• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Is Ektar 100 Best Suited For Individual Darkroom Printing?


So when using Ektar 100, would you put a filter on all the time and if so which filter.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
For those scanning Ektar 100, would adding a filter change your editing techniques?
Click to expand...

Nope. Whatever both my scanners burp out is so different in any case from what I'd get with a recently balanced RA4 print that I'd have to adjust the digital file anyway. Which is kind of evident to begin with, given how scanning images works. It would be different in a tightly calibrated scanning setup and a dedicated Ektar profile, which is the way a good commercial lab would do it. As a home user, that's beyond what I find convenient, especially since I rarely scan film to begin with.
 
Alan - of course there are differences between chrome films, ideally requiring slightly different reproduction strategies. That's why Fuji offered three distinct categories of chrome film for awhile : the lower-contrast Astia line, the middle of the road Provia products, and a more contrasty, higher saturation product - the Velvia series.

Some people color temp balance for slide film products, some do not. The old Ektachrome 64 was prized by many landscape photographers for its excessive blueness. But that was a rather clean blue because the red-contamination of the green layer worked almost like a skylight filter on its own, yet at the expense of clean greens. Later chrome films had their own look. And most color neg films deliberately incorporate some warming crossover "mud" for sake of "pleasing skintones".

But Ektar does not have that characteristic, and its kind of blue error gravitates towards cyan-inflection in a manner few people find rewarding. An exception would be truly turquoise tropical waters - wow! Discussing this issue of color neg films with the late Ron Mowrey (PE), he said he simply left a skylight filter on the lens the entire time when using color neg fillms. That wouldn't be quite as precise as having the choice of a few different warming filters, but would at least salvage the majority of shots.
 

Years ago, the skylight filter was recommended to be left on all the time regardless of the film to warm it up as well as to protect the lens.
 
Today, you've got a bigger choice of mild multicoated filters - some nearly colorless and just mildly UV-removing, largely for sake of digital camera sensors or basic lens protection, and others more traditionally tinted like 1A and 1B skylight. My most versatile one for color neg film per se is the Singh-Ray KN, slightly pink amber, a bit stronger than a 1B, but not quite as strong as an 81A. They now have a different product number for those, and they're expensive. Otherwise, I choose between a Hoya 1B, or a B&W KR 1.5. I also always have along a slightly more yellow 81A for bluish overcast sky situations.

I rarely filtered for chrome film, except distance shots at high altitude, where the excessive UV needed controlling.
 
Last edited:
brbo said:
Thanks! But, you do know you are looking at an illusion, do you? Such shots are impossible in real world without a stack of ten filters on the lens, film preflashing, $100.000 scanner and/or elaborate masking in darkroom.
Click to expand...

With daylight, even open shade no trouble getting exceptable prints, your's especially the art installation panoramic is lovely. However you will be challenged, without a computer to get great or even good results on professional color negative films under fluorescent lamps, all of their varieties, high intensity lamps i.e. mercury (these are almost extinct) , some of the new LED lamps designed to imitate soft white lamps. Using some filters on the camera makes life easier if making direct optical prints.

Those of us who are gifted with the skills of scanning and photoshop can work wonders. Suitability demonstrated!



FWIW, Kodak has a technical bulletin E-104, has filtration suggestions for different fluorescent lamps.
 
What's "acceptable"? My standards apparently aren't yours. Getting OK results which pass commercial standards are not the same thing as optimized results. Not by a long shot. Ektar is in fact a high performance vehicle capable of attaining higher MPH than in second gear alone.

Working with fluorescent lamps is just looking for trouble; always has been. There are just too many kinds of them anyway. Many of them didn't even exist yet when Kodak published that bulletin. But ironically, my best set of color matching bulbs, used at both my personal retouching station, and back when I had to adjudicate precise paint matching, are fluorescent - high end German tubes designed specifically for that purpose - true CR98, 5000K. Pricey.

I don't know what you mean by, "suitably demonstrated". Does that imply you can get just as bad results using Photoshop as shooting under garden-variety fluorescent lighting? Yeah, I attended a wedding last week where the photographer was involved in that very predicament. But at least he was more competent than the one who set the flash arm so low that it bounced the light off the back of peoples heads.
 

I know, but there are slim chances that I will want (more like be able) to figure out the filtration on the spot when I only want to spend 2 seconds on the shot. So, I just embrace it. 99% of time I even like it, in that weird, "it is what it is" lomo way...



For the rest, there's always a couple of clicks in PS...

 

Yes, it's a couple of clicks in PS, but wouldn't you be able to adjust filtration in your enlarger and adjust for fluorescent lighting? Or for tungsten for that matter?
 
Anon Ymous said:
Yes, it's a couple of clicks in PS, but wouldn't you be able to adjust filtration in your enlarger and adjust for fluorescent lighting? Or for tungsten for that matter?
Click to expand...

In this case, no. If you would correct for fluorescent light you'd end up with horrible magenta/blue/whatever in the part of the image that is lit by natural light. It's not hard to correct for that in PS, much harder with enlarger.
 
Fluorescents and related abominable CFL bulbs do not have continuous spectra; so there is absolutely no way you can correct every anomaly, even in PS. Nor, in that scenario, can you correctly filter for all the problems. You are confusing simple color shifts with other
issues which will still remain after your PS tweaks. People have such low expectations of color neg film anyway, outside of portraiture,
that they don't even notice many of the anomalies which are in fact to a significant degree preventable under more suitable lighting and
better technique at the time of the exposure itself. Yeah, PS is great for stitching back together Frankenstein; but he still looks somewhat ghoulish even after PS.
 
