Ektar 100

Marcus S · Mar 2, 2010

I am about to do studio photography of several industrial products on a white background. The main use for these images is the website.
For most of of my work I use Reala, but I am curious about Ektar 100. Has anybody had experience using this film for product photography?

Marcus

Marcus S · Mar 4, 2010

Is there nobody out there who has used Ektar in the studio?
I forgot to mention location photography for the larger products.

Thank you,

Marcus

nickandre · Mar 4, 2010

It will emphasize reds and give you a high saturation image when printed analog. If scanned, you can do anything you want with it. It wouldn't be my first recommendation when color accuracy is key but it's not going to destroy a shoot. Film is cheap just try some.

Ektagraphic · Mar 4, 2010

Kodak's website lists thing that Ektar are optimal for and one of them is product photography. Won't hurt to give it a try.

Chazzy · Mar 5, 2010

Wouldn't it be better to use a film with more accurate and natural color rendition? If the final product will be jpgs for websites, you can always change the color rendition in Photoshop.

Marcus S · Mar 5, 2010

I have found that Reala provides very good colour accuracy and is usually my number one choice.
Since I scan most of my commercial work, I am curious just how much stronger the colour rendition of Ektar is.
Of course the type of lighting is a contributing factor in the final outcome of the image.

Thank you for your input,

Marcus

Pupfish · Mar 5, 2010

Huh-they still make Reala?

Ektar 100 is a really nice, not garish, slightly saturated film type. It's got a distinctive Kodak "look" to it that is very reminiscent to me of Kodachrome. But it also has a very strong magenta cast to the base that might drive you a little nuts unless you find a profile for it for your scanner. There may now be one for Silverfast, so I've heard.

For accuracy, I'd go with Fuji Pro 160s myself, particularly if clean whites are needed. Available in all format sizes, too, which Ektar is not, quite yet.

2F/2F · Mar 5, 2010

I tried several rolls of it in 120 for product shots when it first came out.

Reala is what is claims to be: realistic (and more so than any of the Fujicolor Pro films). Think very similar to what you actually see with your eyes.

Ektar is what it claims to be: unrealistic (and purposefully so). Think a student election sign painted with primary tempera paints.

Choose the one that will give you what you want.

pentaxuser · Mar 5, 2010

I wonder about whether the film colour is correct and it is our perception that is wrong. Our brain adjusts from what the eye actually sees. The brain removes the warmth from incandescent light in a room until it is faced with a view of such light from outside where some daylight remains. Then the yellowness of incandescent light becomes clear. We have a daylight low energy bulb in our dining room and from the living room which has some incandescent light it looks positively unreal and unnatural. My brain has seen incandescent light for most of its life and does not take to what is probably a more authentic light.

There is a very good picture of a dog( retriever I think) by Wolfeye where all the colours look absolutely natural except the underneath of the tongue which seems to be too red. However if the rest of the colours look right then is this retriever's tongue really that red and I simply think it is over saturated because my brain wrongly believes that retriever's tongues should be more pink?

So if another film records the tongue as paler is this more authentic or is it just agreeing with my perception of colour?

I suspect that in colour there are few if any absolutes and the film demonstrating colour authenticity is simply conforming to my perception which may be the same as yours for most scenes so we agree but differs in other kinds of scenes and we disagree as to its colour authenticity.

pentaxuser

Chazzy · Mar 5, 2010

Pupfish said:
Huh-they still make Reala?

Ektar 100 is a really nice, not garish, slightly saturated film type. .

We'll have to disagree on this. I found the reds and the blues to be quite saturated, although the yellows were better. I wouldn't hesitate to call it garish. But then, I used to think that Kodak 400 NC was the perfect color film. Now I'm thinking of trying Fuji 400H.

photomem · Mar 5, 2010

I think I will give my observations on Ektar... I am a Kodachrome nut. I love deep colors, good saturation, and a good overall red response. I get that in Ektar. I even go so far as to shoot it at ISO 64 to boost the colors and make it look even more like Kodachrome. I do some product photography myself and this is what I think... If you are shooting products which use alot of red in the design or logotyping and an intense red would work, use Ektar. If you are looking for neutral or even subdued colors or in an instance where the red response would warm up the image too much, then use another film.

Marcus S · May 5, 2010

It seems that colour is not perceived the same by everyone.
I have recently scanned a couple of architectural images that I took when the first Ektar films came on the market. The colours were slightly more intense but not over the top at all. After more than 20 years, the negatives produced wonderful scans.
Thank you all for your input, it is much appreciated.

nyoung · May 5, 2010

It seems that colour is not perceived the same by everyone.

I recall reading - in a sociology text I think - about some Kodak research 40+ years ago in which they asked test subjects to choose the whitest white from a panel of whites ever so slightly tinted with different colours.

Choice of "white" seemed to depend on the subjects cultural/ethnic/regional origin with Northern Europeans preferring blueish whites and folks from Southern Europe liking reddish or yellowish whites.

Michael Erb · May 15, 2010

pentaxuser said:
I suspect that in colour there are few if any absolutes and the film demonstrating colour authenticity is simply conforming to my perception which may be the same as yours for most scenes so we agree but differs in other kinds of scenes and we disagree as to its colour authenticity.

pentaxuser

I think pentaxuser is on to something. Though we can differentiate between colors they can be very fluid things. Joseph Albers's studies in color would back up the idea that our perceptions of color have as much to do with how they look as the pigments themselves.

That being said I really like the Ektar 100. I compared the results of a shoot with the subject and found that the colors were very accurate even though they "seemed" over-saturated. Use this film if you want to accentuate the color that is really there.

