Ektar 100 E.I. 200 and pushed development?

Paul Verizzo · Jan 17, 2011

Anyone tried this?

I will, sooner or later, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel.

yeknom02 · Jan 17, 2011

I saw this set on Flickr, but it's pushed to 400:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjcrane/sets/72157625686295673/

Paul Verizzo · Jan 17, 2011

Thanks. I'm going to go with probability and say that it was not pushed to 400, only exposed at that E.I. As we (probably) all know, pushing C-41 is not done at the local drug store. Either DIY or "real" labs. And since the poster did not make any claim about extra development, I'm presuming it wan't truly pushed.

Josh Harmon · Jan 17, 2011

I believe that to push 100 C41 film to 200 you just increase the C41 developer from 3:15 to 3:45, as per the what google says.

It is probably one of those situations where testing or trial/error need to be used if hand processing.

Athiril · Jan 17, 2011

30 seconds per stop according to Kodak (at least for Portra 800.. cant imagine it'd be -too- different for other films).

You could also try a pre-developer weak b&w developer to grow/amplify the latent image (just not to the extent of forming a visible image like normal development).

You'd have to wash after and dry it in the tank (with dessicator/silica gel bags?) or in the dark, load back onto the roll in the dark then give it to the C-41 minilab etc.. bit of a pita if you dont DIY.

Paul Verizzo · Jan 17, 2011

Paul Verizzo said:
Thanks. I'm going to go with probability and say that it was not pushed to 400, only exposed at that E.I. As we (probably) all know, pushing C-41 is not done at the local drug store. Either DIY or "real" labs. And since the poster did not make any claim about extra development, I'm presuming it wan't truly pushed.

I made a comment on the page about EI alone or push developer, and the OP said it was (allegedly?) pushed by a "real" lab.

2F/2F · Jan 17, 2011

That example of Ektar at 400 does not look pushed. It just looks underexposed. Ektar pushed will have tons of contrast.

Athiril · Jan 17, 2011

That example of Ektat at 400 does not look underexposed. People need to learn they cant make such statements without being on a calibrated monitor. Or learn to read a histogram at the least.

Markster · Jan 18, 2011

I believe it's pushed. Look at the grain! It's by all measures one of the finest grain films out there. Most of the pictures I've seen scanned from Ektar 100 look very nice.

That flickr album was rife with very large and visible grain. It looked like ISO 800 film (something I'm familiar with). So, I can believe with my limited experience that that is Ektar severely pushed (which brings out the grain)

tonyjuliano · Jan 18, 2011

Why not just pull the "new" Portra 400 to 200? Or use the older Portra 160?

Paul Verizzo · Jan 18, 2011

Of course, one can.......

tonyjuliano said:
Why not just pull the "new" Portra 400 to 200? Or use the older Portra 160?

But the Portra 400 has a LOT more grain, and even with less grain due to overexposure, and more grain on the hypothetical Ektar, they probably are still far apart. I've been researching the Kodak color neg films a lot, maybe I should write something up.

And, it's more expensive, and it's only available mail order. And I don't have any!

perkeleellinen · Jan 18, 2011

Would be interesting to see if the extra grain Ektar picks up from underexposure and the grain lost (?) from Portra being overexposed both end up in the same place.

There's been quite a bit online recently about the new Portra being supposedly quite good at handling underexposure, or at least, scanning software is quite good at rescuing thin negs.

mrred · Jan 18, 2011

I have pushed Ektar 100 (120) to 400 and is quite acceptable. There is an increase in grain and contrast, but no noticeable colour shift. The Unicolor kits give times for pull/push for -1,+1,+2. It's been a while, but I can find some images and post if you *really* need an affidavit...

Paul Verizzo · Jan 18, 2011

I just got a roll back of Ektar 100, no push, mostlytest shots. I had them put it on a CD.

Wow, how cyan! A very blue car was slightly greenish, or well, cyan. Ditto a blue tarp.

Perhaps the don't color correct on the scans? I don't know enough about photo finishing norms to answer that.

I'll scan them on my own scanner with and without "Autotone" and see what happens.

perkeleellinen · Jan 18, 2011

Some labs seem to have problems scanning Ektar.

frobozz · Jan 18, 2011

I had trouble scanning Ektar with Vuescan, and the author said he just uses the Kodak scan profiles that they release... and they hadn't released one for Ektar yet! That was about a year ago. The latest Vuescan seems to have profiles for it now, but it's entirely possible some labs have not gotten them yet for whatever equipment they use.

Duncan

Athiril · Jan 18, 2011

Many labs simply can't handle colour properly..and don't even use colour management

This is O/T but keeps coming up..I use Epson Scan via Photoshop. I have no trouble with colour. Go through each R,G,B channel and set the maximum and minimum sliders to the max and min values on the histogram of the image (if you have the frame selected or outside the film area, that will be wider so beware) for each, then look at each channel and recognise where the midpoint is for each channel and slide the gamma point of each R,G,B to it. Presto, corrected. Try to keep on topic.

Ektar 100 E.I. 200 and pushed development?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency