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

[wildbill]

I see somebody is having a really nice day

Actually, I'm having a great day. that rant was during breakfast at 6:15. Since then I've shot several sheets of film of the fall colors, dismantled my wives vw to change the spark plugs/wires, and taken a nap.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Your "wives VW"? How many wives do you have, and do all of them drive VWs?

 

[mtjade2007]

I see somebody is having a really nice day

Wogster, people who do not want to learn anything about film scanning only get half of the fun from shooting films. Some of them got pissed when they read posts that talk about scanning films on APUG. I used to process my films and print them in my home darkroom for more than a decade. I got so tired of it because of its inefficiency in producing good prints. It always took so much time. I eventually moved on to other activities and had my photography hobby canned. I nearly abandoned the hobby until I saw a demo of a Minolta Dimage MF film scanner about 10 years ago. It jumped started my film photography again and I have since invested thousands in MF gears and films. I have shot far more films than all the films I shot before getting into scanning.

Film scanning is another half of the fun of shooting films. Some will say processing and darkroom is the other half but that's the old way. The new and far more productive way is to process the films then scan them. Unfortunately film scanners are expensive. That is a road block to many who are lurking outside. I took the plunge for one ($1900 in 2002) and never regret it a bit. There is so much to learn technically about scanning even today I still discover new techniques every time I use my scanner.

Film scanning is an extension of shooting films. Before the films are scanned it is only half way through. People on APUG need to realize film scanning is a 2nd half of shooting films. It is not the only way but it is a modern and better way in my opinion. The resulted images have the look of films that are very different from images produced by digital cameras. I picked up my 35 mm gears recently and shot a few rolls of Ektar 100 and Potra VC 160. After I scanned the films I found I like them better than digital camera images still. They have the analog look believe me.

I wish film scanners were still produced at lower prices and decent quality. It would be one way to keep the film industry alive in my opinion.

 

[batwister]

It's interesting that scanning is putting people off colour film. Colour neg is a lost cause for the amateur - breaking news! I think all these endless scanning problem threads are just a battling with a reality they can't face. Once they realise that the relatively small expense of their pro medium format camera is met by the astronomical cost of scanners that get results, they lose interest. If they have sense. Remember, a good deal of people only convert to film because of the illusion of professionalism it brings - which they can't afford in the digital capture market. If they aren't interested in the black and white darkroom, they can only turn back, as it were, to digital and face the fact they aren't professionals after all. In one sense it's a shame that colour neg is no longer accessible to these people - we all deserve the best - but in another, emphasises the true quality of film - a professional product once again? Isn't this what every traditional photographer wants? To have their good judgement in choice of media (and excellent results) validated? But what happens when we can't afford it anymore, do we carry on seeking validation? Anyone with foresight, common sense and a respect for their money is shooting black and white film, which is a realistic choice for everyone - much easier to be economical. Everyone else, unless they're a pro or fine art photographer from an affluent background, is spending a lot of cash simply to make themselves look good. I shoot colour occasionally for the novelty and it's like Christmas every time. Looking at a Velvia 50 tranny now, regardless of content, is like looking at a rare diamond that I can't chip out of the wall. It is sad, but this drum scanning realisation that everyone is coming to - as a direct result of the Ektar difficulties - proves it's true.

 

[wogster]

Actually, I'm having a great day. that rant was during breakfast at 6:15. Since then I've shot several sheets of film of the fall colors, dismantled my wives vw to change the spark plugs/wires, and taken a nap.

Okay, I guess it was before you had that first coffee of the day....

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bah, Humbug .... In certain ways, printing color and developing color neg film is even easier than doing black and white. RA4 paper is generally cheaper in a given size. And just how much film do you
need to shoot to get something worth printing? So film expense isn't necessarily terrible either. If
I need a scan (rarely) I simply pay someone with the right gear (typcially a fifty grand scanner). But if I need higher quality yet, I simply do it in the darkroom (routine). Process your images any way you please, and in whatever way yields YOU the best results. But I sure get tired of all this whining
and "the sky is falling" pessimism.

