Advice on Ektar

[Mats_A]

I have shot 2 rolls of Ektar 100. One 120 and one 35mm.
I had both developed and copied to paper at a lab in Turku, Finland.

I expected the colors to be much more vivid than what they are. See attached scans.

Am I expecting too much or is this a matter of the lab making a fast job with standard adjustments?
I do not own any neg-scanner so I can't check it myself.

Should Ektar 100 be more vivid and colorful or are these samples "normal".

Would appreciate some advice.

r

Mats

 

[macrorie]

The colors look fairly vivid to me. But the images also show something I have seen in all of the Ektar images I have had printed locally by small processors: to me they have a cyan cast that produces turquoise skies.

 

[2F/2F]

They look normal for Ektar to me: emulating Kodachrome, but with a sick cyan/turquoise cast from mini lab printing. It looks better if you print it yourself or have nice-quality scans done, and then personally adjust the images' color balance.

Here is one scanned with my Nikon Coolscan V at 1000 ppi (right before I sold the scanner ): http://www.flickr.com/photos/8266378@N05/4739966215/sizes/l/. This was shot with Nikkor-O 35mm f/2.0 lens in "hazy L.A. f/11" conditions in the late afternoon in late spring. (The pic should be straightened a little bit clockwise, but fine for quick ad pic, which is why I shot these pix.)

 

[Jeff Kubach]

They do have some cyan cast in the sky, but not usually so.

Jeff

 

[Mats_A]

There is something not looking right as I look at the pictures. Maybe it is the cyan/turquoise cast. I did not notice that. I just knew something was not right.

So maybe I have to get myself a scanner. I ordered a scan of the negs with this last batch and got a CD full of JPG:s. Not neg scans, mind you but digital copies of the color images. All made with some Fuji software.

Do you people print your own C-41 (wet printing) or do you have some pro lab doing it? Or is it scanning, PS and ink jet?

r

Mats

 

[Mats_A]

As I understand it, C-41 is a standard process. No variables like in B&W. This should mean that any minilab can develop the negs and they will be OK. It is only the printing phase that can be screwed up. Or am I mistaken here?

r

Mats

 

[Ian C]

It's the print--not the film

The results are largely due to the way in which the negatives are printed. Too, the samples show considerable reflected light, especially on the flower shot. A polarizer used correctly would have reduced the unpolarized light and increased the saturation of the colors considerably.

Any unnatural color casts are largely due to the adjustment of the printing equipment. An optically-projected RA4 print with carefully adjusted filter settings usually makes superior prints. The difference in quality between lab prints using current commercial equipment and enlarger-made prints can dramatic.

 

[Lee L]

I ordered a scan of the negs with this last batch and got a CD full of JPG:s. Not neg scans, mind you but digital copies of the color images. All made with some Fuji software.

If that's the case, then Fuji writes software to control Epson scanners. The file of the flowers has an Epson sRGB profile. You need to also consider that you and any viewers need calibrated monitors and color managed browsers, or color managed file viewers to be seeing the same thing.

If you're saying that the scans were made from prints using an Epson flatbed, then by the time we see things here, we're getting pretty far removed from the film.

I've found with a good lab (or scanning with a decent film scanner) that Ektar 100 isn't nearly as overly saturated as it's often made out to be on the internet.

Lee

 

[DWThomas]

.... I've found with a good lab (or scanning with a decent film scanner) that Ektar 100 isn't nearly as overly saturated as it's often made out to be on the internet.

Lee

Yes, I shot a roll of 35mm in my Argus C3 last year for Argus Day. Results were complicated by the weather conditions being not exactly postcard lighting, but I didn't find the end results as bold as I expected based on what I had been reading. It was certainly decent -- I was afraid I might not like it if it was too saturated -- I will certainly use it some more, maybe try some 120.

 

[Naples]

I've shot a few rolls of Ektar (Disney World, baseball) and the colors were outstanding, very rich, more so than these appear to. The only knock on Ektar I've seen in my photos is that the reds are a tad exaggerated.

 

[srs5694]

I ordered a scan of the negs with this last batch and got a CD full of JPG:s. Not neg scans, mind you but digital copies of the color images. All made with some Fuji software.

I don't know what your minilab uses, but most these days use systems that scan the negative and create prints and/or CDs from the same scans. You could ask your lab for details of how they do it if that's important to you.

As I understand it, C-41 is a standard process. No variables like in B&W. This should mean that any minilab can develop the negs and they will be OK. It is only the printing phase that can be screwed up. Or am I mistaken here?

C-41 is a standard process, but with some big caveats, including:

• There are different chemical manufacturers (Kodak, Fuji, and many lesser-known brands), and these products can vary slightly. Even a single manufacturer can produce multiple variants, such as stabilizer vs. final rinse for the final step.
• Chemicals in any given processing line can be old, over-used, incorrectly mixed, or otherwise sub-optimal, thus producing poor results.
• The machinery could be malfunctioning (running at the wrong temperature, for the wrong time, dirty, etc.), thus producing poor results.
• The people using the machines can be careful or careless. The latter can result in light leaks, scratches, dust on the negatives, mis-cut frames, etc.

