KodakPortra 160

Kodak Portra 160 is an ISO 160 color negative film for C-41 processing, the slowest and finest-grained of the Portra family. Kodak designed it for portrait, fashion and commercial work, and reviews describe a soft, muted palette [1] [9]. Since March 2026, Eastman Kodak also sells a film called Ektacolor Pro 160, which the photo press describes as the same Portra 160 under a new name; Kodak Alaris still sells the Portra-branded boxes [2] [4] [6].

Look and color

• Muted, pastel color. The Phoblographer found that it “render[s] all colors more mute across the spectrum” and that “not a single color is punchy” [9]. The Darkroom lists “low saturation” [7], and Long Weekend finds it “less saturated than both Portra 400 and Portra 800” [11]. Casual Photophile liked its “pastel shades and subtle colors” [13].
• Neutral or warm: the manufacturer and the reviews differ. Kodak’s datasheet promises “neutral skin tones” [1]. Reviews speak of a “warm palette” [8], of “the most accurate colors (though still warm)” [9] and of “warm, natural skin tones” [7].
• Skin tones are what Kodak sells it on: “exceptionally smooth and natural skin tone reproduction” [1]. The Phoblographer notes that people with green undertones “look pretty neutral” [9].
• Shadows. Long Weekend sees “a slight coolness to the shadows” [11]. We found no other source on this.
• Overexposure turns cyan. Analog.cafe sees a cyan shift from “around 1.5+ stops of over-exposure”, with less contrast and saturation [8], and Max’s Photo Blog says the film “can pick up a cyan hue when overexposed” [12]. This fits the datasheet: above about 3.5 stops over middle gray, the red-sensitive layer’s curve flattens slightly, and a thinner red record prints cyan (our reading and interpretation) [1].
• Greens and skies are rarely described: colors that “may not pop” but “will be quite accurate” [10], “incredible detail in skies” [11].
• A minority view: next to the consumer Fujifilm C200, Casual Photophile found the differences “negligible at best” after “a simple slider adjustment” on the scan [13].

Tonality

• Curve. On the datasheet, the toe runs from about 4.8 to 2.8 stops below middle gray, then the curves stay straight to the edge of the graph, at least 6 stops above. The green layer’s slope reads at about 0.54; read the same way, Portra 400’s is about 0.55 [1] [16]. On paper, the two films have the same contrast. The only visible difference: Portra 160’s red layer flattens above about 3.5 stops over middle gray (slope 0.53 → 0.41, our reading of the graph).
• Reviews disagree on contrast.
  • Softer than the 400: Portra 160 “holds lower contrast than Portra 400” [11], is “a pretty soft film” that “can feel a bit flat” [10], and “lacks contrast” [9].
  • Not so soft: The Darkroom lists “medium contrast” [7], and Analog.cafe sees portraits “with a touch of extra contrast” [8].
• Latitude: generous over, not under.
  • Analog.cafe gives a dynamic range of about 7 stops [8]; Max’s Photo Blog also gives “around 7”, against “up to 12” for Portra 400, with more color shift [12].
  • Blue Moon Camera still calls its latitude “pretty amazing”, “particularly overexposure” [10], and The Darkroom says it “handles overexposure extremely well” [7].
  • Underexposure is the weak side: Long Weekend finds it “easy to underexpose, and looks muddy when so” [11], and The Darkroom recommends avoiding it [7].
• Long exposures: Kodak requires no filter or exposure correction from 1/10,000 s to 1 s [1].

Grain and sharpness

Kodak rates grain with the Print Grain Index (PGI), a perceptual scale for prints viewed at 14 inches. 25 is the approximate visibility threshold, and 4 units make one just-noticeable difference. It cannot be compared with RMS granularity [1].

• Nine units, about two just-noticeable differences, separate it from Portra 400. Enlargement drives it: 50 at 8×10 and 79 at 16×20 from 35 mm, but under 25 for a 4×6 from 120 [1].
• Reviews disagree on how visible the gap is: “significantly finer grain than Portra 400” for Blue Moon Camera [10], but “there isn’t really a tremendous difference” for Max’s Photo Blog [12].
• Sharpness: Kodak publishes modulation transfer curves but no resolving power figure [1].

Spectral sensitivity

The blue-sensitive layer stays on a plateau from about 400 to 475 nm, the green-sensitive layer peaks at 550 nm and the red-sensitive layer near 628 nm. The blue and green curves cross near 487 nm, green and red near 581 nm [1]. Portra 400’s red layer peaks later, near 650 nm [16]. The Grain Archive color style is tuned from the datasheet and the reviews above; it is not computed from these curves.

Names, status and history

• 1998 and 2011. The Portra family dates from 1998. Kodak announced in February 2011 that the 160NC and 160VC versions would be replaced by a single Portra 160, available from mid-2011 [15], a year after the current Portra 400 [14]. The datasheet lists “Kodak Vision film technology” among its components [1].
• Two Kodaks. Eastman Kodak had handed the distribution of its still films to Kodak Alaris since 2012, and Kodak Alaris owns the Portra name [5].
• Ektacolor Pro 160 (March 2026). On March 24, 2026, Eastman Kodak launched Ektacolor Pro 160, 400 and 800 [4].
  • Kodak’s product page promises “soft, accurate color reproduction” but does not mention Portra [3].
  • PetaPixel writes that the films “appear to be rebranded versions” of the Portra line, with the same speeds and formats [4]. Digital Camera World, citing a Los Angeles lab, says the emulsions stay the same [6]; The Darkroom calls them “the exact same emulsion” [7].
  • We found no official Kodak statement that the two are identical: treat it as reported, not confirmed.
• Both names on sale. On September 29, 2026, Kodak Alaris still listed Portra 160 in 135 and 120, and in sheets from 4×5 to 20×24 [2]; Kosmo Foto reported in April 2026 that Alaris keeps distributing its films [5]. Ektacolor Pro 160 is listed in 135, 120, 4×5 and 8×10 [3].