 

[eddie]

But I sure get tired of all this whining and "the sky is falling" pessimism.

I agree. I think it's a great time to work with traditional methods.
-While many beloved products are gone, those that are still here are of top quality.
-Being able to buy cameras, enlargers, papers, film, etc. at pennies on the dollar allow us the opportunity for experimentation, using materials which would have been out of reach not too long ago.
-Those still working with analog processes are now part of a brother/sisterhood, and I find them very charitable with their knowledge and experience.
-Instant gratification is now the way of the world. We work in a slower, more methodical manner, which (for me, anyway) yield much more gratifying end results.

I often wondered why "the sky is falling" contingent ever visited APUG. I haven't seen those I refer to recently, but, if I held their beliefs, this would probably be the last place I'd frequent. Unless, of course, it's the only way they can justify their own decisions.

I'm not Nostradamus. I can't see very far into the future. As such, I won't let the fear of all this ending paralyze me. Given a good deal, I stock up on film and paper. But, I still shoot, and print, as if I have an infinite supply of both, and as if my "masterpiece" is my next exposure/print.

 

[agfarapid]

Here's an image I took with Ektar with my RB and 50mm hand held. I like the subtle colors and grain structure. It's my "go to" film for color. It was scanned with a Microtek Scanmaker i900.

 

[Bernard_61]

Ektar is very probably the best c-41 film for scanning ever made

 

[JoJo]

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 printed it in darkroom and I don't like it. It is okay on Fuji CA paper, but not on Kodak papers. Sounds strange, but it prints better on competitors paper.
Actual Kodak papers, optimized for digital laser exposure are too high in contrast to give good results with the high saturated Ektar.
It depends a bit on the individual picture and what colors are in this picture. But I have many negatives, specially landscape, which aren't printable on Kodak paper at all.
If your picture has a limited range of colors, it may be okay. But if the picture has the full range of colors, specially high saturated blue sky, green, trees and some red, it is a pain to print this film. Brown and grey tends to magenta and if you filter it, your blue sky goes to green or cyan.
My experience is: Ektar is a pain for analog printing if the picture has many complementary colors. A portrait (warm colors) could be okay. Try a portrait with blue background and you will end in a desaster.
Even I liked the fine grain for larger prints, I don't use this film any more. Portra is much nicer for analog printing.

Joachim

 

[DREW WILEY]

JoJo - maybe it's time to learn about color temp corrections at time of exposure and about contrast
masking in the darkroom. Then you'll see just how good this film is. One obviously doesn't have any
option equipvalent to VC paper when working with color; and even if you did, you would still need to
have some way to keep saturation of the respective hues correct. People routinely did far more work
printing chrome film for decades. A few modifications to color neg printing workflow to greatly improve results isn't the end of the world. I hope there are a few folks out there willing to experiment
rather than just throw up their hands and blame Kodak once again for not inventing a self-printing
film.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Here's an image I took with Ektar with my RB and 50mm hand held. I like the subtle colors and grain structure. It's my "go to" film for color. It was scanned with a Microtek Scanmaker i900.
View attachment 58024

Agfarapid- this may be an issue with my monitor, but looking at the scan you posted, you've got several issues - it's overexposed (the roof of the conservatory is washed out), and you've definitely got magenta and cyan casts. Nothing that 5-10ccs/points of correction to each color filter can't fix. But I'd fix the exposure first, and bring your highlights under control, then re-evaluate for color balance.

 

[batwister]

The only photographer I know of shooting Ektar 100 is Jeff Brouws. I'm pretty sure he has a digital workflow, going by the photographs in Approaching Nowhere. No doubt there are many other notable photographers shooting it. Brouws' images tend to be either very muted in colour or very bold, but naturalistic either way - and no cyan casts. I'd say his work is a good benchmark for colour reproduction of this film, being a celebrated straight photographer. No tricks or compromises. I think this is what people need to be looking at, proper photographs? Epson scans on Flickr or amateur tutorials are no standard to work to.

