Alternatives to Kodak Ektar?

[ColdEye]

I am looking for a color film with bold colors, and so far from what I read in the net and samples I saw, Ektar is the way to go. I have used Portra, and the colors are a bit toned down for me. So are there any other C41 film that behaves like Ektar?

 

[brucemuir]

I used Fuji Reala in 120 for my standard "non people" stuff for years buy it can sometimes be rough to find here in the US. Availability has been a little better recently.

It's not as punchy as Ektar but has very fine grain and blues are a bit saturated.

 

[F/1.4]

Kodak Gold, or Fuji Superia? Superia is really contrasty and punchy in the greens. Otherwise the only thing that has the kick of Ektar is slide film that I know of.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I'm not sure if anything is like Ektar really. Superia 400 is contrasty but it has more grain than Ektar. Superia 200 is much more toned down. Superia 100 is discontinued. Reala is an interesting film because it can give colours punch in the sun but still render skin quite flattering. I think it's the perfect all-round film.

Why not just use Ektar if you want bold colours?

 

[hpulley]

Ektar is good, cheap and widely available and is really the only thing like it. I like Reala too but it isn't the same.

Pushing Portra seems to increase the contrast but still isn't the same.

 

[mikecnichols]

I'm really excited to shoot on Ektar this fall. I'm looking forward to some interesting shots this year. I've expanded my gear a bit since last year. I will be making use of the 24mm combined with the Ektar.

As for comparisons with the Fuji line....there is no comparison. Ektar is definitely different from the Fuji emulsions. I would say that if you aren't exactly looking for the Ektar look, Fuji 200 is a great everyday film. The grain isn't as good, but is still pretty clean. The colors are nice and punchy and is very forgiving with exposure.

 

[benjiboy]

Ektar is unique there aren't any alternatives, according to Kodak a 35mm Ektar negative enlarged to 20"X16" viewed at the correct distance has a granularity index of less than 25 which is below the human visual threshold to see graininess.

 

[donbga]

I am looking for a color film with bold colors, and so far from what I read in the net and samples I saw, Ektar is the way to go. I have used Portra, and the colors are a bit toned down for me. So are there any other C41 film that behaves like Ektar?

There are none!

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Keep it simple, just buy Ektar!

Jeff

 

[Grainy]

If you want Ektar colors, why do you look for anything else than Ektar? It's still in production.

 

[ColdEye]

Just wan ted to kniow if there are alternatives. I'll go with Ektar then, plan on using it in portraits. The samples I've seen in the net are quite good. Thanks to everyone!

 

[benjiboy]

If you want to use it for portraits the new Kodak Portra 160 is better, it produces much more natural looking skin tones, and is the right film for the job, even Kodak don't recommend Ektar for portraits http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...ar/qAndA.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328/13344.

 

[ColdEye]

I've tried Portra (but not the 160, I have used only the 400). I ended up adjusting the colors on my shot using Portra. I am looking for colors like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnymartyr/5783542136/in/photostream (not mine). Nice deep colors.

 

[Tim Gray]

Try Ektar then. Though there is nothing wrong with adjusting after the fact if you aren't adverse to using Photoshop.

If you are ok with adjusting in post, then I find the Portra films to be fantastic. I usually use 400 speed films, so I gravitate towards Portra 400. I also find the more subdued palette of Portra gives me more flexibility. Though to be honest, I've gotten some very nice deep colors with Portra when there are in fact nice deep colors in the original scene. Portra gives me nice subdued skin tones, but a red jacket or such looks really red. Don't discount lighting or the natural colors in the scene. Or post processing. All scanning has adjustments made, so it can be quite difficult to tell differences between films from looking at online scans.

But, I've always been pleased with Ektar when I've used it. Ektar certainly has more contrast and saturation than Portra, but sometimes I feel like the differences are exaggerated online to be much larger than they actually are. The best thing you can do is grab a roll of Portra, Ektar, and whatever other films you fancy and shoot the SAME scene in the SAME lighting at the same time. Get it processed and post processed the same. Then you might have an idea of how the films actually react differently.

Oh, if you really want saturation, grab a roll of Kodak E100VS.

 

[MattKing]

I've tried Portra (but not the 160, I have used only the 400). I ended up adjusting the colors on my shot using Portra. I am looking for colors like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnymartyr/5783542136/in/photostream (not mine). Nice deep colors.

