Your favorite C41 color film

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My favourite general purpose film is Kodak Ultra/max 400. Best good light film is Ektar 100. Ekta 100 is the best resolution film (C41) I have ever used.

As you can tell, I like contrast and bold colours

I find the 200 films, like Kodak Gold 200 are less contrasty. I also find Portra less contrasty, particularly the 160.

If I have to use ISO 200, I would use Kodak Gold.

I find 200 an uncomfortable mid-ground. They don't have the resolution of the 100 films but not really enough low light potential like 400 or 800.

If I need 800, Portra 800 is the way to go. Its great for low light.

The price for Ektar and Porta 800 is a bit barmy these days. 

I used to use Fujifilm 400, until they raised the prices a few years ago. It also has bold colours, although Kodak bolds tend to be more red, whereas I found Fujifilm more green (very slight BTW, both have balanced colours). I also though the Fujifilm was slightly less contrasty.

I have used many other film brands, but for resolution and noise performance I think Kodak and Fujifilm are the best C41 films.

Economy is definitely one objective. From Kodak UltraMax 400 through to developing to high res jpg I am at around 70p per exposure.

Edited August 14 by colonel

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lazyhusky]

For everyday and versatility definitely Porta 400. This film is just so forgiving and offer a decent speed (these days anyway).

But Fuji Pro 400H is definitely my favourite. However, this film likes a lot of light and therefore works better in more controlled environment. I find underexposures always comes with colour tints.

[pgh]

Portra.

To me there just isn't even anything else anymore. I like 400 and 160 equally, but will go 160 if I can. 

I used to like 400H, but I'm not interested in discontinued or expired film. 

I've recently been scanning a lot of archived film and for some reason I shot a good bit of Ektar for awhile and every time I find a good pictures made on Ektar I cringe and wish I'd have stopped messing around and stuck with Portra then. Though at that point I was also bouncing back and forth between the VC and NC Portra films! In 160 and 400. We had too much choice 15 years ago. Or I did at least! 

[erl]

37 minutes ago, pgh said:

Portra.

To me there just isn't even anything else anymore. I like 400 and 160 equally, but will go 160 if I can. 

I used to like 400H, but I'm not interested in discontinued or expired film. 

I've recently been scanning a lot of archived film and for some reason I shot a good bit of Ektar for awhile and every time I find a good pictures made on Ektar I cringe and wish I'd have stopped messing around and stuck with Portra then. Though at that point I was also bouncing back and forth between the VC and NC Portra films! In 160 and 400. We had too much choice 15 years ago. Or I did at least! 

The choice was great and very useful, in those days. I used quite a bit of the VC Portra, for commercial and related scenarios. It was especially good for certain aerial shoots.  Ektar was good for landscapes, but I preferred Portra for portraits, hence the name. Fuji 400H and 800 Press, excelled for stage and theatrical work. These days, I find myself priced out of my preferred films.

[Bliz]

I can't think of buying portra 400 at today's ridiculous prices when 250D exists tbh. The only reason to shoot the former would be to make ra4 prints in the darkroom.

[erl]

12 hours ago, Bliz said:

I can't think of buying portra 400 at today's ridiculous prices when 250D exists tbh. The only reason to shoot the former would be to make ra4 prints in the darkroom.

I agree about Portra400 being excellent, but the price has reluctantly forced me in the direction of Kodak Gold 200.

Please explain about 250D. A quick search revealed it as movie stock. How does that work?

[Mute-on]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/15/2025 at 7:03 AM, colonel said:

My favourite general purpose film is Kodak Ultra/max 400. Best good light film is Ektar 100. Ekta 100 is the best resolution film (C41) I have ever used.

As you can tell, I like contrast and bold colours

I find the 200 films, like Kodak Gold 200 are less contrasty. I also find Portra less contrasty, particularly the 160.

If I have to use ISO 200, I would use Kodak Gold.

