Color film rookie in love with Ektar. What other films should I try?

[TheOtherEast]

I've never used color film for my serious photography, I always went digital for color and film for black and white. However after seeing a ad for Ektar 100 a few months ago I gave it a shot and loved it. What other films should I try with fine grain and vivid colors?

 

[keithwms]

Try some astia 100f and velvia 100 slide films, and also the various kodak and fuji 160 print films.

 

[bdial]

Kodachrome

 

[DanielStone]

Kodachrome

i definitely second this one. shoot it while its available!

just out of curiosity, does anyone know the difference between KR64 and the professional version, PKR64?

if so, please let me know. just wondering why it's 50% more expensive on bh's site.

thanks

 

[Stephen Schoof]

Velvia 50

 

[markbarendt]

If you really liked it why switch?

Try finding it's limits and strengths instead.

 

[TheOtherEast]

If you really liked it why switch?

Try finding it's limits and strengths instead.

I like to experiment, and to date I've only tried Portra VC, Ektar, and Superia. I don't want to pick a gun until I've shopped around.

 

[markbarendt]

I like to experiment, and to date I've only tried Portra VC, Ektar, and Superia. I don't want to pick a gun until I've shopped around.

Okay are you using an enlarger or a lab?

If a lab, do you know what they are doing to your shots?

Many labs will "fix" your images "automatically". If this is the case you don't really know what the film is doing yet, you only know what the lab does with each of those films.

Superia is a fave of mine, but they are all good and all can be manipulated to suit most subjects.

Also if you really want a good answer you need to describe you needs very specifically.

What speed film do you need?

What subjects?

Where do you shoot?

What output do you expect? ...

 

[TheOtherEast]

Okay are you using an enlarger or a lab?

If a lab, do you know what they are doing to your shots?

Many labs will "fix" your images "automatically". If this is the case you don't really know what the film is doing yet, you only know what the lab does with each of those films.

Superia is a fave of mine, but they are all good and all can be manipulated to suit most subjects.

Also if you really want a good answer you need to describe you needs very specifically.

What speed film do you need?

What subjects?

Where do you shoot?

...

I only need low speed film and like to shoot nature and landscapes with film. I use an enlarger. I do all my action stuff with Digital.

 

[BradS]

I love Sally. What other girl should I try?

Sorry, the OP title just struck me funny...

 

[Excalibur2]

***What other films should I try with fine grain and vivid colors?**

Well for 35mm, for colours, and people who haven't gone digital, and not bothered with the "film" look, just scan the neg or print with a good cheap scanner and you can change them (colours) all anyway, so for non diehards (diehards should be using medium format plus to get the best from film), it's becoming less important compared to say a good film (e.g fuji 1600asa) for low light or a very fine grain film for large enlargments and cropping.
Also to put a photo on a forum or to email a jpg to a friend you have to scan anyway so it can ruin the film look that you would see in a glossy print.
What I would find useful is a colour film with low grain that can be set at 6400asa and..... give excellent/true colours as basic....erm who is going to plough money in to develope that.

 

[markbarendt]

I only need low speed film and like to shoot nature and landscapes with film. I use an enlarger. I do all my action stuff with Digital.

Okay then, unless you are interested in printing with Ilfochrome, all that is really left are Fuji's pro films, 160s or 160c.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

If you want negatives you should add Fuji Reala and 160C to your list.

 

[BobNewYork]

Stick with the Ektar and use it 'til the thrill is gone - if you're lucky you may never lose that thrill!!

Bob H

 

[alan doyle]

what film...

in the latest uk magazine amateur photographer,the reviewer stated that although he loved ektar he still would shoot kodachrome.
try it exposures can be tricky if you usually shoot neg or digital.
but with good light and an accurate exposure it is amazing.
my guess is you have 6 months to a year to try this color film, that defined kodak and color photography for generations.

 

[nickandre]

It doesn't get much better than Ektar. I've been printing color for a year and a half. I tried reala and I got gross looking washed out pictures. Ektar gives sharp looking colorful pictures. Problem solved.

Kodachrome is fun too. Would be funner if you could print it analog for a reasonable price.

 

[Pupfish]

Astia 100F is my and a lot of other folks new standard. Very accurate color and more forgiving in dynamic range than most transparency films. Another big reason I'm keen on it is that I can use it with my 35mm, 645, and 4x5 gear. Can't do that with too many other films these days. Portra NC. Not Ektar 100, yet (maybe never). But why not try Ektar in 120 format anyway? Just picked up two rolls yesterday to try it with my Pentax 645N. Since your objective is for better low-ISO quality with relatively static subjects, nothing beats a bigger negative. 6x9 or 6x17 should be rather impressive.

