you need to push it in lower light.
Skin Tones & Portraits
If you’re shooting portraits, Portra 400 is hands-down the winner. Skin looks creamy, natural, and balanced. Ektar, while stunning in so many ways, can be a little too intense for skin—especially in direct sunlight.
But if you’re chasing that bold, vintage travel aesthetic, Ektar 100 is where it’s at. Think National Geographic colours, golden hues, and cinematic contrast.
So, Which One Should You Use?
If you’re after soft, natural skin tones, Portra 400 is your best bet. It’s forgiving, versatile, and perfect for portraits, weddings, maternity and any scenario where you want warmth without oversaturation.
If you want colours that pop, love contrast, and don’t mind a little extra tweaking in post, Ektar 100 is the way to go. It thrives in bright light, making it a dream for travel, landscapes, and street photography. Where I have shot Ektar with people in it, I honestly don’t mind a bit of oversaturation in the skin. I think it really depends on context, for me, when shooting in Europe with Ektar it totally made sense and I prefer the warmth in the skin. However, when I’m back in Australia, I tend to opt for Portra 400 when shooting people outdoors.
But here’s the thing— at the end of the day, there’s no right or wrong choice. I’ve shot entire rolls of Portra in golden-hour light, and the skin tones come out like velvet, with a dreamy warmth. On the flip side, I’ve taken Ektar 100 on road trips and been completely blown away by how it makes deep blue skies and lush green landscapes explode with colour. Both have a place in my camera bag, depending on what I’m chasing that day.
At the end of the day, film is about experimenting. If you’re still unsure, shoot a roll of each and compare. See how they render the world through your lens—because that’s the magic of 35mm. It’s personal, unpredictable, and a little bit of an adventure every time you press the shutter.