Ektar too contrasty for outdoor portraits?

[Ari]

Hi,
I'm just wondering if Ektar is too contrasty for portraits done outdoors, or if so, if it's possible to tame that contrast at the scanning stage.
I'm close to ordering some from B&H, as it is somewhat less expensive than Portra, but I don't know if the savings are worth it.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks in advance.

[BrianShaw]

I think it is. I prefer Portra 160NC, and still using up what I have. After that I will use the "new" Portra 160 for portraiture - both interior and outdoor.

[Drew Wiley]

It would be harsh in direct sunlight. You want to expose this film more like you would
a transparency film, but be very aware of the need to add a warming filter like an
81A under cold bluish light, and beware of the risk of blue in the shadows in open
sunlight. Portra would be a much portrait-friendlier film than Ektar. But the contrast
of Ektar can be tamed to some extent, provided there's sufficient exposure in the
shadows themselves.

[Ari]

Thank you both!

[mrladewig]

I've seen some examples of it that looked decent outdoor with studio lights, but I agree that Ektar is a bit harsh for my taste for outdoor portraits. I'd opt for Portra as well both for the neutrality and the lower contrast.

[Ari]

Does anyone know the least expensive source for Portra 160?
I have B&H at $28.99 plus shipping.
Thanks

[vinny]

Portra isn't going to make bad lighting better.
Don't put your subject in harsh light.
Diffuse the light with some shower curtain.
Use a piece of bead board for fill.

[Ari]

Portra isn't going to make bad lighting better.
Don't put your subject in harsh light.
Diffuse the light with some shower curtain.
Use a piece of bead board for fill.

I know it isn't a magic pill, I just want to know if it's too contrasty.
I usually shoot in the shade anyway, but sometimes that contrast can come up and bite you in the a$$.

[Ben Syverson]

If you expose for the shadows and scan, Ektar is no more contrasty than Portra. It just has a marginally different response curve.

With that said, Portra 160 is a great film. Unless you have a compelling reason to shoot Ektar (such as already having it on hand), you might as well take the extra speed of the 160.

[Drew Wiley]

It's not so much the contrast that's the issue (though it is a little more contrasty),
but the saturation. Ektar isn't muddied down as much for stereotypical pleasing skin
tones. In particular, the shadows can end up more tinted if you don't adequately filter.
If you know how to take good portraits with chrome film, Ektar shouldn't give you much
trouble either, but it's likely to be a lot less forgiving than Portra 160 or 400.