Is Fujifilm Pro 400H discontinued?

**Viking42** · 02-02-2021, 08:15 AM

Can anyone recommend a good alternative to Pro 400h? Personally I valued it for it's neutral colour balance, pleasing contrast, and sharpness. A great all-rounder.

Other than 400h, I have only used Kodak Portra and Ektar. While I like both, there are scenes where neither would suit my needs. Portra can be wonderful, but sometimes tends to be too warm-toned. Ektar is also excellent but very saturated, which doesn't always work with the scene either.

Suggestions welcome!

Best,
Svend

**fs999** · 02-03-2021, 03:02 AM

You can find a list of films here : Wikipedia

Jonathan Mac · 02-03-2021, 07:30 AM

400H and Portra are the only 400-speed colour negative films that are sold as "pro" options and I think they really do have something over the other films available. There's Superia 400 in 135 format but nothing in 120. Your other option is to use Portra and cool the output either in PP or with a filter.

**Viking42** · 02-03-2021, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

400H and Portra are the only 400-speed colour negative films that are sold as "pro" options and I think they really do have something over the other films available. There's Superia 400 in 135 format but nothing in 120. Your other option is to use Portra and cool the output either in PP or with a filter.

That's good suggestion, to cool the tones using a filter. I really like Portra 160 and 400 for landscapes in overcast conditions, as the inherent warmth offsets the cool light. But for sunny conditions it's a bit too much of a good thing, and I've struggled in PP to get natural looking tones out of it. A filter might be just the thing. I will look into that. I hope there is the right one available in Bay II for my Rolleiflex

tuco · 02-03-2021, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Viking42

That's good suggestion, to cool the tones using a filter. I really like Portra 160 and 400 ...

The results I get from Portra 160 are cooler, pastel-like colors in general and warmer, earth tone from Portra 400

**Viking42** · 02-03-2021, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by tuco

The results I get from Portra 160 are cooler, pastel-like colors in general and warmer, earth tone from Portra 400

The 160 is cooler? That's interesting.... What age of lenses are you using it with? I have used it primarily with 1950s era German ones -- Agfa Solinar and Apotar, and Schneider Xenotar. It could be they were not colour corrected at that time and create a warmish colour cast, hence my impressions. I should really try the 160 with a modern lens and see how it works out. I also have a Rolleiflex with a Zeiss Planar lens, which is early '60s and apparently better with colour film, but which I've only done B&W with. Worth a try. Thanks for the insight Tuco.

tuco · 02-03-2021, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Viking42

The 160 is cooler? That's interesting.... .

Based on what I said, can you guess which one of these recent posts is Portra 160 vs 400? The camera is a Fuji GX617 with a EBC Fujinon 90mm SWD which is not a old lens by film standards I'd say. I have shot both those films with my Hasselblad 500C/M and Zeiss glass too.

**Viking42** · 02-03-2021, 01:06 PM

OK - that's not even subtle. Very clear which is which. Interesting! Gives me hope that I can potentially replace 400h with Portra 160. I can live with the speed loss...no big deal. Right choice of camera and lens will be key here it seems. No older non-colour-corrected lenses, except on cloudy days or in shade.

Well worth trying. Appreciate the insight here! Thanks.

tuco · 02-03-2021, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Viking42

OK - that's not even subtle. Very clear which is which. Interesting! Gives me hope that I can potentially replace 400h with Portra 160. I can live with the speed loss...no big deal. Right choice of camera and lens will be key here it seems. No older non-colour-corrected lenses, except on cloudy days or in shade.

Well worth trying. Appreciate the insight here! Thanks.

That's typical of what I get anyway. I think converting film to digital has a lot of variables involved and not everyone may experience similar results.

Here is typical of what I get with Portra 160 vs 400H on Zeiss glass

Portra 160

400H

**Viking42** · 02-03-2021, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by tuco

That's typical of what I get anyway. I think converting film to digital has a lot of variables involved and not everyone may experience similar results.

That's certainly true. Scanner settings are a big factor. I try to keep the impact on colour rendering as minimal as possible, and always scan the clear strip between frames to get the initial base colour set and locked. That said, I'd have to check my settings between Pro 400h and Portra 160 to see if I did anything different. Scanning colour neg film and converting to positive image in PP is certainly a challenge -- it took me a long time until I got a method that worked well and was quick to do. But that's another matter entirely...

