Ektar 25 vs New Ektar 100 Results

First off I'll say I did this test for fun and it isn't anything definative. I just wanted to see how well the new film would perform against the old Ektar 25. I'll start off and say the Ektar 25 roll did ok, but it does suffer from the grain up problem my other rolls of Royal Gold 25 suffered. You can see the white specs mixed in with the grain that makes the image unsmooth. This is what happens when RG25/ Ektar 25 deteriorates. But the test gave me a good idea of what both films could do. First off I'll state how I did this test. I used two Canon SLRs- an Elan 7 and an EOS 1N. Both cameras used the same 50mm 1.8 lens which I switched from each camera. The F stop was kept at F8 on both cameras and I just adjusted the shutter speed down two stops for the 25 ISO film. Tripod was used. I let the cameras do the focus lock. The films were processed on a Noritsu V100 C-41 machine and scanned on a Noritsu 3011 printer. Scans were color adjusted for each roll and saved as a Tiff file at 3000x2000 16 base scans. For the 100% crop photos I used my 3200 dpi Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV. I used Vuescan for the film scanner and also made adjustments to the color. Now as per the color- I adjusted because I wanted to see what the best possible result would be from these two films. It doesn't make anything definative, but it would give me an idea of color saturation and overall color look between the two films. And my main concern was how grain compared between these two films, though as I said the Ektar suffers from the white specs syndrome which many of these rolls suffer from due to age and freezing. So anyway take a look at the scans to give you an idea of what to expect. The color is definately better and brighter on the new film, while the old film looks more muddy in the colors. Also the old film is indeed sharper, but the newer film seems to have smoother grain. I suspect grain size would be similar if it weren't for the aged 25 film. I have 1 more roll of each film to do one more test if I needed to, but I think what I see below speaks enough. The new film is definately worth getting, especially in light of how old rolls of Ektar 25 will suffer from some aging. So here are the first shots. This first one was what fall leaves were left on trees. The day at the time this was taken was overcast with no sun.
MODERATOR'S NOTE:
As of September 2021 braxus has re-posted the images that were formerly available in the (now unavailable) photo.net links below. See post #37 in this thread.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252430


Next shot the sun did come out, but it was not full blown sunny out- just partially. Enough to give some light on the subject shots.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252454

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252456


And then I got my usual suspect to pose for me which was in the morning again in overcast conditions.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252458

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252460

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252461


And here is some full shost of a pic with the crop from a section below it.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252464

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252471

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252465

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252473

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252468

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252475

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252470

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8252476


As you can see the colors on the new film are brighter which is consistent on how their new emulsions have gone lately.

I rated them at box speed for both films since this is what Kodak wants. But I am aware the 100 speed film likes to be overexposed, but I have yet to try that.

Thanks for you're valuable and interesting contribution, it looks to me as if the new Ekrar 100 gives a most creditable performance against the 25 ISO version and in most cases looks better to me, I look forward to shooting some as soon as I can get my hands on some.

This is very nice to see. I am pleased that the new film is less contrasty than the Ektar 25. Ektar 25 did have the ability to be excessively contrasty and in some cases to have noticeable cross-over. A solid performance at 100 speed will certainly be helpful to both those who handhold their cameras or who photography non static objects.

Thanks for the tests. I'm almost done shooting my test roll and am looking forward to the results.

I did shoot Ektar 25 when it was widely available. And its best performance in my experience was obtained in cloudy days rather than sunny days.

Ektar 100 should be called Ektar 64 from my experience. It is wickedly contrasty: http://is.gd/7Z9c

It is like #5 Neg film from my experience. If you like Velvia...

~Steve Sloan
San Jose, CA

Thanks for that. I prefer the colour rendition of the 100 and it seems to have a better resolution judging by the enlargement of sections with writing.

pentaxuser

I guess we will have to see what Fuji does but the film looks as if it will be very popular with film users.

Claire Senft said:

I guess we will have to see what Fuji does but the film looks as if it will be very popular with film users.

Click to expand...

Might be less so in the U.K. depending on price. Amateur Photographer magazine was quoting £6.39 a roll about 2 months ago. If that's an equivalent sterling conversion from a $ price set by Kodak at the exchange rate at date of publication, then given the £'s collapse goodness knows what it might be by the time it arrives which I think was quoted as end January 2009.

By then some of our banks may be worth less than one day's Kodak production

pentaxuser

Pentaxuser,
I find it very hard to believe that a film that can be bought for 3,6 euros in Germany will cost £6.39 in the UK.

pentaxuser said:

Might be less so in the U.K. depending on price. Amateur Photographer magazine was quoting £6.39 a roll about 2 months ago. If that's an equivalent sterling conversion from a $ price set by Kodak at the exchange rate at date of publication, then given the £'s collapse goodness knows what it might be by the time it arrives which I think was quoted as end January 2009.

By then some of our banks may be worth less than one day's Kodak production

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

At this rate by January next year the whole western worlds
economys will have collapsed and will be back to the barter system, a roll of Ektachrome professional 100 will probably cost two chickens, and a quart of milk.

I am going to order some film from Germany because it is out of stock where I usually get it here in America, and it is over 60% cheaper from Germany.

pentaxuser said:

Might be less so in the U.K. depending on price. Amateur Photographer magazine was quoting £6.39 a roll about 2 months ago. If that's an equivalent sterling conversion from a $ price set by Kodak at the exchange rate at date of publication, then given the £'s collapse goodness knows what it might be by the time it arrives which I think was quoted as end January 2009.

By then some of our banks may be worth less than one day's Kodak production

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Prices on products in one country rarely have much to do with prices in another country, it's really dependant on what people in that country are willing to pay, that covers the cost. If it costs Kodak $1 to make and import into the UK, then whether £6.39 is worth US$2 or US$20 is immaterial. You will probably find that the price for a roll of this film, is in line with other Kodak products of a similar grade, which is probably similar to a price for Fuji film of a similar grade. The word Kodak used to be worth a premium, that hasn't been the case since Kodak swapped their golden (film) goose for an ordinary grey (digital) pigeon.....

Thanks for an interesting comparison. The first thing I noticed is that the 100 shots are consistently lighter than the 25 shots. That may be a shutter speed error, and the 100 shots may be slightly more exposed. The saturation is pretty extreme for both films. They are quite similar in this regard. The 25 may have a bit more general contrast, but is hard to tell because of the lightness difference. The new 100 seems to be decidedly more blue than the 25, and the 25 seems to turn a bit green in the shadows.

wogster said:

You will probably find that the price for a roll of this film, is in line with other Kodak products of a similar grade, which is probably similar to a price for Fuji film of a similar grade. .....

Click to expand...

You're line of reasoning may apply in general but I can say that Fuji film is considerably cheaper here than Kodak. If Kodak charges what it thinks the market will bear in the U.K with a certain minimum profit as the base line price then by January the good news is that it will reduce the price if it wants to sell.

It looks a reasonable film but is never 4 times as good as some Fuji film which I can obtain at about a quarter of the price but is never only a quarter as good.

If all films were selling at £6.39 a roll in the U.K. then even I may be tempted to switch to a non analogue medium.

Eventually enough is enough in terms of what consumers are prepared to pay in hard times. I don't think that £6.39 per roll is going to persuade the undecided to give film a go.

They'll buy cheaper or switch to digital

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

You're line of reasoning may apply in general but I can say that Fuji film is considerably cheaper here than Kodak. If Kodak charges what it thinks the market will bear in the U.K with a certain minimum profit as the base line price then by January the good news is that it will reduce the price if it wants to sell.

It looks a reasonable film but is never 4 times as good as some Fuji film which I can obtain at about a quarter of the price but is never only a quarter as good.

If all films were selling at £6.39 a roll in the U.K. then even I may be tempted to switch to a non analogue medium.

Eventually enough is enough in terms of what consumers are prepared to pay in hard times. I don't think that £6.39 per roll is going to persuade the undecided to give film a go.

They'll buy cheaper or switch to digital

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I thought it looked a little high, how ever it is a "Pro" level film, so unless your a pro and want it's look, then your likely to use something else that is cheaper. I probably go through a 3pk of 24 exposures, at the rate of 1 a year. Would I spend CA$12 for a roll of film, probably not, unless I was trying to get a special effect, not when I can get the 3pk of Fuji for $8......

What I really wonder is how it differs from Reala, 160C, and 160VC, not Ektar 25.

