Ektar 100

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2010

Use a bit of overexposure for best results. I often use 1/3 stop. Then when printing or scanning, tweak the color to your satisfaction. That is the advantage of color neg. You can "tweak" saturation or contrast by exposure without losing anything in your image as opposed to reversal.

PE

Athiril · May 16, 2010

hrst: normal exposure (not underexposed) gives me less colour in the highlights, 'underexposing' has given me the best with C-41, ie: exposing the colourful highlights as midtones instead of highlights, exposing them as highlights tends to wash them out.

Overexposing C-41 gives better midtones and shadows (so Im sacrificing the quality of those for the highlights when I expose them as midtones), but doesn't increased exposure give lower and lower and lower highlight contrast as density rises also? I imagine that would be counter-productive, as I imagine the density of all colour layers gets closer together instead of having more separation?, becoming more neutral looking, at least that is what I think from looking at normal exposure and bracketed shots.

I could try another roll next time there is going to be a pretty sunset and overexposing it from a 'normal exposure', like I would for anything else I shoot with C-41.

Photo Engineer: I'll try that on something that isn't Ektar, Portra, or Reala, I'll come back with another thread with comparisons when I get the chance.

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2010

I've posted examples of Portra VC at 100 and at 160 both. That is rated speed and about 1/3 stop over. The scans and the prints were both posted here on APUG not too long ago when discussing a similar subject.

PE

Athiril · May 16, 2010

Ektacolor 160 is Portra 160 NC right? Which is what I meant I'll avoid.

Photo Engineer · May 17, 2010

Athiril said:
Ektacolor 160 is Portra 160 NC right? Which is what I meant I'll avoid.

IDK if these are the same films.

Check the Kodak web site.

PE

Thingy · May 17, 2010

I just wish I could buy a box of 10 sheets of 5x4 Ektar 100 for less than the £40 a box it is on sale for in the UK at present!

stevebrot · May 18, 2010

I am pretty much a lurker here on APUG, but figured I could drop my $0.02 worth on this thread. I returned to film after several years of digital about 18 months ago and do primarily B&W with the occasional roll of color. I was intrigued when Ektar 100 first came out and ordered a couple of boxes to try. I was very pleased with the results and have found that the film works well for my style of shooting (landscape, flowers, buildings, sculpture, etc...not much portraiture). That being said, I have had some rather alarming results on some rolls and have seen some photos where the color rendition was shockingly poor. I have also had beautifully subtle color rendition on other rolls.

To make the long story short; after testing and research this is what I learned:

Quality processing is important. After three crummy rolls from Costco's lab (all under-developed), I now have all my processing done at a local pro lab.
Do your own scans if doing figital (dare I say that here?)
Expose at box speed or 1/3 stop over. Ektar is very sensitive to exposure, both in terms of contrast and color rendition.

For those that are interested, here is a link to Ektar photos on my Flickr Photostream. It is a pretty broad selection that shows both strengths and weaknesses of the film:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=ektar&w=28796087%40N02

And for those that are particularly bored, here is a link to the thread on Pentax Forums where I posted the results from my exposure test series:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/66735-ektar-exposure-tests-2-2-stops.html

Steve

(Was pleased to receive 20 rolls of Ektar free from Kodak yesterday...seems they liked one of my Ektar photos...)

pentaxuser · May 18, 2010

Steve If I ever own a shop selling Ektar can you remind me never to sell to the first person to comment on your research shots on the Pentaxforum. There's no pleasing some people.

pentaxuser

Ektagraphic · May 18, 2010

I just shot my first Ektar 4x5! I can't wait to have it processed!

stevebrot · May 18, 2010

pentaxuser said:
Steve If I ever own a shop selling Ektar can you remind me never to sell to the first person to comment on your research shots on the Pentaxforum. There's no pleasing some people.

pentaxuser

Ha! Ha! Sometimes forum comments come across as pretty blunt.

Steve

benjiboy · May 19, 2010

I've still got my first roll of Ektar in one of my cameras and am looking forward to seeing the results, and how it compares with Fuji Reala.

Galah · May 19, 2010

benjiboy said:
I've still got my first roll of Ektar in one of my cameras and am looking forward to seeing the results, and how it compares with Fuji Reala.

I have shot two rolls, so far.

One roll (shot in our winter, which is a bit like Northern Spring) came out quite well, the main thing being highly saturated reds (red berries looked like they were made of molten red wax, and a red leather handbag looked like glossy vinyl).

The other was taken very early in the morning and late evening, and reacted strongly to the red shift in the colour balance of the daylight at those times of day, giving a rather garish result.

I haven't yet used my third roll (I'm still mulling over the earlier results)

Aurum · May 20, 2010

I got a pack of shots back from my local processing lab, and my feelings were that on their noritisu processor, shadow detail was a bit murky, but things like bright reds (car brake lights) pinged out quite well .

