Kodak Portra 400 35m 36exp Film Professional 5 Pack

Oh Christ it’s so pretty. Real quality film for making art, definitely read some articles and look at some examples of how the film looks before using it so you can get an idea of which colours and situations work best with it. I’d recommend a 35mm scanner so you can get really high quality scans. The ones labs do aren’t always the best quality and this film is very high grain. I have seen it a couple of quid cheaper on Ebay, so you may want to check and shop around

Perfect film if you want that added little extra fine grain of texture, saturated colors and great latitude. If you accidentally over or underexpose the film by a few stops, the Kodak Portra 400 will definitely handle it and still look good. Great film for capturing portraits.

Gorgeous film. It’s true what they say, the most gorgeous, natural colors come from this film with fine grain. It’s more expensive than my other go-to color film, Lomography, but has a more natural feel instead of the saturated tones of lomo film.

It's worth saying that I hate being a sheep!I ride a KTM, not a BMWI use an Olympus Om-2, not a Nikon or such likeI previously used Fuji Film not Kodak!I've used Fuji 400 Pro quite a few times and I have got on with it quite well, and yes it is biased towards green but I quite like that. So I've always stayed away for Portra 400 because that's what everyone else raves about. Blah Blah blahWell..... I have to eat humble pie, because it is actually a better film. It produces lovely results that still have the depth of colour but handles skin tones so much better.Basically it's definitely worth the money and all the glowing reviews are correct.I'm now off to test ride one of those blasted common BMW GS's!

I love Portra a lot and really happy it's still around. Whenever possible and appropriate it's my first choice for film - beautiful skin tones, a pastel like subtlety in the right light that makes film look like film. 400 seems to work really well in English light and has about 2 stops latency for underexposure.I first heard about it as Steve McCurry shot some way back when and I was intrigued - it makes photos look a bit more realistic than the garish colours that the common Kodak Gold can give, or similarly has less of the blueish tones from Fuji.I've been using it with an Olympus OM-1 and on 35mm gives me good results - the best results from Portra 400 however have come from the 120 film stock.

Such a nice film, good stock from amazon just a shame about the missed delivery on the first order and then the second being left outside in the rain. Film quality is fantastic, although pricey.

Used this for my university project, mainly for portraits on my Olympus Trip 35.The grain was very fine, but found the negatives to be slightly warmer than being true to skin tones. However this wasn't a problem as I was scanning in the film directly from the negatives and could correct this on photoshop. Definitely not as warm as the Fujifilm Superia 400 in comparison.However I don't think I would use this all the time due to the hefty price tag.

The photos I took with this film turned out amazing. The colours are very vibrant, but the best thing is how deep dark the shadows are. I compared them with photos taken on Kodak ColorPlus ISO 200 (which is about half the price), but this one is just so much better, so I'll be sticking with it for the future.