These caveats can all affect the quality of the negatives you get back. Similar comments apply to the print-making step, and there are more issues there, too, such as the accuracy of the color balance set by the machine or its operator.

 

[Mats_A]

Many thanks for good advice. I will try to get some scans of the negs and see how they look. Maybe also search for an other lab. Or develop the negs myself.

r

Mats

 

[Holnbals]

My negatives that were processed in the 1990s far exceed anything I can get done in a local minilab today.In a digital minilab you don't need a perfect negative it's all fixed in software and the prints look great so there is not a big incentive to use quality chemicals and go to the expense of creating a quality negative.I'm sending some out, maybe get better results.

 

[aloha]

They look normal for Ektar to me: emulating Kodachrome, but with a sick cyan/turquoise cast from mini lab printing. It looks better if you print it yourself or have nice-quality scans done, and then personally adjust the images' color balance.

At least I'm not the only one who thought they were emulating Kodachrome

I cant say enough how much I love this film.

 

[6x9]

I ordered a scan of the negs with this last batch and got a CD full of JPG:s. Not neg scans, mind you but digital copies of the color images. All made with some Fuji software.

huh? They made prints then scanned them? I don't understand this. What does it say in the EXIF for CAMERA?

...any minilab can develop the negs and they will be OK. It is only the printing phase that can be screwed up...

Some labs save money by not using fresh chemicals......EVER.

 

[shootpositive]

They look like their developer is a bit depleted or expired or contaminated?

 

[steelneck]

As I understand it, C-41 is a standard process. No variables like in B&W. This should mean that any minilab can develop the negs and they will be OK. It is only the printing phase that can be screwed up. Or am I mistaken here?

You are not mistaken. C-41 is C-41.

I actually do not know any professional lab today that copies the images optically, they all use a hybrid process that scans the negatives.

My experience of Ektar is that it is the most fine grained negative film, i also find it about as saturated as the Fuji Pro 160C, just a little bit more "umph" than Reala. So it is saturated, but do not compare it to positive films, and especially not to Velvia. I have also found that some colors have a tendency to look a little on the pastel side, some people like it, i do not.

Be also aware that labs can have trouble scanning this film since they lack experience of it, and maybe also lacking software definitions that suits the film. I am a Linux-nerd so i am used to make things my self, like medium definitions in the scanning software Xsane and i had quite some trouble getting it right for just this film. This is the main reason that we saw lots of images with over saturated reds early on on the net, the scanner software people used could not handle Ektar right. But today it looks better and better, the software makers of the scanning programs are catching up, but i guess they had the same head scratching that i did initially with this film because it is a bit different.

(Edit: adding)
When copying this film optically in my enlarger it is not that different, there it behaves more normal and is like a more fine grained P160C with a small tendency towards pastel.

 

[steelneck]

I feel i have to explain my last post a bit, even if that is a bit OT.

Medium definitions, or whatever people or software makers wants to call it.
The reason for them is to get colors close to being right directly from the scanner without software adjustments and this is done in 48 bit colors, that is 6553600 levels per channel as opposed to the usual 256 in 8 bit. With a Fuji Reala, P160C, Superia 400, 800 and 1600 this is easy. Just shoot a scene where you will get pure white, and something gray, then adjust the levels for the film-base and the max density, adjust gamma to get the gray, then you will get a definition that is fairly close and will produce an OK image after inversion. But with Ektar this _will_ produce those over saturated reds, we have to either leave some room on the gren and blue channel (remember, it is negative) or allow red to blow out a bit, but this also makes the gamma adjustment tricky...

 

[perminna]

I've developed a few rolls of Ektar 135 at home with Tetenal C-41 chemicals. Almost all the frames also have a blue/cyan tint. As far as I know, it is supposed to be blueish. I have not tried to print the negs.

(both have "straight from the scanner" colors)

 

[aloha]

I've developed a few rolls of Ektar 135 at home with Tetenal C-41 chemicals. Almost all the frames also have a blue/cyan tint. As far as I know, it is supposed to be blueish. I have not tried to print the negs.
(both have "straight from the scanner" colors)

I might as well show off some of mine, straight from the scanner as well.. Though processed by Walgreens.

Unless I underexpose, I'm not seeing the blue shift.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Here's a hand print taken in overcast weather.

I've never been able to get Ektar to look like what I see online, perhaps that 'look' is due to scanning. But then, maybe the film shines in sunny weather, I wouldn't know, I live in England...

 

[Mats_A]

I might as well show off some of mine, straight from the scanner as well.. Though processed by Walgreens.

Unless I underexpose, I'm not seeing the blue shift.

These are the kind of colors I was looking for with Ektar. Most likely I need to find an other lab or get myself a scanner.

r

Mats

 

[aloha]

These are the kind of colors I was looking for with Ektar. Most likely I need to find an other lab or get myself a scanner.

r

Mats

I had found I get very consistent colors with a minilab, I asked them how many rolls they do a week, and the place I go said 100, so thats enough for me.