GREAT RESULTS WITH KODAK EKTAR 100: balanced colors, wide latitude, super fine grain

Bernard_61 · Sep 27, 2012

GREAT RESULTS WITH KODAK EKTAR 100:

Dead Link Removed

jm94 · Sep 27, 2012

Kodak ektar is my favourite too

batwister · Sep 27, 2012

Not everyone has a drum scanner, but I'm sure if we did, we'd get similar or better results. I'm not sure what the point of this topic is?

Congratulations all the same.

thegman · Sep 27, 2012

Very impressive resolution, always cool to see what resolution is available in film if you've got the equipment to get the best out of it.

htmlguru4242 · Sep 27, 2012

I just bought a 5-pack in 120. Can't wait to see how this does in my Mamiyaflex ... maybe a roll or two through the Holga.

benjiboy · Sep 28, 2012

It's a superb film, I just wish there was an Ektar 400.

Simonh82 · Sep 28, 2012

I've just been scanning a roll and was impressed by its supposedly limited latitude. A couple of shots were strongly back lit, with the sun in full frame, exposed for the shadows. I expected the sky in these images to be completed blown out, but there was nice detail and even a hint of blue.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 28, 2012

If you want to see some results from Ektar 100 in medium format, I posted some scans of my Ektar 100 work in my gallery here - shot with a 1956 Rolleiflex that has damage to the coating on the taking lens. The photos were taken at twilight, with multiple light sources in the frame.

No sharpening or other filters applied - this is just a straight scan, with minimal exposure correction to get it where I wanted it. Scanned at 2400 dpi on an Epson V750, then re-sampled down to 72 dpi for web use.

Here's another from the same location. Details are the same - I just burned in the sky a bit.

Athiril · Sep 28, 2012

I hate to burst your bubble OP, while the image looks fine and all, it's essentially out of focus on the scan, or very low resolving power. It is already soft at this size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8027728540/sizes/k/in/photostream/

IIRC, the summilux shouldn't have bad CA/fringing problems either.

GeorgK · Sep 29, 2012

Anthiril,
I am not sure if you are aware that this is 9000dpi, which is at least twice the linear resolution that is usually considered sufficient for color film. Naturally, details become soft at this scanning resolution at 100% view. Plus, the picture too bright, and not sharpened (no post-processing, as Bernard stated).

BTW, Ektar 100 is not the sharpest film around, anyway. But the lack of grain avoids the use of noise reduction in post-processing, which would always conflict with sharpness and easily produces a "digital" look.

Therefore, it is much easier to get a sharp, grain-free, good looking picture with Ektar than with a (theoretically higher resolving) Fuji film.

Georg

Andre Noble · Sep 29, 2012

More rain on the parade: I am still waiting for Kodak to reformulate this Ektar 100 before I buy any more. I'm not a Lomo or Holga era guy.. Make no mistake, this film would have been roundly panned for its weird colors and ruddy portraits in the peak era of pro film usage in the late 1990's. But since the vast majority of color-discerning pros have retired or are now shooting digital, Kodak Ektar 100 doesn't get the scrutiny it deserves.

Athiril · Sep 30, 2012

GeorgK said:
Anthiril,
I am not sure if you are aware that this is 9000dpi, which is at least twice the linear resolution that is usually considered sufficient for color film. Naturally, details become soft at this scanning resolution at 100% view. Plus, the picture too bright, and not sharpened (no post-processing, as Bernard stated).

BTW, Ektar 100 is not the sharpest film around, anyway. But the lack of grain avoids the use of noise reduction in post-processing, which would always conflict with sharpness and easily produces a "digital" look.

Therefore, it is much easier to get a sharp, grain-free, good looking picture with Ektar than with a (theoretically higher resolving) Fuji film.

Georg

Only the file size is 9000 dpi, I wouldn't expect anywhere near that from Ektar, but it looks soft at much lower sizes. The grain looks like it's been softened some what, and the actual image scene detail seems low for the combination of equipment used. This is the effect from optimising the scan to minimise grain on a drum scanner, I think they've tried to minimise the grain appearance way too much.