I'm not sure wether or not it was the minilab settings, or the subject matter, but I think from what I can see this is a film that may sing nicely in bright lighting taking pictures of bright colours.

I took two sets of pictures on the same roll. First was January in the snow in Paris, second was in the UK during a sunny weekend walk. I overexposed slightly at Iso 64, to attempt to give a little punch like I do with most of my C41 work.

Next few rolls I shoot I may consider what I shoot a bit more, rather than just general photography, and might also put a roll or two through another processing house to see if I can get more premium results.

I get the feeling that Ektar has its foibles like Kodachrome does, (Rich reds certainly) so may need a bit of care as regards subject choice

2F/2F · May 20, 2010

Just shot a roll of the 35 for a quick shoot of a car for a friend. Results were as expected, because I used it for a situation in which I wanted its characteristics. It was the right tool for the job, and it performed well. However, yet again, the pictures proved to me that it is anything but a "general-purpose" film. It looks a lot like Kodachrome, but a bit more "clinical" and not as warm.

Rated at 100, incident meter used. '500 at f/5.6. If anyone is interested, camera was a black Nikon F with a 35mm f/2.0 pre AI lens.

pentaxuser · May 20, 2010

2F/2F While there is only three main colours( red, green and blue) here with the red dominant, nothing looks garish here. Quite the reverse. All the colours look natural to me. Certainly if the subject is full of bright colours in real life then Ektar seems to be the one to capture these.

pentaxuser

2F/2F · May 20, 2010

Well, it looks pretty damned garish and unnatural to me! I was there. I know what the scene actually looked like, and it was pretty far from how the pic looks. It was a pretty standard hazy California sunny 11 day, which most films will render as a bit on the hazy and flat, though warm, side. As I said, however, that is what I wanted for these pix, so I chose my tools and my light accordingly. It is a very contrasty and very saturated film. The film was obviously designed only to replace Kodachrome, IMHO.

stevebrot · May 20, 2010

2F/2F said:
Well, it looks pretty damned garish and unnatural to me! I was there. I know what the scene actually looked like, and it was pretty far from how the pic looks. It was a pretty standard hazy California sunny 11 day, which most films will render as a bit on the hazy and flat, though warm, side. As I said, however, that is what I wanted for these pix, so I chose my tools and my light accordingly. It is a very contrasty and very saturated film. The film was obviously designed only to replace Kodachrome, IMHO.

I have had similar experience shooting red (non-metallic) cars in full sun with Ektar. I don't know if it is because adjoining chrome takes a deeper value or the value of the red is too high, but it appears that "depth" in the paint job is lost. Here is a similar shot from last summer:

Dead Link Removed

Whether that constitutes "garish", I don't know. The red is not exactly blocked up, but certainly looks flat. Perhaps a little more care with the scan?

Steve

Q.G. · May 20, 2010

Isn't that what people used to call (and love as) "Kodachrome glow"?

bdial · May 20, 2010

Q.G. said:
Isn't that what people used to call (and love as) "Kodachrome glow"?

That is definitely not Kodachrome. Though to me, Ektar has seemed the closest thing to it, but that red is not a Kodachrome red.

nickandre · May 20, 2010

Bear in mind it will look different if printed optically. Printing optically produces better reds.

Q.G. · May 20, 2010

bdial said:
That is definitely not Kodachrome. Though to me, Ektar has seemed the closest thing to it, but that red is not a Kodachrome red.

Maybe a different red, but Kodachrome had a similar knack of (almost) blocking in reds.

MattKing · May 21, 2010

Steve (stevebrot):

That car in your photo shows a whole bunch of sky blue in the reflections in the chrome and glass and on the whitewalls. In that circumstance, I would be surprised if the red didn't look at least a little flat.

It would be interesting to see what effect a polariser might have.

Thingy · May 21, 2010

It looks like you would benefit from using Velvia 50, or perhaps 100 if thae colour saturation proves too strong.

Chazzy · May 21, 2010

2F/2F said:
Well, it looks pretty damned garish and unnatural to me! I was there. I know what the scene actually looked like, and it was pretty far from how the pic looks. It was a pretty standard hazy California sunny 11 day, which most films will render as a bit on the hazy and flat, though warm, side. As I said, however, that is what I wanted for these pix, so I chose my tools and my light accordingly. It is a very contrasty and very saturated film. The film was obviously designed only to replace Kodachrome, IMHO.

I agree that it's a very saturated film, but it suits the car. I bet your friend was pleased.

wblynch · May 21, 2010

tiberiustibz said:
Bear in mind it will look different if printed optically. Printing optically produces better reds.

It seems nearly impossible to get optical prints anymore. All the walk-in places available to me are scan and digital print.

There are mail order optical labs but it seems they charge up to 5x what a local minilab does.

Ektar 100

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency