Ektar and overexposure

[Tony-S]

I've seen a lot of debate on this - some say ISO 100, others 80 or 64. Is there a general consensus on this amongst APUG folks? Also, how does reciprocity failure affect Ektar?

 

[Alex1994]

I've shot it at 100 so far with no problems at all, using a centerweighted averaging meter on my SLR. Ektar has quite little reciprocity failure in comparison to other medium speed films.

 

[stevebrot]

I shoot at box speed and have gotten good results at ISO 80. My experience has been that contrast and high values both suffer with overexposure.

For some comparison images and extensive discussion see this thread on PentaxForums:

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

According to Kodak, the film has good reciprocity from 1/10,000s to 1s (Ektar 100 Datasheet). I have shot at up to 3 seconds with no issues.


Steve

 

[bblhed]

I have shot this film in my Autographic Brownie using a averaging meter, and setting for ASA 100 as best as I can with the 2 shutter speeds and 4 apertures and I have gotten great results, my prints look good all over, unless it's a really hot spot. I have not tried it in the Pentax, but I see no reason why it wouldn't perform even better in a camera that I have a lot more control over exposure and focus on.

I shoot it as advertised.

 

[Tony-S]

Steve - thanks for that link. Looks to me like 64-80-100 give about equivalent results.

 

[stevebrot]

Steve - thanks for that link. Looks to me like 64-80-100 give about equivalent results.

You are very welcome. One thing that I would be quick to add is that Ektar 100 does best when the processing is good. If your lab is not good about their replenishment schedule, the results can be seriously discouraging. Underdevelopment yields off colors, poor contrast, and grain. I used to use Costco for my processing, but after two bad rolls in a row, my film now goes to a local pro lab. The results have been consistently good since then.


Steve

 

[Scott_Sheppard]

I've seen a lot of debate on this...

Hey Tony:

I have shot Ektar up to 4 stop over and it ROCKS !!

look at this as well...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/sets/72157623780898802/

Thanks

Scott

 

[Mark Antony]

I think Ektar has a pretty good latitude, I've shot at lots of different EI to start with but now pretty much use at box speed.
I did a test on my blog and it held up +1/-2 no problem:link (just scroll down)

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2009/01/kodak-ektar-100.html

Ektar is a wonderful film, nice saturated reds and blue and yet skin tones look good (eat your heart out Velvia)

Regards
Mark

 

[munz6869]

I'm in the middle of my first commercial job (architectural) with Ektar 4x5" - I can hardly wait to see the results. Previously I've used Portra 160NC, so it'll be interesting...

Marc!

 

[Tim Gray]

I was going to post the link of the test I did but Scott already did. I think it looks best in the range of -1 to +2, with the optimal exposure being right on. If you aren't constantly and consistently metering, maybe going at EI 64 gives you a bit of wiggle room, but as long as metering is consistent, I don't see much of a reason to not go with box speed.

This was not with optical printing by the way.

 

[Tony-S]

Thanks everyone, I'll stick to the 100 rating for the film.

 

[benjiboy]

I find that both Kodak and Fuji pro films are accurately rated at the boxed speed for my equipment.

 

[Scott_Sheppard]

This was not with optical printing by the way.

Hey Tim:

WHO optical prints anymore ??

Must be only hobby or custom jobs I would think.

The BIG question is how much UNDER or OVER does it matter when it's in the hybrid workflow ? This will wake up a few !!

SO everybody... what's YOUR thoughts !!

Thanks

Scott

 

[Tim Gray]

Good questions Scott. I don't know. I feel like most people, even film nuts, don't optical print color film, but we aren't allowed to talk about that here.

On those film tests I did, development was normal for all shots, and scanning was done by the minilab... So it seems to be a pretty flexible workflow.

 

[Scott_Sheppard]

I feel like most people, even film nuts, don't optical print color film, but we aren't allowed to talk about that here.

Hello Tim:

Well guess what, If we don't talk about it then all color film will no longer be manufactured. SO I guess the DIE HARDS will just have to skip over this little chat.

People need to pull their head out of the sand and get a grip on what is going on with the state of color analog imaging.

I would bet that 99.9997% of ALL color film (chrome and neg) is scanned and output via digital c-print, inkjet or just not even printed at all.

What your thoughts on this ?

How has your shooting changed by the digital intermediary process ?? You shooting MORE or LESS film now days ?

Thanks

Scott

 

[Steve Smith]

The BIG question is how much UNDER or OVER does it matter when it's in the hybrid workflow ?

It probably matters about the same as it would for optical printing.


Steve.

 

[bblhed]

I just got back two rolls of Ektar 100 (120 format) that I shot a few weeks ago, I know, I know I'm a slacker and should shoot and process more often. What I have noticed in this latest batch is that when I shot in bright direct sun at ISO 100 settings I got great results, setting for ISO 100 in indirect sunlight did not produce results that were nearly as nice. We are talking about a 90 year old camera that was probably got it's last CLA fifty years ago so while I set it right the camera may not have responded as it should have. I will to re-shoot and try to figure out what went wrong, I'm hoping that it is just a camera back problem.

Camera Back Problem; Any problem caused by the thing directly behind the camera that adjusts settings and fires the shutter.