Bernard_61 · Oct 1, 2012

The original shot is quite soft; taken by hand etc...
The scan extracted every detail in the neg.

nworth · Oct 1, 2012

I tried Ektar, and I didn't particularly like it. The high contrast and limited (for a negative film) latitude make it a fussy film, somewhat like Velvia 50. The grain and resolution are certainly impressive, though. I have seen some excellent work done with this film. With the right subjects and in the right hands it is outstanding. It excels for subjects with bright colors and distinct contrasts in both color and tone. But I just don't see it as the answer for my wider ranging and more mundane pictures.

DREW WILEY · Oct 1, 2012

It also excels at subtle hue distinctions which tend to get blocked up in traditional color neg films,
and is certainly an improvement in several respects if you want relatively realistic results rather than
idealized skintones. I shoot Ektar in every format up to 8x10 and actually enlarge it on additive sytems which do it justice. Some of the complaints I read about it would probably accompany any
kind of film which receives a half-ass scan or other shoot from the hip approach. Treat it with the
same care you would a chrome shot and it will be plenty cooperative.

batwister · Oct 1, 2012

nworth said:
I tried Ektar, and I didn't particularly like it. The high contrast and limited (for a negative film) latitude make it a fussy film, somewhat like Velvia 50. The grain and resolution are certainly impressive, though. I have seen some excellent work done with this film. With the right subjects and in the right hands it is outstanding. It excels for subjects with bright colors and distinct contrasts in both color and tone. But I just don't see it as the answer for my wider ranging and more mundane pictures.

It's nothing like Velvia 50, which has around 4 and a half stops - normal contrast - and more naturalistic & rich colour. I have a few shots in my APUG gallery which weren't scanned, but photographed on a light box with a DSLR. Even with this idiosyncratic workflow, I haven't had any problems processing Ektar negs for reference purposes and uploading to the web. Every problem with this film, without exception, seems to come down to people's laziness with processing. You HAVE to do some colour correction, but this is the creative side of colour work. If you want instant, lifeless results for Flickr, shoot digital. You don't need a drum scanner to see that this film, like all others, is indeed made up of grain and relatively neutral colour. Nothing has been revealed to me with the 3,000,000 DPI scan in the OP, other than this person's disposition relating to photography. If you're promoting a cheap drum scanning service however, sign me up!

That it isn't as 'malleable' as other colour films (at least where scanning is concerned) does appear to represent certain emulsion compromises, but all this 'Ektar is shite' hysteria online seems just an excuse to whine about the demise of film. Live with it or shoot digital. It's a unique film best suited to creative photographers, not number crunching.

DREW WILEY · Oct 1, 2012

Folks with high end pro lab scanners love Ektar because it scans so well. But if you have the regrettable combination of small format and an amateurish scan, you'll end up with some distinct color issues which I don't have time to describe to folks who haven't taken time to learn the ABC's to
begin with. I personally scan it only for previewing purposes for potential clients of particular images.
Otherwise, I print it in the darkroom, so don't have to jump thru a bunch of hoops to see what the
film is actually capable of. If some of you Benedict Arnold types want to come back to the dark side,
you might be pleasantly surprised too.

batwister · Oct 1, 2012

^ There's a bit of a 'regrettable' subjective whitewash in your post - when you're shooting 8x10, everything is small format.

Can you hear me up there!

It's true that too many people think that because they're shooting with pro film SLRs (whatever the format), the scanner doesn't matter. Blind to the bottleneck.
It would be helpful to hear more from people who print Ektar in the darkroom, but since we never do, maybe we can assume the film is fine.

anikin · Oct 1, 2012

batwister said:
It would be helpful to hear more from people who print Ektar in the darkroom, but since we never do, maybe we can assume the film is fine.

I do print this film in my darkroom and love it! It prints quite nicely on Fuji CA Type P paper. Excellent balance of nice skin tones and just a touch of extra color saturation.

DREW WILEY · Oct 1, 2012

A medium quality scan might give good results even with 120 film, but might fail to render accurate
color with 35mm because the sampling error affects not only detail, but much more significantly, how
the system resolves transitions in dye curve geometry, which can be effectively altered one curve
relative to another. A lot of things get blamed on the film which have nothing to do with the film itself. When one optically enlarges, however, it's mainly just an issue of saturation related to degree of magnification. This can be altered one way or the other using basic unsharp marking techniques,
which don't alter hue relationships per se if correctly applied.

