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

RPC said:

When one considers the many variables there can be in scanning such as scanner response and settings, profiles, image processing, and monitor characteristics and settings, it amazes me how anyone can think a film can be judged on computer screen from a scan, as we frequently see here.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree.

(And just to contradict myself I will add that the images of Fuji Pro 800 at Sunset two posts above look a bit strange here with that a bit too much evident yellow patch on the neck of the woman, sunset or not sunset. But they might appear differently on another monitor).

Andre Noble said:

FAIL. The cyan cast feels very depressing to me.

This awful color is precisely ONE of the reasons I won't buy Ektar 100. Not making a personal shot at you, rather of an emulsion that is short of what Kodak is capable of manufacturing.

The current Kodak Ektar 100 film lacks what I will describe as color accuracy AND color contrast.

An experienced darkroom worker understands these when he/she has dialed in the best color correction filtration from a good color film and the colors throughout the image "pop" because of their freedom from color crossover and unfavorable color casts.

Click to expand...

Andre - don't go blaming the film for the darkroom/computer operator's error. Yes, there's a cyan cast to the scene. And it's entirely correctable. Therefore, there's no excuse for leaving it in. The cause of it in that scan is either the photographer has a poorly calibrated monitor and therefore doesn't see it (I've seen enough monitors out there with a decided red tint that this is quite believable, ditto when it comes to the blown-out highlights) or it's "good enough" and he either doesn't know how to fix the issues with his scan, or doesn't care to.

RPC said:

I am one who prints Ektar optically....and my prints look as good or better than anything I've done in the past. No blue shadows, no cyan skies, no harsh contrast, no crossover, just more vivid colors that look good when they are appropriate.

Click to expand...

If you have the time, can you post said darkroom print/s from Ektar 100? Maybe you are right - but i seriously doubt it.

PS: even EK knows there are undesirable characteristics of Ektar 100 and even hinted on their Facebook page that they are in the process of reformulating it.

Diapositivo, yes the lady's neck is jaundiced. That's due to my over correction that you can see even running into her blue shirt. But please show me a Kodak Ektar 100 scan or darkroom print that even looks nearly as good.

Andre- how about this one then?



And yes, he does look red. But he's leaning up against a gigantic RED reflector!

I dunno. I've always been happy with my Ektar. Maybe you guys can tell me what is wrong with these.

Nothing wrong with these, Hatchetman. The train picture is a nice example of a natural sky. In order to see it is important to click the yellow bar and see it against a neutral background. The yellow bar ("click this bar to view the full image") is very close to the sky and might suggest a very slight cyan cast which isn't there, as shown by the "enlarged" image.

If possible I would suggest to the site operator to change the background colour of the bar to a neutral grey.

I remain convinced the sky is the acid test of correct filtration. If there's the least problem with filtration the sky will expose it with immediacy.

Andre Noble said:

If you have the time, can you post said darkroom print/s from Ektar 100? Maybe you are right - but i seriously doubt it.

PS: even EK knows there are undesirable characteristics of Ektar 100 and even hinted on their Facebook page that they are in the process of reformulating it.

Click to expand...

I see no point. I have already said, and others agree, that scans are unreliable.
A print itself may look good, but on your screen or someone else's it may be drastically different and any judgement would be erroneous.

As an example, to me the pics you posted have poor skin tones, and I know Fuji films are better than that. You apparentIy have applied some subjective correction. But at my end I could try to correct it but I could never make it look good, which I believe is a fault of the scan. I have experience judging skin tones as I work as a color corrector at a large photo lab. Over the years I have worked there I have seen thousand of both digital and scanned film images of people.

I urge you to try optically printing Ektar if you have not already done so or having optical prints made from good negatives at a good lab. It is the best way to judge the film.

As for Kodak reformulating it, this will probably affect scanning more than optical printing, since that is where the problems seem to be.