PS -- wonderful images! Love the old truck. And the P160 worked beautifully with that. Very, very nice tones. I'm impressed! My results with that film have a significantly warmer colour cast than what you are getting.

tuco · 02-03-2021, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Viking42

...
PS -- wonderful images! Love the old truck. And the P160 worked beautifully with that. Very, very nice tones. I'm impressed! My results with that film have a significantly warmer colour cast than what you are getting.

Thanks. When I see a digital camera's image with a Portra 160 color profile applied to simulate a 'film look', they often look pastel-like on my monitor too. Is that something you've seen/noticed as well?

**Viking42** · 02-03-2021, 02:27 PM

Yes, I have noticed that. There have been a couple of folks out there who have compared Portra film images with digital custom profiles, and the latter always seemed to have less tonal depth, a bit thinner.

I'm excited now to work more with P160. I will do some more searching and gawking tonight on Flickr and IG to see what kind of results others are getting. Coincidentally an image popped up just now in my IG feed from Alex Burke, of an old store in a prairie town shot on 4x5 and Portra 160. Wonderful colours...spot on actually. Just like your truck above. Exactly what I am looking for.

I actually kind of stumbled upon Portra 160 by accident -- I was going on a 10 day trip to Iceland with my daughter, and wanted Ektar 100. But my local store was sold out, so suggested I try Portra 160 as a landscape film. I shot 4 rolls there and thought it was fantastic for that scenery there, but only on overcast days. It was autumn, so lots of reds, yellows, browns and other earth tones, which all rendered a bit too warm when the sun was out (which was not often). I shot it in an old Agfa Isolette with Solinar lens, vintage 1953 or so, and definitely not colour corrected. Time to buy more and give it another go.

**JensE** · 02-03-2021, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Viking42

Yes, I have noticed that. There have been a couple of folks out there who have compared Portra film images with digital custom profiles, and the latter always seemed to have less tonal depth, a bit thinner.

The Portra line used to have NC (neutral color) and VC (vivid color) versions - I remember the NC as sometimes be like that compared to what I've recently seen recently from Portra. But this is all based on prints and the paper has changed, too ...

**Viking42** · 02-03-2021, 03:31 PM

As a general question re. colour correction filters, do any of you use them as a matter of routine with colour neg films to correct for differing daylight conditions? E.g. overcast, shade, full sun, etc. I read somewhere long ago that this was a recommended practice, but that was just one guy saying that, and I have never heard of anyone else doing this. Or do you just shoot as-is and adjust later in PP? This is how I have been handling it, and it works well (most of the time

)

---------- Post added 3rd Feb 2021 at 17:37 ----------

Originally posted by JensE

The Portra line used to have NC (neutral color) and VC (vivid color) versions - I remember the NC as sometimes be like that compared to what I've recently seen recently from Portra. But this is all based on prints and the paper has changed, too ...

TBH, I like the subtle soft contrast of Portra and the former Pro 400h. It's beautiful. OTOH, Ektar is quite vivid, to borrow that term, with deeper more saturated colours. I like it for landscapes. It's also very sharp! Remarkable resolution.

On that note, it will be interesting to see if Kodak's hints at a new colour neg film to be introduced this year will come to be reality. And if so, what will it look like? There's certainly a lot of interest in these films at the moment. Encouraging news, if true.

tuco · 02-03-2021, 03:46 PM

I think the cool color cast from early morning light or warm late afternoon light is something you often want to capture instead of canceling it out with a filter. But old-school negative film color printing you could correct color temperature when making the print to a degree if you wanted to. And of course scanning color balance is a choice you get to make as well without filters. It's slide film where the first generation image is where you want to color corrected the most with filters. With negative film, it's all about the medium of the second generation image (eg print, computer screen)

02-03-2021, 12:19 PM	#36
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by tuco The results I get from Portra 160 are cooler, pastel-like colors in general and warmer, earth tone from Portra 400 The 160 is cooler? That's interesting.... What age of lenses are you using it with? I have used it primarily with 1950s era German ones -- Agfa Solinar and Apotar, and Schneider Xenotar. It could be they were not colour corrected at that time and create a warmish colour cast, hence my impressions. I should really try the 160 with a modern lens and see how it works out. I also have a Rolleiflex with a Zeiss Planar lens, which is early '60s and apparently better with colour film, but which I've only done B&W with. Worth a try. Thanks for the insight Tuco. Last edited by Viking42; 02-03-2021 at 12:25 PM.