Photo Engineer · May 15, 2010

nyoung said:
It seems that colour is not perceived the same by everyone.

I recall reading - in a sociology text I think - about some Kodak research 40+ years ago in which they asked test subjects to choose the whitest white from a panel of whites ever so slightly tinted with different colours.

Choice of "white" seemed to depend on the subjects cultural/ethnic/regional origin with Northern Europeans preferring blueish whites and folks from Southern Europe liking reddish or yellowish whites.

The tests showed that context was important. For example, take that bluish white and put it on a "white" wedding gown and everyone objected. They preferred a pinkish or yellowish white depending on the rest of the surround. The details go on from there, but the tests show that everyone has a preference.

PE

pentaxuser · May 15, 2010

Another good example for me is the "ringaround" you see in colour processing books which you can use to identify colour casts. Some casts are easily spotted even when the cast is slight and others are very difficult. In one of my books it's a picture of a young blond girl with an ivory coloured cardigan. Because her hair and cardigan are such large parts of the picture the example of the slight yellow cast looks almost normal. In fact take away the genuinely neutral picture and most viewers woud identify the yellow cast as being the authentic neutral picture.

Terence Donovan used to say that whatever you do, always err on the warm side. No clients ever complained when the cast was too warm but instantly rejected any that had the slightest of hint of a blue or cyan cast.

pentaxuser

nickandre · May 15, 2010

pentaxuser said:
Terence Donovan used to say that whatever you do, always err on the warm side. No clients ever complained when the cast was too warm but instantly rejected any that had the slightest of hint of a blue or cyan cast.

pentaxuser

I've noticed that too. I've also noticed that I've printed images differently at different times, and that it depends upon the light you evaluate the print by.

Athiril · May 15, 2010

Ektar looks quite real and not unreal to me. I've seen it put to good use to beautiful indoor portraiture in controlled lighting, (unsuitable for uncontrolled/natural lighting though imho), I'd follow Kodak's recommendation for the film, Kodak know's better than 2F/2F what their film is good for imho.

Calling it innaccurate in colour reproduction is like calling Reala or other C-41 films more colour accurate than E-6 films, when they cant even reproduce certain colours -at all- let alone accurately, while E-6 can.

pentaxuser · May 15, 2010

OP, it might be worth looking at the Roger(Hicks) and Frances(Schultz) Photography site. There's a review of the film there which does seem to lend some credence to the belief held by some that Ektar is a little garish in certain conditions but it depends on your definition of garish.

pentaxuser

benjiboy · May 15, 2010

If you want to evaluate if you like a film or if it's suitable for a particular purpose you can't rely on other people perceptions, different people have different colour vision, and prefer different colour pallets and levels of saturation I'm afraid the only way I.M.O. is "Suck it and see"

Photo Engineer · May 15, 2010

Athiril said:
Ektar looks quite real and not unreal to me. I've seen it put to good use to beautiful indoor portraiture in controlled lighting, (unsuitable for uncontrolled/natural lighting though imho), I'd follow Kodak's recommendation for the film, Kodak know's better than 2F/2F what their film is good for imho.

Calling it innaccurate in colour reproduction is like calling Reala or other C-41 films more colour accurate than E-6 films, when they cant even reproduce certain colours -at all- let alone accurately, while E-6 can.

The color gamut of any color negative film is superior to a reversal film simply due to the masking.

If there is a color that cannot be reproduced by a film (and there are such, particularly those of some aniline fabric dyes), neither a positive nor a negative film will reproduce them well.

PE

Athiril · May 16, 2010

Barring Ektar, how is purple and sunset colours going for colour neg these days?

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2010

Athiril said:
Barring Ektar, how is purple and sunset colours going for colour neg these days?

Quite well actually, as long as the scanning or printing process does not remove the color. You see, that is the basic problem with most printing and scanning, and it gives one a false impression of poor color.

So, color neg does as well or better than a slide film but the "beauty" can be filtered out. Also, reversal films tend to exaggerate the color via high contrast. Even Ektar is more natural in contrast when printed than most color slides when viewed.

PE

Athiril · May 16, 2010

I haven't found Astia to exaggerate colour in my personal opinion, but I find it to still reproduce the richness of a brilliant sunset.

I have yet to take a colour negative sunset image that hasn't had a loss of colour and shifted or inserted colours that dont seem correctable as it throws the rest of the image out of whack doing so, Ektacolor 160 (Portra?) and Reala was the absolute worst for this I've encountered, other films doing much better, regardless if it's been scanned or printed.

Ektacolor took post-sunset purple sky and pink clouds, and made them into a simply dull, overcast sky, dull pale blue and grey clouds. While I didn't try optically printing it, I couldn't correct it or get the slightest hint of colour from it.

The negative is only an in-between product.

The best results I have, have had muted colour, and is flat, it lacks the original vibrance of the scene, which I can capture with digital or E-6.

I generally try exposing the highlights as midtones, ie: spot metering them, and taking that as my exposure, rather than adjusting them up to highlights like I would on digital or E-6.

If you could suggest a method of best reproducing sunset on a C-41 film, I'll try it. I would like to be able to do that, even better if it doesn't involve underexposing.

hrst · May 16, 2010

Athiril said:
I generally try exposing the highlights as midtones, ie: spot metering them, and taking that as my exposure, rather than adjusting them up to highlights like I would on digital or E-6.

This may be your problem. Just the opposite works with color negs; expose for shadows, even if you overexpose the highlights a bit. I'm not surprised that you get dull, grey darker colors if you underexpose.

Ektar 100

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency