Ektar in overcast light samples please

[BrianShaw]

I know that has been topic of other threads but nobody has made that comparison, or expressed that desire, in this thread. Or are their posts I'm not seeing (which is possible)?

 

[coigach]

Here's a bit from an earlier post:

Ektar will not look like Velvia straight away when it's scanned. It has less contrast and being a negative much bigger DR range. If you want to get close to Velvia, you will need to apply lots of contrast. And like you said, white out the highlights and black out the shadows. Then you will be getting close. /QUOTE]

 

[BrianShaw]

I stand corrected. I must have been skimming too fast. Sincere apologies to all.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It's been done for a long time: people trying to make Ektar look like Velvia. It won't work. Velvia is Velvia, Ektar is Ektar and the two could not be more dissimilar. What both films do share though is their ability to demonstrate enriched, pleasant colours in soft (e.g. overcast) light. The almost pastel colours demonstrated by Ektar have tempted me to use the film on occasion but scanning has presented some difficulties, requiring colourimetrics to be "turned on their head" to get colours 'just so'.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm finding Ektar to be a lot more versatile than Velvia ever was. The fundamental difference is that with a chrome film you can simply slap the
thing on a decent light box and see what you've got, and then adjust the learning curve the easy way. With color neg films, you have to learn
to either properly scan or outright print them first - so if anything goes wrong with the workflow, you tend to blame the film instead of yourself,
or the intermediate equipment! I don't happen to like the way my own work would come out digitally printed, and am almost by definition a pure
darkroom practitioner, so that pretty much dictates the workflow from the word go. Still learning. But once the handwriting was on the wall,
and it was obvious that Cibachrome was doomed, I started seriously fine-tuning my color neg printing techniques. Time well spent, because
within a few years, major improvements in both printing papers and film options (like Ektar) materialized. Now I wouldn't go back to chromes
even if Ciba were up and running again.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I don't use much Ektar, mostly because I prefer Portra or 400H for skin tones, but here are a couple of photos using Ektar in Scotland:

Dead Link Removed

Skysh4rk, please accept my compliments on your photography. This is a beautifully framed landscape photo.

But I feel that this image also proves the point I was making about Ektar. Despite the fact that most of the scene is sunlit, it does look a bit washed out. The hills and the sky are distinctly grey and undersaturated.

That is the second point I was making. The OP was in essence asking for a look that could easily be achieved with positive film, but requires a magical touch to achieve with colour negatives.

There is no need to use expensive Velvia as someone suggested. Superia 100F is just as fine. It is more neutral and less saturated in its original form, but the colours are true. If you scan and process digitally, you can easily increase saturation and vibrance by a few percent to get that familiar punch.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why would Ektar ever look "washed out" unless you had a problem with lens flare or scanning? Don't go by web images, for heavens sake.
When I was doing my early tests of Ektar I went atop Haleakala in Maui, where there are just all kinds of shades of brown and gray, and it
reproduced the colors better than any other film I have ever used, chrome or color neg. Then it picked up all kinds of turquoises in the tropical
water than would have been a difficult task even for Velvia. I found one location with a stunning combination of complex earthtones, lava blacks, turquoise water, and brilliant green foliage. After I printed it (100% optically), I thought to myself, nobdody will believe this, they'll think I Photoshopped it. Too much saturation! Gotta tone it down.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Why would Ektar ever look "washed out" unless you had a problem with lens flare or scanning? Don't go by web images, for heavens sake.
[...]

Absolutely true.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Why would Ektar ever look "washed out" unless you had a problem with lens flare or scanning? Don't go by web images, for heavens sake.
When I was doing my early tests of Ektar I went atop Haleakala in Maui, where there are just all kinds of shades of brown and gray, and it
reproduced the colors better than any other film I have ever used, chrome or color neg. Then it picked up all kinds of turquoises in the tropical
water than would have been a difficult task even for Velvia. I found one location with a stunning combination of complex earthtones, lava blacks, turquoise water, and brilliant green foliage. After I printed it (100% optically), I thought to myself, nobdody will believe this, they'll think I Photoshopped it. Too much saturation! Gotta tone it down.

Because Northern light is different from Southern light, as per my previous posts.

