Ektar 400?

[BetterSense]

Doesn't it seem like Kodak could apply the technology behind Ektar 100 to a faster film, kind of like how we have TMX and TMY?

Has anyone tried pushing Ektar 100 or simply underexposing it a couple stops?

What do you use it for; is it suitable for portraits; how much finer grain is it than say, Portra 160?

 

[Sirius Glass]

That is why I am still keeping my stash of Kodak UC 400 120 and 135 from the hoarders. I am waiting for Ektar 400 as fast as I can.

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ektar 400 would be an entirely feasible product if there was a proven market. It would take about 1 - 5 years of R&D depending on the people available and the projects in development. Of course, the ROI would have to support the R&D effort.

It would take at least 1 - 2 new emulsions / layer and the existing couplers could probably be used. The system would have to be rebalanced.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or Kodak could bring back UC 400 in 120.

Steve

 

[GrantR]

I tried pushing some Ektar100 two stops--and it looks simply ridiculous. I felt that the contrast and saturation just got a little out of hand. I could see it looking acceptable perhaps under certain low contrast lighting conditions, but I, myself, will probably never do it again. I'll post some examples here if I can find the negatives.

 

[Mark Antony]

I underexposed Ektar by 2 stops and got OK results:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2009/01/kodak-ektar-100.html

 

[Tom Duffy]

I used to use Portra 400 UC until it was discontinued. I switched to 400 NC, not VC, and was amazed at the results. Maybe we have really good alternatives until 400 Ektar comes along...

 

[Sirius Glass]

As I said I have a freezer full of UC 400 to use when I want the color saturation. When I have exhausted that there are other films that I could use now or even better ones in the future from our yellow box and green box friends.

Steve

 

[stealthman_1]

I'd prefer they used the new technology to come out with a new Ektar 25...
Grand Teton National Park, Kodak Ektar 25, 120 format, expired 1992, shot May, 2009.

Linky to 1000pixel version

 

[benjiboy]

I guess the future Ektar films will depend on how well the existing range sell, and if Kodak think It's worth their while spending the money on the R&D on extending the available range.

 

[Q.G.]

I'd prefer they used the new technology to come out with a new Ektar 25...
Grand Teton National Park, Kodak Ektar 25, 120 format, expired 1992, shot May, 2009.

Is that heavy blue cast produced in scanning, or is it the old film?

Anyway, if the new Ektar (have yet to try it myself) produced results equal to that of the 25, why would we need an 25 ISO version again?

I would hate to find that the Ektar is anything like Portra UC. VC is over the top already.
So possibly "yes" to a 400 version, but please make it nothing like UC!

 

[Mark Antony]

I find the new Ektar to have similar or better grain than the old 25 ASA version, probably a new 2 electron 25 would give grain free 16x20" from 35mm and I'm guessing that what some would like.
I'd say I'd much rather have a 400 or even 3200 version as in the UK a slow film is of limited value with MF and the inevitable dull British weather-although its sunny at the moment
Yes Kodak give me a 3200 with the grain of a 400 not too high saturation so I can shoot in the darker places

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Or they could just slap the Ektar name on a marginally improved UC400, like they did with UC100. . .

We all know that Eastman Kodak company has mastered the art of spinning.

 

[stealthman_1]

Is that heavy blue cast produced in scanning, or is it the old film?

Anyway, if the new Ektar (have yet to try it myself) produced results equal to that of the 25, why would we need an 25 ISO version again?

There is no blue cast, that's the blue/silver light of mid-afternoon in the mountains with thirteen miles of air to look through. The RGB values of the snow in the glacial fields are identical as scanned and with blue saturation at 0.

Why 25? Because two film stops is a big deal with some subjects. The shutter speed in EV15 light a f22 is 1/60 with ISO100 media. ISO 25 gets you to 1/15, and a 3 stop ND, which are common, get you to 1/2, which will blur water nicely. Other wise you start stacking NDs or you need to have a B&W 6 or 10 stop ND and those aren't cheap or common.
Of course one would also hope for tighter grain.

 

[Q.G.]

There is no blue cast, that's the blue/silver light of mid-afternoon in the mountains with thirteen miles of air to look through. The RGB values of the snow in the glacial fields are identical as scanned and with blue saturation at 0.

Nah. That is definitely a blue cast.
Thirteen miles of air are not between you and the vegetation in the foreground.
The snow too is blue, the white in the clouds is blue. Everything is blue.

I have taken the liberty of tuning it towards neutral (just give a shout and the image disappears again). See how the miles between you and the mountains still colour them blue, but not the green in the foreground?

So if scanned with blue set to neutral, the scanner needs calibrating.


But what matters is how you like it. So no problem.

 

[Chazzy]

I'm not psychic, but I would think that if Kodak introduces another Ektar product, it would be 400 speed or faster, not 25 speed. Medium speed emulsions are now so good, and Ektar 100 is already so fine-grained, that only a relatively small percentage of miniature format users would want something even finer. The obvious solution for someone who wants less grain from the 135 version of Ektar 100 is to move up to the 120 version. I suspect that the number of shooters who want a slower Ektar so that they can use slow shutter speeds with water is also very small. But I am happy to leave the marketing research to Kodak.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

The slowest film makes is a 50-speed movie film, so I don't see them going below that ever again.

Probably 100 is the slowest we'll see ever again. Still 2/3 of a stop slower than Portra, now that they got rid of the 100T they used to make.

 

[nickandre]

A couple thoughts: the current ektar 100 in 35mm gives me mas-o-menos grain free 11x14s. That's pretty amazing. I'm sure it would go to 16x20s with minimal grain but I don't have trays large enough to process those and I haven't yet mastered wrestling large paper sheets in the dark. My epiphany was to realize that I should stop whining about the products kodak doesn't make and admire the beauty of the ones they do.