 

[2F/2F]

I would try Reala 100 and Superia 800. With those three, you can do almost anything you need as far as color neg goes.

 

[EdSawyer]

I'd track down some Ektar 25, that's worth trying. Also Kodachrome 25 for sure. And Velvia.

-Ed

 

[mikeTO]

Velvia 100 gave me amazing results from the 2 rolls I shot in Europe. I also really enjoy Reala 100 and hope you get good results from it. From everyone's replies here, I will also look into some Ektar and compare it to my Reala shots

 

[Chris Breitenstein]

IF you want prints then shoot negative film. otherwise, go with chromes. prints from chromes are possible, but in order to get acceptable color separation you will need to have Dye transfers made (which are ungodly expensive).

If you are concerned about print quality Fuji pro and kodak portra are the way to go. Be sure to cut the ISO of your color negative film in half. if you don't you will not get the best saturation, color separation, and contrast possible. Color film that is exposed at the manufacturers ISO prints with weak blacks and relatively flat colors.

Both kodak and Fuji make films in vivid and natural color. try them both and see what you like.

 

[keithwms]

Chris, I don't rate the ISO of my neg film anywhere close to half the box speed. Approximately a third stop or half stop is all I seem to need add to get very rich saturation.

To a c41 beginner, I would recommend bracketing in half stops, e.g. EV-1.5, -1, -0.5, 0, and +0.5.

To a slide beginner I would recommend EV-0.3, 0, +0.3, and +0.5 or so.

These two experiments, on single 35mm rolls, will be very instructive.

 

[Ektagraphic]

You MUST try some Kodachrome 64! For that, check out the Kodachrome Project. Other than that all of the Ektachromes are pretty nifty.

 

[Chris Breitenstein]

Hey Keith;

Over exposing color film helps with saturation, and without doing so you cannot get a convincing black from an RA-4 print. The film is under-rated by the manufacturer in order to make it sound faster, and thus more appealing to the general public. The manufactures ISO rating is not based on what will give you the best results in the field, but on what are the minimum acceptable results as determined by lab bench testing.

If you haven't done it then at least give it a try.

Bracketing is a good way to start out. When you learn how your film, paper, and exposure combination begin to react to different lighting scenarios: Bracketing becomes unnecessary.

That all being said, do what gives you the best results.

chris

Chris, I don't rate the ISO of my neg film anywhere close to half the box speed. Approximately a third stop or half stop is all I seem to need add to get very rich saturation.

To a c41 beginner, I would recommend bracketing in half stops, e.g. EV-1.5, -1, -0.5, 0, and +0.5.

To a slide beginner I would recommend EV-0.3, 0, +0.3, and +0.5 or so.

These two experiments, on single 35mm rolls, will be very instructive.

 

[gatewaycityca]

I like Ektar 100 too, especially for landscape and architecture photos. It's super sharp and the color saturation is absolutely beautiful. But to be honest, I wouldn't recommend Ektar for a beginner. It seems to be extremely unforgiving with exposure, especially underexposure. Moreso than any other film I've used. You really have to try to get the exposure just right, and a light meter is pretty much mandatory. I've tried using the "Sunny 16 Rule" with Ektar, but I didn't have any luck at all. If you underexpose it, the colors get really weird. With other films, I've had good results by estimating the light. In fact, with most color print films I've been able to get decent pictures without using a light meter at all. But still, if you do nail the exposure, it will take incredible pictures that will blow you away. I like Ektar and I will keep using it. But it's just a different film and it takes some getting used to.

If you're getting good results with Ektar 100, then keep using it. I would also recommend trying Ultra Color 100. Kodak is going to discontinue it, but you can still find it in most photography supply shops. It has very nice color saturation, but gives a little bit of a warmer tone than Ektar. Kodak Gold 200 is a great film for all-around general use. It's not as special or spectacular as Ektar of course, but it's very forgiving with exposure and if you're anywhere near the right exposure, you will get good results. I shoot it all the time without even using a light meter. I use it for my kind of fall back film, when I don't want to be too worried about exposure, and just want to use an easy film for some landscape photos or snapshots.

And yes, definitely try some Kodachrome! I shot a roll of Kodachrome (the first time I have ever used slide film) and it's amazing!

- Chris