Ektar works beautifully in Southern, warm saturated sunlight (Hawaii). Less so in pale Northern light (Scotland).

It's unusual to have to explain the difference between Northern and Southern light to photographers. They usually know.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh BS... I routinely shoot Ektar here along our foggy coast. I shoot it in high altitude in the mountains. I've repeatedly shot it in the tropics. No difference. I take along an 81A, 81C, and sometimes a pale pink skylight filter, but otherwise would have no issues shooting it anywhere in
natural light.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Oh BS... I routinely shoot Ektar here along our foggy coast. I shoot it in high altitude in the mountains. I've repeatedly shot it in the tropics. No difference. I take along an 81A, 81C, and sometimes a pale pink skylight filter, but otherwise would have no issues shooting it anywhere in
natural light.

Shoot it in Scotland or Scandinavia much?

Here in scandinavia it looks distinctly underexposed, unless it's a very sunny summer's day. It's the only film that does that, at least that I have tried. Portra is fine, Fujis are fine. But Ektar looks grey, blue and washed out.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Because Northern light is different from Southern light, as per my previous posts.

Ektar works beautifully in Southern, warm saturated sunlight (Hawaii). Less so in pale Northern light (Scotland).

It's unusual to have to explain the difference between Northern and Southern light to photographers. They usually know.

Erm, with due respect, I don't know what is being talked about re Northern light and Southern light. Unusual or not, tell me more. Especially Australia vs northern latitudes, though I know as much that if I head into the outback in the middle of winter, I am confronted with some familiar lighting scenarios that are remembered from the previous summer! Other than that... Well, what else is there??

 

[DREW WILEY]

Jaf - I gave you EXACTLY the correct answer already. Certain hues look bluish or blaah simply because you have not correctly color balanced it
and the geometry of the respective dye layers are no longer in correct relative proportion. This neighborhood has fog about 70% of the year.
No problem. Traditional color neg films are artificially warmed to render skintones pleasing. But that means any analogous set of hues likewise
gets lumped into something generic. Ektar is more accurate, even if it isn't ideal for stereotypical portrait use. And therefore it is balanced to
"standard" daylight, which in this case means something warmer than bluish overcast. And this is not simply a matter of the apparent overall
warmth of the final image, but of correct color reproduction. If I walked outside and shot Ektar in the heavy bluish rain conditions here today,
I'd have exactly the complaint you describe. But all it takes is a decent 81A warming filter (with about a third or half stop of exposure compenstation) to cure that problem. It's that simple. I learned all this the hard way. And believe me, when you learn shooting 8x10 color film,
it's painful on the wallet. You can save yourself a lot of trouble and money just by taking my advice. Northern latitudes have exactly zero
to do with it. Noboby makes a "latitude this" or "latitude that" filter. They do make color temp and light balancing filters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... Oh, minor postcript... If you add the issue of UV, which can indeed be a factor at high altitude (where I go a lot with Ektar), clear
coastlines (do that a lot too), or probably in your case, northern latitudes without much air pollution, you could try instead of the amberish
81A (which you'll still need for overcast), a light salmon pink skylight filter. I happen to use a Singh-Ray "KN", but Heliopan and others make
something similar. ... The third kind of relevant filter is for deep blue shade under open clear blue skies. You'll no doubt encounter this too.
For that you need something stronger in the 81 series. I carry an 81C as a reasonable compromise in those situations.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Well, this is odd indeed.

The properties of light in a geographic location depends on the angle that the rays of the sun filter through the atmosphere.

This angle varies with the latitude. That's why the Atlantic looks turquoise in Africa, blue in England and black in Norway.

I have tried Ektar with a warming filter but that creates an artificial looking image, that doesn't represent the actual light in the scene.

Anyway, I'm definitely not the only one who has experienced washed-out, bluish grey photos with Ektar. There is any number of posts about it in photography forums. Some people rate it to 80 or 50 to increase saturation.

But I can shoot Portra 160 at box speed with pleasing results, so why bother?

Moreover, if I want a contrasty photo with vibrant colours, I shoot slide film because that's what it does.

 

[coigach]

The properties of light in a geographic location depends on the angle that the rays of the sun filter through the atmosphere.
This angle varies with the latitude. That's why the Atlantic looks turquoise in Africa, blue in England and black in Norway.

My hunch would agree with that - I know that the light can be very thin and low-angled here in the winter, even on sunny days.

But I've no axe to grind with Drew's advice either - the best thing to do is use an 81a and see how I get on here in Scotland...

 

[benjiboy]

The best advice I can give you Gavin is to shoot a roll under the conditions you describe it's the " suck it and see " method because I.M.O. there's no painless way of evaluating a film you can't rely other peoples experience.

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting point about the effects of northern latitude's light affecting Ektar's look. I can understand this having some effect on sunny days or even very bright and slightly overcast days but if it was completely overcast then would the latitude make much difference?

Certainly Ektar in fully overcast conditions in southern latitudes( Lamar's Georgia) looks more saturated that Fuju Pro 400H but in such conditions I am puzzled as to why fully overcast in Georgia would produce a different picture to fully overcast in Inverness in Scotland

pentaxuser

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Yeah, the ambient light on an overcast day is warmer in the south than in the north.

I've photographed some real black-cloud storms in southern locations, where the colours of the landscape were still warm, saturated and vibrant.

In simular weather conditions in Scandinavia, the photo will be very close to monochrome. Almost no colour at all.

 

[eriklovold]

Hello, I shot this series of photographs all on Ektar 100 on my Fujifilm GF670, all in overcast conditions in London, UK, February 2013 or thereabouts: Dead Link Removed

 

[DREW WILEY]

Again, the film knows nothing about the latitude. It is affected by significant color temperature issues and UV. I doubt you're going to have anything in Scandanavia which differs from the kinds of high altitude and weather effects I routinely deal with, or that is outside the kind of
advice I have given to family members on expeditions to the high arctic, at latitudes even much farther north. But all I've done is given hints
about filtration which will significantly improve your odd of success. With practice, you can take it a step from there and fine tune things to your own needs. I personally own at least four different kinds of UV filters for different kinds of film, plus warming filters. I don't need to have
all of them on hand at the same time. Since I'm basically a backpacker, I don't like carrying more filters than I reasonably need. And for Ektar,
three seems to cover all the bases.

 

[RPC]

The properties of light in a geographic location depends on the angle that the rays of the sun filter through the atmosphere.

This angle varies with the latitude. That's why the Atlantic looks turquoise in Africa, blue in England and black in Norway.

...Anyway, I'm definitely not the only one who has experienced washed-out, bluish grey photos with Ektar. There is any number of posts about it in photography forums.

This time of year, with the sun's rays hitting the northern latitudes indirectly and at a low angle, wouldn't the light be warmer, not cooler than in the south?

Those who experience washed-out colors with Ektar, are they scanning or printing optically? Any number of things can affect the results of a scan. They cannot be trusted to judge a film and this has been discussed before here. Good optical prints are the best way to compare films.

 

[coigach]

Hello, I shot this series of photographs all on Ektar 100 on my Fujifilm GF670, all in overcast conditions in London, UK, February 2013 or thereabouts: Dead Link Removed

Excellent series, enjoy very much, thanks for sharing.

Also had a look at your APUG gallery and admired the pictures made at Welsh Harp. I notice these were made on Portra. I compared this one
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
with the same photo on your own website which had stronger colours (more Ektar-looking in fact!) Did you bump up the colour a wee bit in PS? I like the bolder colours on your own website.

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[eriklovold]

Thank you Gavin, that's very kind. I cannot see the image as my subscription here has run out, but the change in colour might be down to the apug compression, or I may have rescanned on a better scanner. I'm not a stranger to bumping the vibrancy slightly when using Portra either, although I don't do it very often.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

This time of year, with the sun's rays hitting the northern latitudes indirectly and at a low angle, wouldn't the light be warmer, not cooler than in the south?

Those who experience washed-out colors with Ektar, are they scanning or printing optically? Any number of things can affect the results of a scan. They cannot be trusted to judge a film and this has been discussed before here. Good optical prints are the best way to compare films.

Sorry, no. Nordic light is paler regardless of season.

And sure, you could wet print Ektar warm and fuzzy.

Not very useful if you rely on scanning, though.