Traditional color neg films put a priority on idealized skintones under a variety of lighting conditions;
what happens to analogous hues in the process becomes a complicated issue. But folks just got used to a certain kind of rendering and the ability to be a little careless during exposure, and still
landing on their feet. Ektar is more a film for adults. Anyone who has worked with chromes will find it
easy. But even chromes had a lot of reproduction issues - it's just that those who prefered positives
got used to their kind of idiosyncrasies - they actually liked the blue shadows etc and used them in
the scenics "creatively". I doubt, Andre, that you've taken the time to explore proper use of color
temp filter and why you can't just expect PS to post-correct every kind of roadkill. If you just don't
like Ektar fine - use Portra - but don't go around badmouthing a product you don't quite understand.

RPC - as you know, I don't scan but darkroom print. But sometimes for easy image selection, esp
when a potential print client is involved, I will simply order up an inexpensive mid-quality scan when
the lab does the C41 processing. The use a commercial Creo device; and they love and promote
Ektar specifically because its scans so well. But one has to have correct exposure in the first place.
If a particular dye layer is underexposed, one can't simply tweak color balance in PS - the whole
geometry of individual curves would have to be restructured; and if they fall into the crossover range, it's almost impossible to retrieve them correctly. Now by crossover, I do not mean anything
inherently wrong will the film, but with exposure method itself, so that the film doesn't do what it
is actually engineered to do. And those dye curves in Ektar are different from Portra. Folks should
just study the tech sheets and learn how to correctly interpret them.

DREW WILEY said:

JoJo - maybe it's time to learn about color temp corrections at time of exposure and about contrast masking in the darkroom.

Click to expand...

I already did contrast masking. But my time in darkroom is limited and if there are films which work better for me, why should I do things so complicated? Also the color issue was not solved with contrast masking.
As I said, Fuji CA paper, which is softer than Endura VC or Ultra Endura gave much better results.

RPC said:

I am one who prints Ektar optically. I have been printing color negatives for more than 25 years. I have printed Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and Konica films and when exposed properly, processed properly and printed on good paper all these films could produce good prints. Ektar is no different.

Click to expand...

What type of paper do you currently use?

Joachim

JoJo - yes indeed, use whatever film and printing technique works best for you personally. But if someone does want to optimize Ektar there are some "relatively" simple ways to do it, but perhaps
tricky to those not previously skilled in advanced color darkroom techniques. Unfortunatley, there's
not much contemporary info out there. Masking color negs is very different from doing chromes, and
there are a few distinct tricks to it. For one thing, you've got to null out that orange mask first or
the results will be severely skewed. But I won't go into the numerous details here - and I am getting
superb results. In fact, I'm just about to order a forty-inch roll of Fuji Supergloss, which cost nearly
a thousand bucks, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. But for the sake of the learning curve, I used CAII glossy, which gave excellent results. Fuji "P" or "C" paper should work fine too,
with an obvious distinction in contrast level. But the newer CAII renders the colors a little cleaner.

Drew, I'm sure that with good negatives and a good scanner and someone who knows what they are doing, good scans can be achieved with Ektar, in spite of its so-called problems. But I would imagine that many of the users who scan probably don't fit that scenario.

Joachim, I use Kodak Endura paper and develop with Kodak RA-RT replenisher at room temperature. I have used Fuji CA paper and gotten good results. The differences I observed were slightly higher saturation with the Fuji, but better shadow detail with the Kodak.

Masking allows one not only to efficiently increase or decrease contrast to fit the range of paper and
magnification, but also to place the effective cotrast on some preferred part of the dye curve, in
effect reconfiguring its geometry for actual color and saturation control. Might sound complicated,
but if approached a step at a time is not so daunting, for those who might welcome the challenge.
But I really do not believe Portra is any different than Ektar in terms of sub-par scans. It's just that
people overlook the color errors in traditional color negs films as long as the skintones come out OK;
and most such films do so by artificially warming or "neutraling" certain hue categories, the problem
being, that they can't resolve analogous hue in nature, thing which Ektar can in fact do if you
understand the film. Don't try to turn it into Porta, or expect it to be exactly like chrome film either.
It's it's own animal.

RPC said:

...to me the pics you posted have poor skin tones, and I know Fuji films are better than that.

Click to expand...

