All the C-41 ISO 800 Colour Films, Compared
Portra 800 vs. FunSaver 800 vs. Lomo 800 vs. Aurora 800
19 min read by Dmitri.Published on . Updated on .
There’s seemingly some choice when it comes to high-speed daylight-balanced colour-negative film. But is it all just branding? And if not, which one is better?
Daren, Yvonne, and I (with help from our model, Lauren) compare all the ISO 800 films we could find side-by-side to see if there’s any actual difference once developed and scanned.
In this article, Guess! Experiment overview and methods. Setting a FLAT Negative Lab Pro inversion profile. Answer key. Side-by-side: portraits in natural light. Side-by-side: portraits in studio light. Side-by-side: portraits at night. Can these film stocks be made to look exactly the same in Photoshop? How significant are the differences between those films? How are the physical film packs different? Differences in developing and scanning. Price differences. Which film is the best? Project files. Support this blog & get premium features with GOLD memberships!
Watch Daren’s (@LearnFilmPhotography) video interpretation of this experiment: “Lomo, Portra, and Kodak Funsaver 800 compared: Is Portra 800 Worth It?” on YouTube.
Watch Yvonne’s (@YvonneHansonPhotography) video interpretation of this experiment: “Are These Color Filmstocks...Identical? | Testing Portra, Lomography, and Funsaver” on YouTube.
Visit Lauren’s @generalgreavous Instagram profile.
TL: DR; We found that these are indeed different ISO 800 film stocks with varying colour output and some physical dissimilarities. But those differences may be hard to pin down.
Guess!
The image below shows some differences in how the ISO 800 films appear when scanned and inverted manually. Can you guess which one is which? The answer is below the fold. ⤵️
Your options are:
🎞️ Kodak Portra 800 — perhaps the best-known ISO 800 colour-negative film made at the Rochester plant in NY, USA.
🎞️ Lomography Color Negative 800 — a mystery ISO 800 film sold by a famous film photography company that does not own a film factory.
🎞️ Kodak FunSaver 800 — a disposable film camera with 27exp. of an ISO 800 colour-negative film with a “GT 800-5” identifier on the border.
🎞️ Fujifilm 400 — a US-made colour-negative film for Fujifilm, which some suspect is a rebranded Kodak Ultramax emulsion.
✪ Note: All the test photos in this article were shot on 35mm film loaded into Hasselblad 500CM backs with adapters that we exchanged while the camera remained put on a tripod. While some of the films tested were available in medium format, we wanted as much consistency as possible between our tests; thus, we chose a format available with all the participating brandings. All films were shot at EI800.
(You will need a GOLD membership to continue reading this article, download project files, and get the answer for your guess.)
Experiment overview and methods.
Colour negative film needs interpretation — whether it’s printed using an enlarger or scanned.
All hues are typically inversely encoded within an orange mask, which can make the interpretation challenging. Darkroom printers make test strips while adjusting the colour of the projecting light to fine-tune the results. Scanners will produce colour and fidelity differences based on hardware, while the computer software that inverts the negatives into digital positives adds another layer of obscurity as it attempts to automate colour correction.
Nevertheless, though you get to (or happen to, inadvertently) alter the overall colours of your film, you won’t necessarily be able to make one film look like the other. This comes down to spectral sensitivity, grain, and dynamic range. For example, if the said film can not distinguish between two similar shades of red, it’ll paint them the same colour (and you won’t be able to separate those shades in post), whereas another film may naturally outline that distinction.
While designing this experiment, our assumption was that there would be very little visual difference between the films. This is based on the minimal variance between the distinctly branded Kodak films that Daren and I tested last year (Kodak Gold vs. Kodak ColorPlus).
We wanted to make absolutely sure that we’d see differences between our ISO 800 films if there were any, so we took steps to remove noise/distractions/inconsistencies from our samples. We used Daren’s Hasselblad 500CM on a tripod with interchangeable backs to ensure that each shot is taken from the same angle and with the same lens. We also shot the films in various conditions: natural light, mixed studio light, and mixed outdoor light.
