Have you ever sat out at night, looked up at all those stars and pondered perhaps humanity's biggest philosophical question? What is the difference between portrait 400 and Fuji Pro 400H? Well today we're gonna find out. Today's episode is sponsored by The Dark Room. All the roles in today's video were developed and scanned by The Dark Room. Many philosophers over the ages have asked the big question. What is the actual difference between portrait 400 and Fuji Pro 400H? Well hopefully today we're gonna arrive at a conclusive finding by doing a one-to-one comparison the only way that it should be done scientifically. Because as my science professor always told me, you're failing this class and you're gonna need to take summer school. So to get started I loaded up one of my Hasselblad backs with a fresh roll of Kodak's portrait 400. And the other back with a fresh, not expired roll of Fuji Pro 400H that I pulled from my own dwindling supply. Fuji Pro 400H is a unique film stock because it was widely applauded by photographers all over the planet until Fuji said, f*** all of you and discontinued it. Which is a good and a bad thing. Bad because it's hard to find and it's starting to get expensive. But because I finally realized that Fuji discontinuing a film stock is the only way that I can feel anything anymore. Both film stocks are Pro Line Color Negative Films. Pro 400H is known for producing vibrant Fuji Greens. And Kodak portrait 400 is known for its warmer tones. So some things that we're gonna keep an eye out for in the test are differences in color, grain, latitude, and how well each film stock performs in under and over exposure. In order to keep the test consistent I used the exact same settings across the board, both in the camera while I was shooting and in Lightroom with Negative Lab Pro. In fact I used the lab standard preset and made no further adjustments to either one so that they could be put through the exact same process for scrutiny. Anyway Monica and Baxter headed to a nearby park. I was also there. Quick, necessary disclaimer. These are test photos, not artistic masterpieces. They're more likely to be found hanging in the Lou than the Louvre. To start off I shot a color shot at box speed located in the shade to see what exactly the two stocks do with indirect light. Turns out not a huge difference in the shade. Portrait definitely renders the greens a little more pleasingly and seems to feature a stronger color rendition across the board. The skin tones in the portrait shots are also more vibrant and fleshy in my opinion, even though the word fleshy is gross. But what about real world scenarios? Unless of course all you do is shoot color charts with film in which case you're probably also a serial killer. Here's a shot of Monica and Baxter in the park at sunset, again in the shade. You might notice that the Fuji Pro 400H is a lot cooler in temperature and flatter, though both were rated at box speed and shot with the exact same settings. Portrait 400 seems to be warmer and renders colors like skin tones, more pleasingly at box speed. This is something I found consistent across the stocks. It seems Fuji Pro 400H craves a bit more light. Here's the same shot of a tree and if you look closely you can tell the shadows go a bit grainy and harsher on the Fuji Pro 400H compared to the portrait 400. But what about how each stock performs in direct sunlight? Here's a comparison of the same color charts blasted with warm sunlight. This is where I think the Fuji Pro 400H was stronger. The colors are more saturated than the portrait 400 by quite a bit, especially the reds, oranges, knees and toes. The portrait 400 colors go a bit more pastel and the Fuji Pro 400H displays a more greenish cast and is grainyer in the shadows. But what do these two film stocks look like when they're overexposed? Over exposing these two film stocks is very hip right now for a wedding in engagement photography. These were taken at one stop overexposed. Based on first impressions it seems like the pinks and the reds in Pro 400H still pop quite a bit compared to portrait 400. So if you're taking a picture of herpes well now you know which film stock to use. Looking at the difference between box speed and one stop over on 400H, the first thing I noticed is that the grain in the shadows on 400H disappears almost entirely just by overexposing one stop. The yellows get toned down a bit and a slight haze of magenta is introduced into the highlights. Looking at portrait 400 the colors become much more vibrant and the magenta cast in the shadows at box speed seems to kind of just go away. Here's another photo of Monica and Baxter backlit by the sun exposed at box speed, metered for Monica's face. Again we see the same things consistent with before, Baxter being a good boy, more grain in the Fuji Pro 400H shot and a warmer arguably more pleasing cast on the portrait 400. In this shot that's one stop overexposed the Fuji Pro 400H retains more contrast, greener greens and if you look closely Baxter sees the squirrel. Taking things the other direction with two stops under exposed not only do the photos look like sh** but we can effectively see the characteristics of each film stock. The portrait 400 is significantly warmer and the Pro 400H is significantly grainyar. Furthermore I thought it might be kind of interesting to get some super scans done from the dark room to kind of compare what each of the photos look like sh**. So here's a shot at the basketball court at sunset exposed at box speed. We can see things here that have been pretty consistent throughout this comparison like more contrast in the portrait, grainy shadows in the 400H and the fact that this guy still can't land a three pointer. After I went down there to give him a dunking tutorial I headed home to prepare for one final night photo to round out the tests. In this case I'd actually say the Fuji Pro 400H was more color accurate overall though more grainy as well. The portrait 400 really tried to flex its warmth all over the image and I don't know if it really works all that well. Anyway that's it my closing statement is both of these film stocks probably need more light than they let on it 400 ISO. With Fuji 400H I think that was definitely the case as we saw more grain in the shadows. portrait 400 has this natural contrast at box speed that is really really nice but gotta say Pro 400H just looks incredible when overexposed one or two stops in daylight situations. Especially when it dials its legendary Fuji greens. So what are your thoughts on these two film stocks? Do you shoot either one in different situations? Or do you just say f*** both of them because they're way too mainstream? Are you sad that Fuji no longer makes Pro 400H or are you not surprised? After all, change is the only constant is Fuji Film's actual business slogan. Do you shoot one stock more than other in certain situations? And if you're a wedding photographer why is Fuji Pro 400H the gold standard? Can we transition the wedding film stock of choice to be Lomo Metropolis maybe? So that everyone looks dead on their big day? Alright well that's it. Leave a suggestion if there's two other film stocks you want me to compare. Peace.