I find 200 an uncomfortable mid-ground. They don't have the resolution of the 100 films but not really enough low light potential like 400 or 800.

If I need 800, Portra 800 is the way to go. Its great for low light.

The price for Ektar and Porta 800 is a bit barmy these days. 

I used to use Fujifilm 400, until they raised the prices a few years ago. It also has bold colours, although Kodak bolds tend to be more red, whereas I found Fujifilm more green (very slight BTW, both have balanced colours). I also though the Fujifilm was slightly less contrasty.

I have used many other film brands, but for resolution and noise performance I think Kodak and Fujifilm are the best C41 films.

Economy is definitely one objective. From Kodak UltraMax 400 through to developing to high res jpg I am at around 70p per exposure.

Almost mirrors my experience exactly. I was always a Fuji film shooter in the pre-digital era and never particularly noticed the green, although it was certainly not a ‘warm’ film.

Over the last ten years I’ve moved to Kodak as Fuji has become increasingly less available. I do find myself gravitating towards Ektar for 100 and Portra for 400. Portra 160 is very obviously less saturated and conveys a lovely pastel, ‘vintage’ look, if that appeals. Ektar needs good light, but not necessarily harsh sun, to come to life. Proper exposure is crucial. I avoid overexposing it or Portra 400 systematically (i.e., by decreasing iso) to retain saturation.

I probably need to try some of the cheaper emulsions (Gold, etc) since the prices for the professional emulsions are getting quite ridiculous. Nevertheless, shooting film is an indulgence and for pleasure rather than convenience, so I’m prepared to invest in that!

Edited August 24 by Mute-on

[BWColor]

Portra 160 for 35mm and E100 for 645 & 6x7.

[Bliz]

5 hours ago, erl said:

How does that work?

Pretty much like portra, developing it in c41 yields very similar results imo and you can find rolls much cheaper. The new AHU version doesn't even have a remjet to remove before development.

[hansvons]

On 8/24/2025 at 7:30 AM, Bliz said:

The new AHU version doesn't even have a remjet to remove before development.

Can you please elaborate? What does AHU mean?

[Bliz]

8 hours ago, hansvons said:

What does AHU mean?

https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/ahu-announcement/
 

 

In short, cinema films usually have a carbon backcoating called a remjet acting as anti halation layer and as a shield/lubricant for the film when rolling at high speeds on a movie camera, and they’re also meant to be processed in ecn-2 instead of c-41. You can cross process Vision 3 stocks (50D, 250D, 500T) in c41 just fine obtaining slightly raised constrast (ecn2 gives a LUT look) but you have to remove the remjet with an additional bath first. This means most labs couldn’d process cinema films in c41 because the remjet would mess up their chemistry and machines, which weren’t designed to deal with it.

BTW manual process was always easy and not a problem, I do it my self at home. In eastern europe I know it’s common for labs to offer ecn2 development.

The new AHU vision stocks don’t have a carbon based remjet layer anymore, so you can now drop them off at a standard lab for c41 processing without problems. Haven’t tried them since I have quite a bit of standard Vision 3 still to use.
As far as I know the only limitation with cinema films is easily obtaining ra4 prints from these stocks, because the color filters gradations would be different from the ones usually used for c41 films, but i never printed color in a dark room so this part is just what I read about it. For mixed digital process involving scanning and inkjet printing Vision 3 stocks are exceptional in my opinion.

Edited August 25 by Bliz

[Peter_S]

Ektar 100 for landscape, Portra 400 for just about anything else. However, with the current prices of film in Norway, my favourite is Ultramax 400. 

[erl]

Segue to my useage: I just found an expired roll of Kodak Ektacolor Pro 1000 in the fride, dated, April 1999. Exposed most of it yesterday. Will finish it maybe today and process it. Allowing for its age, I exposed it at 800ISO and will probably dev it as normal. I remember using such film for difficult aerial photography with great success.