 

[hrst]

This forum is exclusively meant for all-analogue workflow (eg. those optically printing from color negs). There is an another site for hybrid workflow.

Your question is very weird. THIS is the very forum for the people who print optically. There is at least a few dozen of people here who do it all the time.

It's not a question how popular it is. I'm not interested how popular it is. What I care is what I do and what I want to do. This is the only forum specially meant for all-analog workflow and I want to respect it. There are many places where I can discuss scanning. Even if there is only a few hundred of us or so, it doesn't matter! We are not striving for popularity, we want to keep this forum for what it's meant to: all-analogue workflow. Most of us also do scanning, and we understand the fact that it is way more popular among film photographers, but so what??? Is this too difficult to understand?

I find optical printing very rewarding over scanning. I have decent scanners and high level of technical know-how on scanning and digital image processing, to understand and see the benefits of optical printing; even higher resolution than 4000 dpi scanners, no processing artifacts, very mild problems with minor dust and scratches compared to scanning the same negs, and easiness of color balancing; and finally, the low level of technological details needed to understand and control the process.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hello Tim:

Well guess what, If we don't talk about it then all color film will no longer be manufactured. SO I guess the DIE HARDS will just have to skip over this little chat.

People need to pull their head out of the sand and get a grip on what is going on with the state of color analog imaging.

I would bet that 99.9997% of ALL color film (chrome and neg) is scanned and output via digital c-print, inkjet or just not even printed at all.

What your thoughts on this ?

How has your shooting changed by the digital intermediary process ?? You shooting MORE or LESS film now days ?

Thanks

Scott

Mine are optically printed at Samys.

What is your problem? Take film bashing to another forum.

 

[stevebrot]

...The BIG question is how much UNDER or OVER does it matter when it's in the hybrid workflow ?...

Scott,
I don't understand your baiting on this thread, but I will take the time to answer your question.

ANSWER:

It does not make any difference whether you use a traditional or hybrid workflow. If the negative is deficient, there is blessed little you can do to make it better regardless of how you process to a final image.

The old rules still apply:

• You can't create shadow detail that is not there
• You can't bring back a blown highlight
• You can't add tonality if none exists
• There are limits to color correction

PM me if you want my personal experience with digital PP from badly exposed or poorly developed Ektar 100. On this thread, I can tell you up front that my conclusion is that, regardless of process, Ektar 100 rewards accurate exposure and quality development in spades. Push the limits and you will get grainy, dull crap with the occasional garish red shirt thrown in for spice.


Steve

P.S. Care to post a link showing Ektar "rocking" at 4 stops over?

 

[stevebrot]

I just got back two rolls of Ektar 100 (120 format) that I shot a few weeks ago, I know, I know I'm a slacker and should shoot and process more often. What I have noticed in this latest batch is that when I shot in bright direct sun at ISO 100 settings I got great results, setting for ISO 100 in indirect sunlight did not produce results that were nearly as nice...

Are you getting a color cast? Skylight (open shade) is not the same as daylight in terms of color temperature. A mild warming filter might be your friend here.


Steve

 

[L Gebhardt]

Hey Tim:

WHO optical prints anymore ??

Must be only hobby or custom jobs I would think.

The BIG question is how much UNDER or OVER does it matter when it's in the hybrid workflow ? This will wake up a few !!

SO everybody... what's YOUR thoughts !!

Thanks

Scott

Scott, I optically print. I find I get good results quicker optically printing vs scan and inkjet. And it's cheaper if you have many prints to make. Now that Kodak and Fuji have reduced their paper range to not have a low contrast paper it has gotten harder, but even making a contrast reducing mask is fairly quick.

 

[hrst]

Actually, Ektar might rock 4 stops over! It's a matter of taste and I find color neg films very versatile, all-around products as the "look" can be varied even without changing the film or processing. Huge overexposures, up to 5 stops or so, can create an interesting, dreamy, yet technically flawless look that will be very easy to print also optically on any enlarger --- but a bit hard to scan on most consumer-level scanners due to CCD noise. Most people don't probably bracket color negs, but bracketing 0, +2, +4 stops might be interesting. Underexposure side is not so interesting in my opinion as it doesn't boost color contrast as much as with chrome films.

The box speed is the "default" way to go. 1/3 stop to either direction doesn't mean so much, however.

 

[2F/2F]

I'd rate it at nothing but the box speed unless I wanted to apply the same amount of exposure compensation to the entire roll. ISO film speeds work fine for almost any application I have.

So, the film is ISO 100. Just ask the ISO. The real question is, with Ektar, when would you want to apply the same amount of exposure compensation to the entire roll?

My hypothetical answer would be that if shooting the entire roll in the same contrasty light, I would generally down rate the film in order to open up the lower tones to detail and texture, on every picture.

My real answer is that I would probably never use Ektar in such contrasty light that it would require across the board EC, via downrating or any other method.

 

[dynachrome]

I shot a roll of 35mm Ektar 100 today in a Konica FT-1. The light was bright in open areas and shaded elsewhere. I shot the whole roll at 64. In flatter light the color cast can be off if I don't give it a little extra exposure. The film's overexposure lattitude is much better than its underexposure lattitude so shooting at 64 works fine.