Put your money where YOUR mouth is and post YOUR wonderful Kodak Ektar 100 darkroom print.

The colors from my Fuji Pro 800Z scan looks a hellauv a lot better than any Kodak Ektar 100 posted so far on this thread, IMHO.
Perhaps the winner is in your possession, though.

Let's see it.

Here's another Fuji Pro 800Z, also sunset:

Andre - I really don't have time for this nonsense or for butchering real nuances of prints on something like the web. You want to see one of my color prints? Cough up four grand and you can actually own one!

Andre- sounds like you've decided you're right no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. Good luck with that.

Andre Noble said:

Put your money where YOUR mouth is and post YOUR wonderful Kodak Ektar 100 darkroom print.

The colors from my Fuji Pro 800Z scan looks a hellauv a lot better than any Kodak Ektar 100 posted so far on this thread, IMHO.
Perhaps the winner is in your possession, though.

Let's see it.

Here's another Fuji Pro 800Z, also sunset:View attachment 58115

Click to expand...

Your request isn't logical. I said that I thought the poor quality of your image was the scan, not the film. After what I have said about the unreliability of scanning in judging the quality of films, does it make any sense that I would scan a print and post it to show the quality of EKtar? Besides, my scanner is a modest, eight year old flatbed scanner; I would no more trust that than the monitors it would be seen on. As I said the best way for you to judge the film is through well made optical prints.

FWIW Andre, the examples you have posted all seem to have strong colour casts on my manually calibrated, low cost monitor.

They all look to me like they came from Fuji materials!:munch:

(before you react, understand that I have a life-long, pro-Kodak bias)

Matt, and I was born not far from EK, and even today plopped $400 down on Kodak TXP 320 sheets.:munch:

RPC said:

Your request isn't logical....does it make any sense that I would scan a print and post it to show the quality of EKtar? Besides, my scanner is a modest, eight year old flatbed scanner; I would no more trust that than the monitors it would be seen on. As I said the best way for you to judge the film is through well made optical prints.

Click to expand...

Hey baby, I am almost 50, so I can tell you your gig: Your gig is "I am entitled to be correct because I am ______". Yup, I said it.

RPC, you remind me of a dude who just today is selling ancient Maco IR 820c 4x5 sheet on Ebay, but steadfastly refuses to tell me how old they are, despite two separate emails specifically requesting this vital information. Why does he sand bag like you? He feels entitled. In his case, to my money. In your case, to being "right".

Here, read how he goes on and on about these Infrared sheets without coughing up the vital information:

Dear ansel_andre,

I truly don't remember the exact year. I was using Maco IR film and had stockpiled it in my freezers. At that time I was the US import agent for Maco, the idea of "Aura" was mine and I intended to develop their business until they decided to release a batch of film with known emulsion coating irregularities. One of my contacts at the offices of Maco, after hearing my disappointment, told me that EFKE was their film manufacturer and gave me their contact info and plant managers name.

I took a second mortgage on my home to buy an entire run of 11x14, 8x10 and 4x5 films for my use only..I am a photographer, not a dealer..I am selling my film only to raise money..my sales have dropped, my house is in foreclosure as is my gallery. I have worked with Kodak on the use and continuance of their high speed IR and had ordered complete runs from them also in 8x10 during which I spoke with their chemistry dept several times due to my concerns about film aging and was told that if the film storage temperature is maintained at 10 degrees Fthe film will not age or degrade. I purchased several large (6') deep chest freezers in which the film has been kept since I received it. The standards I employ are those of a photographer, not a dealer..I too feared degradation in image quality, so, was sure to keep all my films frozen. I still have some frozen Kodak IR which, though older, is still perfect in use.

I have mostly 11x14 IR now, maybe 45 boxes of 4x5 and another 50 boxes of Maco 4x5 (25 sheets) which though past date, is also perfect. I can't tell you anything more specific to insure your confidence, but be aware that I cannot offer drastic reductions in quantity pricing, this price is currently far below market and my original cost. gary

- chiarescuro

Maybe you two are close relatives or born in same town?

