Lomography 100 vs Kodak Portra 160
Last year, I spent a lot of time shooting Lomography film stocks. I was curious about the company’s products. I wanted to see what Lomography had to offer and if their film would appeal to my tastes. Recently I shot Lomography 100 and Kodak Portra 160 in a head-to-head portrait shoot to compare the two film stocks.
To get a closer look at the shooting experience check out the video here:
Shooting experience:
I rated both the Lomo 100 and the Portra 160 at ASA 80. Doing so made the Lomo +1 exposed and the Portra +2 exposed. My motivation for making this decision was because this is how I would typically rate both of these stocks more often than not. Rating both stocks at ASA 80 also kept things simple in switching out the film backs while taking portraits.
I also did my best to vary the conditions in which I shot the film. So, the first scene, while underexposed, was in the shade, then the next two were in the sun, and the last was a mixed lighting scenario with the shadow falling around the legs.
Post processing:
All photos were developed in the same lab and later scanned using my Epson V700 flatbed scanner, then imported into Lightroom. I used Negative Lab Pro (NLP) on all images and applied the same settings in each head-to-head image comparison.
I performed minimal retouches to the images shared. I removed scratches and dust particles. I didn’t make color modifications or further edits from this point on.
Lomography 100 images:
Kodak Porta 160 images:
Personal Observations:
The first set of images I took were all underexposed. I made a mistake with my initial light meter reading, and these are the results. Initially, I was upset about the error, but now I see the value in these underexposed images. The Lomography 100 handled the underexposure better than the Portra 160.
The most apparent difference between Lomography 100 and Portra 160, in my eyes, is the rendering of the blacks. Portra 160 offers a much richer and deeper punch in the blacks than Lomography. While I was organizing and labeling the photos, this feature stood out the most.
Final Thoughts
It took me a while to get on to Lomography 100. I tend to rely on faster film stocks, but I think it held up well against the Portra Kodak 160. I don’t believe either film stock is worse than the other, and it’s nice to know there is a quality alternative slower speed film to Portra 160.
As many of you know, film stocks are in high demand and short supply at retail stores. This experiment has proven that I can add Lomography 100 to my lineup.
Have you tried Lomography 100? How do you think Lomography 100 compares to Kodak Portra 160?