Ektar is a neutral balanced film. Overcast conditions will yield a slight blue cast. As I recall, the ektar 25 scans really weirdly, requiring color correction. Anyways, they both enlarge fine...

I think a microfilm asa 25 style film would be cool, new, and interesting but you're dealing with the limits of the resolution of the glass. I don't really care about a 400 speed landscape film, personally.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Ektar is neutral balanced, but it's high contrast. So, if you don't like VC, or UC, you'll probably not like the "New Ektar". It's not the same as an improved 100UC would've been, but it's pretty close.

Honestly, if one were to shoot 100UC and Ektar, and do a double-blind test, I bet nine out of ten (including myself as one of those nine) wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Isn't the new Ektar 100 derived from motion picture film??? If a 400 speed Movie film was available, I suspect it might be something they could make in 120 or 35mm formats. Then again, I know nothing about the movie business or materials used for it.

That said, I doubt they would develop it especially for smaller format use first. It makes no business sense.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Isn't the new Ektar 100 derived from motion picture film???

No, it just shares the new double electron technology, just like the Portras, and even the Golds now do.

The reason they are making the lines cross compatible, I suspect, is to save further money on coating.

There'd be no other reason why they'd improve Portra (Portra-2) in Fall '06 and then turn around and make another improvement less than a year later were in not for the introduction of Vision3.

Kodak just likes giving everything a positive spin like they went out and did this and that for the customer.

It's classic consolidation with a name change to camouflage the fact.

That's not to say that Ektar 100 isn't a good film, but I'm sure it has very little in common with the original other than similar contrast and the same name.

I mean, is Ektar film related to the crappy Ektar 110 cameras Kodak used to make? Or is it related to Ektar lenses?

Of course not; they're just Kodak trademarks. Kodachrome and Kodakcolor aren't related. Nor are Ektachrome and Ektapress and Ektacolor.

 

[nickandre]

Isn't the new Ektar 100 derived from motion picture film??? If a 400 speed Movie film was available, I suspect it might be something they could make in 120 or 35mm formats. Then again, I know nothing about the movie business or materials used for it.

That said, I doubt they would develop it especially for smaller format use first. It makes no business sense.

No. It's a film similar to Ektar 25. They used the same enhancements they had in movie films to achieve a faster speed, ASA 100, without increasing the grain.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The 100 and the old 25 were totally different films, I'm afraid, than any that exist today.

The 100 uses new couplers for better color rendition and image stability. It uses some of the Vision 2 and 3 technology, but also has been changed to work with the C-41 type process. Reciprocity and LIK have been changed as have the room keeping characteristics when compared to Vision film. The coupler dispersion method is totally different than the old Ektar 25. So, the formula does not resemble anything else out there very closely. You might say that it is just another color film for as much similarity there is.

PE

 

[CTPhotography]

Or they could just slap the Ektar name on a marginally improved UC400, like they did with UC100. . .

We all know that Eastman Kodak company has mastered the art of spinning.

The slowest film makes is a 50-speed movie film, so I don't see them going below that ever again.

Probably 100 is the slowest we'll see ever again. Still 2/3 of a stop slower than Portra, now that they got rid of the 100T they used to make.

Ektar is neutral balanced, but it's high contrast. So, if you don't like VC, or UC, you'll probably not like the "New Ektar". It's not the same as an improved 100UC would've been, but it's pretty close.

Honestly, if one were to shoot 100UC and Ektar, and do a double-blind test, I bet nine out of ten (including myself as one of those nine) wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

riginally Posted by Andrew Moxom
Isn't the new Ektar 100 derived from motion picture film???
No, it just shares the new double electron technology, just like the Portras, and even the Golds now do.

The reason they are making the lines cross compatible, I suspect, is to save further money on coating.

There'd be no other reason why they'd improve Portra (Portra-2) in Fall '06 and then turn around and make another improvement less than a year later were in not for the introduction of Vision3.

Kodak just likes giving everything a positive spin like they went out and did this and that for the customer.

It's classic consolidation with a name change to camouflage the fact.

That's not to say that Ektar 100 isn't a good film, but I'm sure it has very little in common with the original other than similar contrast and the same name.

I mean, is Ektar film related to the crappy Ektar 110 cameras Kodak used to make? Or is it related to Ektar lenses?

Of course not; they're just Kodak trademarks. Kodachrome and Kodakcolor aren't related. Nor are Ektachrome and Ektapress and Ektacolor.

 

[Mark Antony]

No, it just shares the new double electron technology, just like the Portras, and even the Golds now do.

I thinks that's false, I believe that Ektar 100 is the first film with 2 electron sensitisation, I'm not aware that they put this technology in Portra or Gold (I'm sure if they did theyd be trumpeting it)

The reason they are making the lines cross compatible, I suspect, is to save further money on coating.

Again an extremely questionable statement. Although there are some technologies borrowed from the Vision line they are not cross compatible, they have different processing, and are essentially very different emulsions I doubt they're coated on the same machines (although I can't be exactly sure)

I'd imagine that most of Kodak R&D is in their movie product, if Kodak Research improves anything I'd imagine it goes into Vision first, because that's where the Dollars are.
What we are seeing is improvements made in one division being applied to another when product cycles allow.
Remember when the VR range came out? the first T grain films in the early 1980's were colour stills, it took them years to migrate that technology to B&W (colour stills were the cash cow then)- what you are seeing is a similar transition this time with a kind of trickle down to smaller volume lines from Vision tech.
We will see 2 electron in the Portra line and possibly even mono films in the next few years.