Also, any differences would be purely out of curiosity for me until it is released in a larger format, as I would only perhaps want to use the film in medium or large format. In small format color, I use Press 800 probably 75% of the time, and Provia 400 for most of the rest. Occasionally I use Fuji 64T, and I am very happy with Reala on the special occasions where I put a 100 color neg film in my 35s.

benjiboy said:

At this rate by January next year the whole western worlds
economys will have collapsed and will be back to the barter system, a roll of Ektachrome professional 100 will probably cost two chickens, and a quart of milk.

Click to expand...

Unless the chooks are plucked and the milk pasteurized, it'll be a rip-off!

nsouto said:

Unless the chooks are plucked and the milk pasteurized, it'll be a rip-off!

Click to expand...

Ektachrome ?, sorry my typo, I meant Ektar.

For UK shooters, 7dayshop has Ektar 100 on pre-order for £2.85.

perkeleellinen said:

For UK shooters, 7dayshop has Ektar 100 on pre-order for £2.85.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. £2.85 is much more like it, as they say. So much for AP magazine. To be fair, I suppose it can only print what it is told in a press release. You'd have thought it might have queried £6.39 but then again it deals so little with film these days that it might have been told £63.90 and not thought to have questioned it.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Thanks for that. £2.85 is much more like it, as they say. So much for AP magazine. To be fair, I suppose it can only print what it is told in a press release. You'd have thought it might have queried £6.39 but then again it deals so little with film these days that it might have been told £63.90 and not thought to have questioned it.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

#pragma rant_on

Makes you wonder about the photo magazines though, I was in Chapters a week ago, yeah was last Friday, opening day for Quantum of Solace, which I thoroughly enjoyed..... Flipped through the photo magazines, and it's like film never existed, except in the abandoned equipment classifieds. It's sad though, because I know of only one magazine that still talks about techniques and composing and all that stuff that allows you to shoot one image and be happy with it. The rest of them are more like computer magazines with cameras as a sideline.

I think that one image is a forgotten ideology. Let me explain it, the concept is that of a guy with an 8x10 camera, who comes upon a scene, sets up his tripod, puts on his camera, composes on his ground glass, slides in a film holder and trips the shutter. Puts away the film holder, takes off the camera, breaks down the tripod, and moves on. Versus the guy with the digital camera and superzoom lens, who comes upon the same scene and machine guns everything in sight, hoping against hope itself to get at least one image that isn't complete crap. I was out shooting with a friend, he had one of the latest fancy DSLR's, I had my trusty Konica FC-1, yeah I know it's a quarter century old. I took 50 photos, he took around 500 images. I got twice the number of keepers though.....

#pragma rant_off

Bringing this back on track, when you need to spend real money on film and chemicals, it forces you to conserve the resource, because in the back of your mind is the £0.25 (sometimes a lot more) that image is costing you (between film and processing or chemical costs), so you take a little longer to compose, and make sure that when you trip the shutter you know that what is on the film is going to be a keeper, even without a LCD display and a histogram.

I often think if I had $5,000 to spend on camera gear (come on lotto numbers ), I would buy a nice MF kit.

I just got 2 rolls from Kodak and I plan to start shooting them in tahoe over Thanksgiving.

Why can't they make this stuff in 120?

When I heard that UC 400 was being discontinued, I bought 63 rolls of 135-36 and 55 roll of 120 to keep the film form the hoarders!

I shoot about 50 roll of 135 color and black & white and 20 rolls of 120 color and black & white a year.

Steve

ssloansjca said:

Ektar 100 should be called Ektar 64 from my experience. It is wickedly contrasty: http://is.gd/7Z9c

It is like #5 Neg film from my experience. If you like Velvia...

~Steve Sloan
San Jose, CA

Click to expand...

That's because you are over exposing your film for that lighting situation. You have a very large SBR in those scenes.

benjiboy said:

At this rate by January next year the whole western worlds
economys will have collapsed and will be back to the barter system, a roll of Ektachrome professional 100 will probably cost two chickens, and a quart of milk.

Click to expand...

A quart of milk, where I live, already costs an arm and a leg — that would leave me an armless, legless man with no chickens, no milk, and one roll of slide film that no one will be able to process...