If you shoot film, you probably lean towards Portra or Pro 400H. For two films that are often compared to one another, how do they compare?
In this video, Film Supply Club does a side by side comparison of two of the most classic film stocks: Kodak Portra 400 and Fuji Pro 400H. These film stocks may well be two of the most compared in the film world. They are both ASA 400, color negative "professional films," and they are roughly the same price, with the Fuji edging out Kodak just slightly, with Pro 400H being about $2-3 more expensive per roll of 35mm. What's more, both film stocks have similar dynamic range. For reference, Kodak Portra 400 is exposure tested here and Fuji Pro 400H is exposure tested here.
In my personal experience, I strongly prefer Kodak's Portra 400, as you may know from my recent review of it. That said, I continue to try shooting Fuji Pro 400H. Indeed, on the day of writing, I just got back a roll of Pro 400H in 120 from the lab. I want so badly to like Pro 400H. I really do. I have just struggled to get the same level of character or consistency from it as I do from Portra 400.
Have you shot both of these films? What were your thoughts? Do you have a preference of one over the other?