Finally, we had our films scanned by professional lab technicians at The Lab (Vancouver) on their Fuji Frontier machine, then again with Daren’s Sony a7III/Negative Lab Pro (see more on that below), and again on my Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED/inverted using this method for preserving the original film colours with a consistent exposure gain value of 3.75 in the VueScan settings.
Once again, our test subjects were Kodak Portra 800, Kodak FunSaver 800, Lomography Color Negative 800, and Flic Film Aurora 800.
Fujifilm 400 is our control. We used this film to identify the amount of change to expect from an emulsion that is for sure not another ISO 800 colour film stock. We used the same exposure settings for this film as our ISO 800 stocks (thus, it’s under-exposed by one stop).
This article will not have a definitive answer about the origins of Flic Film Aurora 800 film. Someone suggested it’s the same stuff as the FunSaver camera film (which I learned after our session). Unfortunately, on the day of our shoot, we had a limited number of Hasselblad film backs and decided to load Aurora after we ran out of FunSaver.
Our goal was to find differences rather than similarities between the films, so if you’re curious about testing the FunSaver vs. Aurora theory, please let me know in the comments.
Setting a FLAT Negative Lab Pro inversion profile.
Negative Lab Pro and other inversion tools for film negatives apply colour correction filters to your images automatically. These settings may adapt to the colour and brightness values in each of your images, creating more flattering results but also obscuring nuances specific to emulsions.
You can invert your film negatives manually, which will give you a full account of changes made to the digital negatives. This way, your software won’t cover up your exposure mistakes or the minute differences between various film stocks.
Since we wanted to compare our ISO 800 colour film stocks across various scanners and scanning methods, a digital camera with a macro lens was a must (as it’s one of the most popular home-scanning methods today). Daren’s setup involved his Sony a7iii with Sigma 70mm Art macro (shot at 1/160, 𝒇6.3, ISO 250), a Raleno light pad (95+ CRI), a mounting rig, and his Essential Film Holder. This gave him uncompressed *.ARW files, which he then put through Negative Lab Pro.
The typical settings Daren used with his Negative Lab Pro tool made images that all looked good/well-corrected; unfortunately, the filters applied varied based on the input negative (as they should), which made identifying the film difficult because of the “colour shuffling” done by the software. I’d like to reiterate here that the differences between film brands and speeds aren’t always difficult to tell, even when the results are software-processed. Still, we’re dealing with four colour-negative ISO 800 films made presumably by the same factory — so we wanted as much detail and consistency in our data as possible.
To make his NLP conversions less opinionated/more consistent, Daren reached out to the Negative Lab Pro creator, Nate, who got back to him with a checklist to create FLAT (minimal auto-correction) output with Negative Lab Pro:
1. Separate images into natural light (studio or daylight) scenes and blue hour/night scenes.
2. Use Roll Analysis for each separately to create a conversion setting with Darkroom Paper preset for maximum dynamic range.
3. Check all but the “Preset Settings” checkboxes in Sync Settings for both sets.
The results were telling. We went from images that varied greatly across exposures but looked similar across film stocks to photos that resembled manual inversions with my Nikon Super Coolscan 500ED in colour and change patterns between the film stocks:
Notice how the FLAT profile images (bottom row) no longer try to hide under-exposures on a slower-ISO film with a blue (?) tint.
Answer key.
Before we dive into the experiment results, let’s recall the quiz. Did you write down your answer? Are you sure you can tell your Portra 800 film from a hacked cheap FunSaver camera? Let’s test that:
#1 is shot on Fujifilm 400 film. This film is less sensitive than ISO 800 films, and thus, it appears darker than the rest.
#2 is Kodak Portra 800. Based on my observations, Portra shows a bit more colour fidelity than the other stocks — though that doesn’t translate to all lighting conditions. I’ll explain in greater detail below.