The colour saturation and contrast in that example is as much a result of the subject and the lighting as it is a result of film choice.

The now slightly older Portra VC films would also be a good choice - especially if you need more speed.

 

[nworth]

The amateur films from both Kodak and Fuji are somewhat more saturated and "punchy" than the professional films. They are also very high quality materials. They will be somewhat more grainy than Ektar, but Kodak Gold is a very fine grain product.

 

[pukalo]

I caution anyone getting excited about using Ektar for Fall Colors. I have tried it for that purpose several times, including the year it came out, and was underwhelmed with the results compared to my slide film shots. Not just a bit, but vastly underwhelmed. Same goes for shooting Tulips/flowers. I expected spectacular results, like I get with E100VS/EBX/Velvia, but no such luck/results. How Kodak can tout this as a replacement for slide film is beyond me. I think they would like people to believe that, but its not true.
Anyways, it is an excellent negative film, it does do great sunsets, better than any other neg out there, and for that particular use it does equal slide film results IMO. However, it does have issues with blue casts, especially in shadows, that most other Kodak films dont have, and it can require lots of post tweaking to get the colors, saturation, and image right...unlike slide, which scans with perfect colors straight out the scanner.

 

[Roger Cole]

If you want punchier colors than Ektar, shoot Velvia or E100VS while you still can. Make or have made Ilfochrome prints, or do things unspeakable here for output if you want prints.

The only color neg film I recall with saturation as high as Velvia or E100VS, maybe even higher, is the long gone Agfa Ultra 50. No good for Caucasian skin tones but it was sure saturated and beautiful for some things. But we can bemoan lost products all day and that won't help a bit.

Personally I would never use any of these films for portraits unless they were some kind of deliberately distorted portraits. If you want decent skin tones but still punchy colors elsewhere the best recommendation I can think of for that is the "also-discontinued but still available sometimes from people who froze some," E100SW, another transparency film.

 

[CGW]

The colour saturation and contrast in that example is as much a result of the subject and the lighting as it is a result of film choice.

The now slightly older Portra VC films would also be a good choice - especially if you need more speed.

+1. With stone cold dead lighting like that, Ektar or Portra VC(not sure how the new stuff, especially the 400, would cope)will still pop colour that a more neutral film would miss.

 

[hpulley]

New Portra 400 is not as saturated as old 400VC, which you can still buy if you look for it. With new Portra Kodak assumes you're scanning it so they think you're going to Photoshop the contrast. You can still adjust the contrast somewhat by using exposure and push/pull processing.

 

[ColdEye]

Thanks. Now I think I will be considering Slides, but I will think it through carefully. I'll just compare first the new Portra and the Ektar, and study lighting.

 

[noeyedear]

Ektar has the punch alright, but I do spend a lot of time scanning or Photoshop'ing to tame the red. I prefer Portra, scan at 48 bit dng and put all the punch in you could possible want at post.

Kevin.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think a lot of the bad rap Ektar gets is due to either improper exposure or less than ideal scanning,
particularly with small formats. I won't get into the technical details, but this film can be tamed and
achieve superb results. I print directly from it onto Crystal Archive paper and think I understand it fairly
well at this point. The gradation and saturation are superb. If you think there is anything wrong with the
film itself and are scanning it, try this: shoot the same scene with 35mm and then with sheet film, then
scan and print them the same. The smaller sampling of the subtle gradations in the film curve in smaller
film means a lot of important hue transitions get missed. I did this experiment myself, even though I have
no interest in either digital printing or web usage. The smaller the film, the better the scan you need.
The closest thing to Ektar is the now discontinued Portra 160VC. Ektar takes that kind of color negative
improvement one step further, and one step closer to what one might expect from a transparency film,
yet with better latitude. The problem with color casts people are experiencing are due to the lack of
color balance filtration when it is needed. You need to handle it in the field just like you would in a studio
setup, and be cognizant of color temperature.

 

[derwent]

Ektar is my new favourite neg film.
It's not the same as slide and for me won't replace it but I love the look of it especially when shot through vintage lenses.
Scans really easily too and although I haven't tried printing it yet I soon will as yesterday I bought a nice colour enlarger and several rolls of paper...I can't wait to get started!

 

[hpulley]

It is beautiful printed on Endura.