PKM-25 · Oct 1, 2012

batwister said:
It's nothing like Velvia 50, which has around 4 and a half stops - normal contrast - and more naturalistic & rich colour. I have a few shots in my APUG gallery which weren't scanned, but photographed on a light box with a DSLR. Even with this idiosyncratic workflow, I haven't had any problems processing Ektar negs for reference purposes and uploading to the web. Every problem with this film, without exception, seems to come down to people's laziness with processing. You HAVE to do some colour correction, but this is the creative side of colour work. If you want instant, lifeless results for Flickr, shoot digital. You don't need a drum scanner to see that this film, like all others, is indeed made up of grain and relatively neutral colour. Nothing has been revealed to me with the 3,000,000 DPI scan in the OP, other than this person's disposition relating to photography. If you're promoting a cheap drum scanning service however, sign me up!

That it isn't as 'malleable' as other colour films (at least where scanning is concerned) does appear to represent certain emulsion compromises, but all this 'Ektar is shite' hysteria online seems just an excuse to whine about the demise of film. Live with it or shoot digital. It's a unique film best suited to creative photographers, not number crunching.

Agreed, Ektar is a fantastic film that is not an "Automatic" but a "Stick"....you have to drive it to get anywhere...

EdSawyer · Oct 1, 2012

I print ektar in multiple formats and sizes in the darkroom, and it's great - my favorite color film by far.

wogster · Oct 2, 2012

Bernard_61 said:
The original shot is quite soft; taken by hand etc...
The scan extracted every detail in the neg.

Scanning is a complex process made simple, this appears often to work better then it really does. One area that is difficult with DPI values, is that you really need to know the bit depth as well. For example if the maximum resolution of a film is represented by 4800DPI, then scanning at 9000DPI will not improve things, but increasing the bit depth from 16bits to 32bits, but keeping the resolution the same 4800DPI may actually look better.

Now, there is another issue, the scanner itself, there are plenty of flat bed 1200DPIx16bit scanners out there that will scan at 4800DPIx32bits, they don't actually do this, they scan at 1200DPIx16bits, then use extrapolating software to get the resolution you asked for and do some bit shifting to get 32bit values. I don't know enough about the mechanics of drum scanners to know how much of this they do.

Really though, there is no perfect scan, there is a perfect scan for what you want to do with the image. I never start with a scan, I start with the negative, then set the scanner to get as close to what I want as I can get, resolution is part of that. Scanning should be considered the first step of the printing process, not the last step of negative processing.

wildbill · Oct 2, 2012

wogster said:
Scanning is a complex process made simple, this appears often to work better then it really does. One area that is difficult with DPI values, is that you really need to know the bit depth as well. For example if the maximum resolution of a film is represented by 4800DPI, then scanning at 9000DPI will not improve things, but increasing the bit depth from 16bits to 32bits, but keeping the resolution the same 4800DPI may actually look better.

Now, there is another issue, the scanner itself, there are plenty of flat bed 1200DPIx16bit scanners out there that will scan at 4800DPIx32bits, they don't actually do this, they scan at 1200DPIx16bits, then use extrapolating software to get the resolution you asked for and do some bit shifting to get 32bit values. I don't know enough about the mechanics of drum scanners to know how much of this they do.

Really though, there is no perfect scan, there is a perfect scan for what you want to do with the image. I never start with a scan, I start with the negative, then set the scanner to get as close to what I want as I can get, resolution is part of that. Scanning should be considered the first step of the printing process, not the last step of negative processing.

what's any of this got to do with apug?
the op posts his drum scans on various forums with no apparent reason other than showing off the fact that he owns one and does scanning for clients (some who sell their boring beach photographs for $$$$). I own two drum scanners. Big phuckin' deal.

wogster · Oct 2, 2012

wildbill said:
what's any of this got to do with apug?
the op posts his drum scans on various forums with no apparent reason other than showing off the fact that he owns one and does scanning for clients (some who sell their boring beach photographs for $$$$). I own two drum scanners. Big phuckin' deal.

I see somebody is having a really nice day

GREAT RESULTS WITH KODAK EKTAR 100: balanced colors, wide latitude, super fine grain

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency