comparison
Kodak Portra 400 vs Fuji 400H
Warm or cool?
The same photograph, same exposure, both looks at full strength. See the untouched original.
The difference
This is the central choice in modern film emulation. Portra warms midtones and renders skin golden; 400H cools shadows and pushes greens toward mint. Neither is more accurate — they are two houses' opinions about what a photograph should feel like. Portra flatters most skin under most light, which is why it became the default. 400H is the one people miss, partly because it was discontinued and partly because its palette is harder to reproduce with sliders.
Which to use
Portra 400
Warm skin, golden light, forgiving highlights. The safer choice for portraits and weddings.
Pro 400H
Cool shadows, minty greens, pale airy skin. Better outdoors, in foliage and in flat light.
Side by side
| Kodak Portra 400 | Fuji 400H | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | colour negative | colour negative |
| Maker | Kodak | Fujifilm |
| Speed | ISO 400 | ISO 400 |
| Produced | 1998–present | 2004–2021 |
| Renderings here | 16 | 4 |
| Download | .cube | .cube |
Try Kodak Portra 400 on your photo → Try Fuji 400H
A comparison on somebody else's reference photograph only tells you so much. Both of these render on your image in the tool, alongside the other 294.