02-03-2021, 01:18 PM	#39
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by Viking42 OK - that's not even subtle. Very clear which is which. Interesting! Gives me hope that I can potentially replace 400h with Portra 160. I can live with the speed loss...no big deal. Right choice of camera and lens will be key here it seems. No older non-colour-corrected lenses, except on cloudy days or in shade. Well worth trying. Appreciate the insight here! Thanks. That's typical of what I get anyway. I think converting film to digital has a lot of variables involved and not everyone may experience similar results. Here is typical of what I get with Portra 160 vs 400H on Zeiss glass Portra 160 400H Last edited by tuco; 02-03-2021 at 08:23 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fujifilm X-Pro 2- thoughts after a brief, first look	lesmore49	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	11	03-04-2019 04:50 PM
For Sale - Sold: 4 Tiffen 62mm Pro-Mist filters - Black Pro-Mist 3, Pro-Mist 2, Warm Soft FX2, UV	dronegeek	Sold Items	2	09-12-2018 10:06 PM
Eye-Fi X2 Pro and earlier Cards - Support Discontinued as of 30 June 2016	frankoz	Photographic Industry and Professionals	27	11-03-2016 10:55 AM
People Some Film Fuji 400H	montman	Post Your Photos!	5	05-19-2012 01:12 PM
Fujifilm S Pro Series Cameras	jct us101	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	15	04-24-2010 07:21 PM

02-02-2021, 08:15 AM	#31
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Can anyone recommend a good alternative to Pro 400h? Personally I valued it for it's neutral colour balance, pleasing contrast, and sharpness. A great all-rounder. Other than 400h, I have only used Kodak Portra and Ektar. While I like both, there are scenes where neither would suit my needs. Portra can be wonderful, but sometimes tends to be too warm-toned. Ektar is also excellent but very saturated, which doesn't always work with the scene either. Suggestions welcome! Best, Svend

02-03-2021, 03:02 AM	#32
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,639	You can find a list of films here : Wikipedia

02-03-2021, 07:30 AM	#33
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	400H and Portra are the only 400-speed colour negative films that are sold as "pro" options and I think they really do have something over the other films available. There's Superia 400 in 135 format but nothing in 120. Your other option is to use Portra and cool the output either in PP or with a filter.

02-03-2021, 07:57 AM	#34
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac 400H and Portra are the only 400-speed colour negative films that are sold as "pro" options and I think they really do have something over the other films available. There's Superia 400 in 135 format but nothing in 120. Your other option is to use Portra and cool the output either in PP or with a filter. That's good suggestion, to cool the tones using a filter. I really like Portra 160 and 400 for landscapes in overcast conditions, as the inherent warmth offsets the cool light. But for sunny conditions it's a bit too much of a good thing, and I've struggled in PP to get natural looking tones out of it. A filter might be just the thing. I will look into that. I hope there is the right one available in Bay II for my Rolleiflex

02-03-2021, 10:47 AM	#35
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by Viking42 That's good suggestion, to cool the tones using a filter. I really like Portra 160 and 400 ... The results I get from Portra 160 are cooler, pastel-like colors in general and warmer, earth tone from Portra 400

02-03-2021, 12:27 PM	#37
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by Viking42 The 160 is cooler? That's interesting.... . Based on what I said, can you guess which one of these recent posts is Portra 160 vs 400? The camera is a Fuji GX617 with a EBC Fujinon 90mm SWD which is not a old lens by film standards I'd say. I have shot both those films with my Hasselblad 500C/M and Zeiss glass too.

02-03-2021, 01:06 PM	#38
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	OK - that's not even subtle. Very clear which is which. Interesting! Gives me hope that I can potentially replace 400h with Portra 160. I can live with the speed loss...no big deal. Right choice of camera and lens will be key here it seems. No older non-colour-corrected lenses, except on cloudy days or in shade. Well worth trying. Appreciate the insight here! Thanks.