PS: Drew, aren't you the same guy who just days ago was trying to tell me that the Nikon 90 SW f4.5 large format lens is just as sharp, if not sharper than it's renowned little brother, the Nikon SW 90 f8? Well, Just to let u know, you're on my ignore list.

Link to an example of what I think shows off the impressive qualities of Kodak Ektar 100. Password is "lily". If you hover over the image, you will have the option of viewing the full res file.

Properly executed - capture to display, I believe that most any film can deliver.

Les Sarile said:

Link to an example of what I think shows off the impressive qualities.

Click to expand...

All I can say is WOW!!!

perkeleellinen said:

I think the film does best on overcast days.

Click to expand...

Completely agree. I've used it in 135 and 120, but any shots I have taken in daylight looked awful. I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of Ektar, but I could see its merit if you took the time to get really familiar with it.


Here are two shots of my dog on very overcast days (ah, winter in Vancouver). The red in my dog's fur is not accurately captured, and things aren't this blue in real life, but that seems to be common for this film. Shot on Nikon F80 / 50mm f/1,8, scanned Epson V500 1200dpi (these are the compressed jpegs, the actual files are on a different HDD). No photoshop, etc.

Les Sarile said:

Link to an example of what I think shows off the impressive qualities of Kodak Ektar 100. Password is "lily". If you hover over the image, you will have the option of viewing the full res file.

Properly executed - capture to display, I believe that most any film can deliver.

Click to expand...

Beautiful images and proper scanning technique, but filtration is still not right and, again, cannot be taken as a measure of the film colour qualities.

The sky behind the locomotive has a yellow tint and the sky behind the picture with the woman and the feet-up child has a magenta cast for my eyes. So it's not monitor calibration here, rather the fact that when different filtrations are put near each other the eye cannot "adjust" and the differences strike. The yellow cast in the locomotive shot is evident also in the gravel on the left. The magenta cast in the other picture is not a sunset effect I would think based on the height of the sun.

With all due respect for this evidently valid photographer I agree that any colour negative film can give colour results, in scanning and printing, which are better than those shown because ultimately there always is a problem of "filtration" with negative material and the final colour depend much more on the filtration ability of the photographer/printer than on the film qualities.

It's no point debating the colour quality of Ektar 100 when we judge it from scans showing opposite casts in the same light conditions!

I suspect that the definitive and fast solution to this colour mess is colour profiling the negative. That would sadly be outside the scope of APUG, while judging film products from randomly mistaken scan filtrations seems to be well within it

Hatchetman seems IMAPO (in my awfully presumptuous opinion) to be the only one so far who got his filtration right. A comparison of the same scene with two different films made by him would be meaningful because that would exclude random filtration variances and leave us with the differences in film response.

Before somebody asks the moderator to expel me from this thread , I would like to state that, for personal circumstances, I do have faced this kind of problem years ago, and at first it seemed insurmountable to me. When I begun scanning in 2007 two shots taken at the same time would not come out with the same colours, and I was working from slides! Now my filtration abilities and my workflow have improved considerably. Yet, I still find filtration differences sometimes between shots which in theory should look the same. (Mind you: when put one near the other. I consider a filtration good enough when the image, seen on its own, has realistic colours). Filtration by sight IS difficult.

A consistent and natural filtration is not easy to obtain until one applies a certain amount of technique and experience to his scan (or print) even when using slide film.

Colour negatives multiply the problem by 10 times. IMO there is no alternative solution, with colour negative, than film profiling and proper colour management. After all this is done, we can compare colour films. Otherwise we are just comparing different prints/scans/filterings and attribute their qualities to the film, and really IMO it makes no sense.

Actually I was only referencing the one shot that I provided the link to of the little girl - Lily face.

BTW, not my images.

many people here seem to mistake its own inability to make good prints/ good scans from Ektar negs with some problems intrinsic in this color film.

you're on the wrong way, guys; Kodak made another great film, and you have just to improve a lot your weak technique!

The link above using "lily" as password shows just quite bad amateur scans; they're bad and casted scans from optically good shots.