Alternatives to Kodak Ektar?

Anybody know of any plans for Ektar 400 in the works? Or what is going to replace the now-discontinued 400QC?

I don't know if I can get behind Portra... it's nice for people and faces and stuff, but I find it a little lacking for the great outdoors. Nice for occasional use, but I'm still waiting to see if Kodak puts out a different film in ISO 400.

ColdEye said:

I am looking for colors like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnymartyr/5783542136/in/photostream (not mine). Nice deep colors.

Click to expand...

The easiest way is to do what Johnny Martyr on flickr does. Call yourself a pro, shoot Ektar, develop and scan at your local Target store, then pretend that the scan is a print.

However, I wouldn't count on an automated scan at Target to give me a consistent, accurate interpretation of an Ektar negative.

Lee

Ektar in Vouge

I think Ektar can be used very sucsessfully for portraits. I got the attached photo judged as "Photo of the day" with Italian Vouge this weekend. So when the very small eye of the needle with the photo editors of Vouge find Ektar good enough to pass trough, ill guess most of us will do the same. And it prints extreme nice with enlarger on Supra Endura F.

The Portra line and Ektar is at the moment the only colourfilms i use.

Lee L said:

The easiest way is to do what Johnny Martyr on flickr does. Call yourself a pro, shoot Ektar, develop and scan at your local Target store, then pretend that the scan is a print.

However, I wouldn't count on an automated scan at Target to give me a consistent, accurate interpretation of an Ektar negative.

Lee

Click to expand...

Just to clear things up, I don't call myself a pro. I do paid work but I am not equipped to shoot all situations or provide various services. I make this clear to anyone I work with. Photography is not my main source of income. And I like it that way. It offers me the freedom to do things the way I believe they should be done as oppose to what necessarily sells.

What is wrong with processing at Target? They use the same machine and chemistry that professional labs use and maintain their equipment just as well. My techs do an excellent job with my work and help me in many ways I have not gotten from professional labs. The low cost and quick turnaround allows me to view and share my photos rapidly. I also find that I shoot more than I used to because the processing is so affordable. This results, hopefully, in more practice and improved shooting ability and understanding. Not to mention that I spend more money on the film itself which hopefully is helping companies like Kodak stay affloat.

How does one "pretend the scan is a print?" What does that even mean? I rescan my work where necessary either at home or at a pro lab for higher resolution and professional print sizes. I do not have a local lab to do optical prints anymore and enjoy digital editing with 20mb Tiff files of my negatives. They print very well. The low res Target scans are more like a contact sheet and a way for me to share online without worrying about theft of my high res images.

Please feel free to issue complaints directly to me (JohnnyMartyr@Hotmail.com) or at least offer constructive feedback and suggestions to the topic at hand.

ColdEye said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks very much for enjoying and sharing my photo. My best advice on shooting with Ektar is to shoot in cloudy/overcast or indoor lighting. The film's rich saturation just bleeds in sunny, direct light but excells with very natural skintones and punchy primary colours in subdued light. I also recommend having it processed in Kodak chemistry. My local pro labs all use Fuji chemistry and this is how I first began using Ektar, not really getting the fineness of grain or saturation it is known for. Having it processed at the local Target in their Kodak chemicals made all the difference. C41 is not really as universal as it should be unfortunately. Good luck with your work and feel free to email me at JohnnyMartyr@Hotmail.com if I can provide any more information/experiences.

ColdEye said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps one of the things that is attracting your attention in the photograph is the "pop" given by the model's red lipstick. A number of Johnny's images have that "pop" accent in them. "WarehouseEktarAmy054_20" has a much more natural color balance.

Johnny: Welcome to the forum! You have a really great eye for color photography. I myself have never used convenience shops such as Target or Walmart because I shoot MF or LF. (I only shoot 35mm for Kodak HIE.) I have to send my color film to a lab out of state, as nobody develops LF E6 in the entire state.

I love Ektar too and have no problem getting good skin tones with it at all. You can check my flickr below for examples.

I have no problems with Ektar for white and asian people and skin tones.

I took a photo of my indian friend, kinda dark, in full sun once, it wasn't nice. But anything that gets results that are nice in such conditions is beyond expectation.

In any case, Portra is a better film for skin tones since it's made for that, and in my case, I shot a person among a huge amount of red autumn leaves close to the ground.

The Portra shot.. I was able to push the colour balance towards red, and warm the image up, the make the reds and autumn colours pop and accentuate, and the skin tones were still basically perfect and fantastic.

Digital... muddy red contamination in the skin tones at a neutral balance.


I would expect Ektar to be difficult in that situation above without manipulation, the colour balance I used affected the entire picture equally, I didn't do anything to individual areas.

ColdEye said:

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.

Click to expand...

Just FYI, the example you provided was also adjusted.

Every negative image has to be, it is simply the nature of the medium.

It makes no difference if that is simply the default adjustment built into the scanning software or the starting exposure and filter pack in the enlarger.

It can be done by manipulating the color and luminosity of the light on your subject and the context the subject resides in. It can also be manipulated with development changes, say a 1-stop push.

My point is that just "having to adjust" isn't really a problem, it's simply the way the process works.

Brian C. Miller said:

Perhaps one of the things that is attracting your attention in the photograph is the "pop" given by the model's red lipstick. A number of Johnny's images have that "pop" accent in them. "WarehouseEktarAmy054_20" has a much more natural color balance.

Johnny: Welcome to the forum! You have a really great eye for color photography. I myself have never used convenience shops such as Target or Walmart because I shoot MF or LF. (I only shoot 35mm for Kodak HIE.) I have to send my color film to a lab out of state, as nobody develops LF E6 in the entire state.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the warm welcome Brian. I used to post on APUG years ago, it's nice to return and see people still discussing these nuances.

Yeah, consumer labs don't offer much of a range but my local Target has greatly enhanced my use of 35mm. HIE... so many films and so little time!

markbarendt said:

Just FYI, the example you provided was also adjusted.

Every negative image has to be, it is simply the nature of the medium.

It makes no difference if that is simply the default adjustment built into the scanning software or the starting exposure and filter pack in the enlarger.

It can be done by manipulating the color and luminosity of the light on your subject and the context the subject resides in. It can also be manipulated with development changes, say a 1-stop push.

My point is that just "having to adjust" isn't really a problem, it's simply the way the process works.

Click to expand...

Total agreement! I strive to showcase the raw properties of my films as much as possible but nearly every shot needs some sort of tweaking to make that shot work. True SOOC is great but rare if not impossible by definition.