02-03-2021, 01:27 PM	#40
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by tuco That's typical of what I get anyway. I think converting film to digital has a lot of variables involved and not everyone may experience similar results. That's certainly true. Scanner settings are a big factor. I try to keep the impact on colour rendering as minimal as possible, and always scan the clear strip between frames to get the initial base colour set and locked. That said, I'd have to check my settings between Pro 400h and Portra 160 to see if I did anything different. Scanning colour neg film and converting to positive image in PP is certainly a challenge -- it took me a long time until I got a method that worked well and was quick to do. But that's another matter entirely... PS -- wonderful images! Love the old truck. And the P160 worked beautifully with that. Very, very nice tones. I'm impressed! My results with that film have a significantly warmer colour cast than what you are getting.

02-03-2021, 02:08 PM	#41
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by Viking42 ... PS -- wonderful images! Love the old truck. And the P160 worked beautifully with that. Very, very nice tones. I'm impressed! My results with that film have a significantly warmer colour cast than what you are getting. Thanks. When I see a digital camera's image with a Portra 160 color profile applied to simulate a 'film look', they often look pastel-like on my monitor too. Is that something you've seen/noticed as well?

02-03-2021, 02:27 PM	#42
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Yes, I have noticed that. There have been a couple of folks out there who have compared Portra film images with digital custom profiles, and the latter always seemed to have less tonal depth, a bit thinner. I'm excited now to work more with P160. I will do some more searching and gawking tonight on Flickr and IG to see what kind of results others are getting. Coincidentally an image popped up just now in my IG feed from Alex Burke, of an old store in a prairie town shot on 4x5 and Portra 160. Wonderful colours...spot on actually. Just like your truck above. Exactly what I am looking for. I actually kind of stumbled upon Portra 160 by accident -- I was going on a 10 day trip to Iceland with my daughter, and wanted Ektar 100. But my local store was sold out, so suggested I try Portra 160 as a landscape film. I shot 4 rolls there and thought it was fantastic for that scenery there, but only on overcast days. It was autumn, so lots of reds, yellows, browns and other earth tones, which all rendered a bit too warm when the sun was out (which was not often). I shot it in an old Agfa Isolette with Solinar lens, vintage 1953 or so, and definitely not colour corrected. Time to buy more and give it another go.

02-03-2021, 02:38 PM	#43
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,969	Originally posted by Viking42 Yes, I have noticed that. There have been a couple of folks out there who have compared Portra film images with digital custom profiles, and the latter always seemed to have less tonal depth, a bit thinner. The Portra line used to have NC (neutral color) and VC (vivid color) versions - I remember the NC as sometimes be like that compared to what I've recently seen recently from Portra. But this is all based on prints and the paper has changed, too ...

02-03-2021, 03:31 PM	#44
Viking42 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2020 Location: Caledon, Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	As a general question re. colour correction filters, do any of you use them as a matter of routine with colour neg films to correct for differing daylight conditions? E.g. overcast, shade, full sun, etc. I read somewhere long ago that this was a recommended practice, but that was just one guy saying that, and I have never heard of anyone else doing this. Or do you just shoot as-is and adjust later in PP? This is how I have been handling it, and it works well (most of the time ) ---------- Post added 3rd Feb 2021 at 17:37 ---------- Originally posted by JensE The Portra line used to have NC (neutral color) and VC (vivid color) versions - I remember the NC as sometimes be like that compared to what I've recently seen recently from Portra. But this is all based on prints and the paper has changed, too ... TBH, I like the subtle soft contrast of Portra and the former Pro 400h. It's beautiful. OTOH, Ektar is quite vivid, to borrow that term, with deeper more saturated colours. I like it for landscapes. It's also very sharp! Remarkable resolution. On that note, it will be interesting to see if Kodak's hints at a new colour neg film to be introduced this year will come to be reality. And if so, what will it look like? There's certainly a lot of interest in these films at the moment. Encouraging news, if true.

02-03-2021, 03:46 PM	#45
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	I think the cool color cast from early morning light or warm late afternoon light is something you often want to capture instead of canceling it out with a filter. But old-school negative film color printing you could correct color temperature when making the print to a degree if you wanted to. And of course scanning color balance is a choice you get to make as well without filters. It's slide film where the first generation image is where you want to color corrected the most with filters. With negative film, it's all about the medium of the second generation image (eg print, computer screen)