 

[perkeleellinen]

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'm also printing Ektar in the darkroom and the film is indeed fine. I've never had the sort of issues that seem to crop up when making scans. Here in the UK, I think the film does best on overcast days (that is, everyday).

 

[batwister]

I think the film does best on overcast days

I think this is where the film shines too, and a lot of people say that. It might just be a British bias, but I've not been happy with my pictures in direct light. Jeff Brouws' work is mostly, if not all, shot on overcast days too. I've always felt as though Ektar is specifically neutral with overcast skies, as a great deal of big name contemporary work is made in flat light.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Here's some examples of Ektar 100 in bright direct sun (Puerto Rico).

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've now worked with Ektar in a wide variety of lighting and situation (except night photography) -
tropical seashores and rain forests, high mtn scenes in all kinds of weather, direct sunlit earthtones,
subtle dry field and foliage colors here in Calif. As my confidence grows I'm getting more and more
impressed with the product... not that it will bag just anything that a chrome would ... but it some
ways it's even better. It will also differentiate subtle earthtone hues which traditional color neg films
just lump into pumkinish or flesh-tonish homogeneity (fine if you're Misrach, I guess - but that's not
the effect I'm after!). But I would caution any beginner to take with a grain of salt all the rumors
about Ektar going around. I'll bet 90% of the complaints are simply due to something else, like poor
scanner technique. I both scans wonderfully and, even more important, responds well in the dkrm.

 

[DREW WILEY]

And thank you, Flying Camera, for showing examples of just how good this film is with earthtones
and direct light!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I REALLY like this film. It works so well in such a wide range of conditions. I'm really on the fence about whether to take it or Portra 160 with me to Cuba in March.

One more to show how well it can do with blues, and not just earthtones (although it is great with those too):

That was shot in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in February, with a Contax G2, 21mm lens, hand-held, no polarizer, I want to say f2.8 or at most f4, around 1/4000 second? This is the only shot I've ever seen with this lens that looks like it vignettes at full aperture. Regardless, tough lighting conditions between the direct overhead sun at mid-day, and the backlighting. If there's anything wrong with the image, it's certainly not the film's fault.

 

[batwister]

I'm still trying to work out the first image you posted, very Burtynsky. Yet... it doesn't look like direct sunlight?

Like someone else mentioned about the film (but really, it goes for creative photography in general), I think the fact that you've been very selective with colour in these images helps a great deal. Landscapes at dawn and sunset are a bit of a different story. I'd sooner shoot Portra in those conditions, in which Ektar can be a bit loud and of course, with the more limited range compared with Portra, the purists might find themselves grabbing the grads.

 

[Bernard_61]

I completely agree with DREW WILEY.
I did scientific tests of exposure latitude: Ektar has slightly less latitude than Portra, but anyway more than Fuji Pro 160, for example.
It requires just a good technique for scanning and for printing to achieve good results. In despite of that, if managed properly it's capable of extraordinary results.
Ektar is more optimized for scanning than Portra, because of its own "special" orange mask.
Portra is very good for both analogue prints and scanning (as everybody knows), but Ektar too, in the hands of an expert printmaker or scanmaker.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

batwister- are you referring to the brickwork arches? They're gun emplacements on the fortification of El Morro in Old San Juan. They were taken near noon, in direct sun. But they look very evenly lit because not far away at all was a 100 ft tall wall that was stuccoed, and acted as a giant fill reflector.

 

[Andre Noble]

Here's an image I took with Ektar with my RB and 50mm hand held. I like the subtle colors and grain structure. It's my "go to" film for color. It was scanned with a Microtek Scanmaker i900.
View attachment 58024

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.

 

[Andre Noble]

This is how a PROFESSIONAL color negative film renders colors:

Shot on Fuji Pro 800Z at Sunset

 

[RPC]

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. I never have any of the problems some complain about, 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.

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.