So to summarise what I think Drew Wiley( and maybe others ref point 4) is/are stating : (1) Ektar has an inherent colour crossover which Kodak knows about?
(2) Other Kodak films do not have this colour crossover?
(3) Fuji films do not have this colour crossover?
(4) There is no defence against the green effect of fluorescent lamps in RA4 enlarger printing. You have to use PS and print by other means such as a minilab. I had thought that there were films that had overcome the green effect such as the Fuji 4th layer films. I had even thought that I had seen examples of this green effect being neutralised but perhaps this was by a filter (FLD) ? Point (4) may be a point made by another or others and not by Drew


Crossover can be guarded against by the use of a skylight filter but not a U.V. filter? Even the skylight filter will not prevent the crossover in every situation. That requires the elaborate procedure stated by Drew Wiley?

This may not be an accurate summary. In which case can Drew modify those parts that are wrongly summarised and could he say how often Mr Average might come across situations as the crossover he describes and how bad this might appear to the average viewer

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
pentaxuser said:
(1) Ektar has an inherent colour crossover which Kodak knows about?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone addressed crossover as such in this thread. But yeah, overexpose Ektar and it'll crossover. It's right there in the datasheet, too, so Kodak definitely knows about it, since they told the world about it.

pentaxuser said:
(2) Other Kodak films do not have this colour crossover?
(3) Fuji films do not have this colour crossover?
Click to expand...

Any film can cross over at some point depending on how it's handled. Color film is always a compromise; handle it well and it will (almost) not crossover in the range of densities that is relevant for printing/scanning.

pentaxuser said:
(4) There is no defence against the green effect of fluorescent lamps in RA4 enlarger printing.
Click to expand...

It's not so much a 'green effect' as a very discontinuous spectrum.

pentaxuser said:
This may not be an accurate summary.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid your attempt to summarize has induced several differences from the original debate as well as a couple of inaccuracies. Sadly, it's often the case that simplification doesn't do justice to the original. The world would be much simpler if this wasn't the case! Don't beat yourself up over it.
 
Of course Kodak knew about it. Ron Mowrey of this very forum explained it. We agreed that it was a distinct improvement over earlier Ektar 25, but involved its own kind of tradeoff. The lower curve warming crossover or "mud" characteristic of most color neg films was their formula to "pleasing skintones", but also dumped similar hues into the same bin, making related yellows, oranges, and tans often almost indistinguishable. That includes Fuji CN films too. This gradually improved but never disappeared. Ektar took its own path of evolution and to a real extent solved that chronic problem, but doing so, still has some underlying cyan crossover problems. Color dyes aren't perfect, and further improvement is warranted. But that doesn't mean the Kodak engineers can simply snap their fingers and have it done. It's apparently a complex issue.

Average viewers, like I already implied, are just so accustomed to color errors, especially in neg films, that they take them for granted.
Many have exploited these same idiosyncrasies for creative purposes. Ektar is relatively new, and not amenable to the old 70's pumpkin versus poison green palette like Stephen Shore, for example, took advantage of. Ektar better fits the bill as a potential replacement for the look of chrome film when wisely handled - a very clean, well-balanced and saturated palette, provided one knows a few tricks.

It the likelyhood of green crossover into the blue, or a cyan inflection to blue, which is the biggest problem with Ektar, and which therefore requires stronger correction than a mere UV filter can provide, depending. A reasonable amount of actual color temp correction itself is necessary. I wasted a LOT of time and money learning that the hard way with 8x10 Ektar. Eventually, a highly experienced Hollywood cinematographer explained the whole situation to me. Of course, many times those experts deliberately overdo the correction to attain an amber "Godfather" movie look. But they do that relative to a very serious knowledge of how film itself behaves, for which they're accordingly paid very well. What they take for granted to make a good living is exactly the kind of thing so many film shooters on this forum outright deny, or shrug their shoulders at. And those big budget movie productions have access to far more skilled and sophisticated digital tweaks and corrections than the common crowd has, yet even they, whenever possible when using actual color film, still do the corrections with filtration over the lens at the time of shooting itself. That is just common sense. It's far more difficult and expensive to post-correct.

Serious film lighting is itself a higher notch up. Quite a bit of cinema filming is done in this area, and the specialized HMI and even high-end LED panels are generally rented to film crews due to the high cost of this equipment. This level of quality and color fidelity is specialized, and not the kind of thing you're going to find in any camera store. But there is still some use of traditional Lowell and Arri hot lights.
 
Last edited:

Looks good!
 
brbo said:
In this case, no. If you would correct for fluorescent light you'd end up with horrible magenta/blue/whatever in the part of the image that is lit by natural light. It's not hard to correct for that in PS, much harder with enlarger.
Click to expand...

Well put. It's hard enough to get the right filtration with daylight when making optical prints using an enlarger. Portra 160 is made for electronic flash, and the rare 5500°K daylight. Kodak Gold, Kodachrome is (was) more forgiving of color temperature.

Control of white balance is what attracted me to digital. I remember the first time I shot raw Nikon files and went back later and adjusted the shot to match the lighting I almost started crying.

I canceled my account with Adobe the other day, so I guess I'm just a stick in the mud. I really wish I was a wiz with PS, I really do.
 
It just a little experience with color temp issues. You don't have to be spot on. Yeah, if you happen to own a good color temp meter, take it out shooting just to get acquainted with typical situations you're likely to encounter. But I never use one outside the lab or studio myself unless making a precision printing control negative of the MacBeth Color Checker chart, or something like that.

The whole point is to give the blue reproduction curve of Ektar a little boost with a mild warming filter. I recommend a mild salmon color Skylight filter for routine use, and a stronger 81A or KR1.5 for bluish overcast. Really deep blue morning shade under open skies at high altitude is something I use an 81C for, but otherwise, don't ordinarily carry one of those.

If you wish to exploit the cyan crossover error of Ektar for creative ghoulish reasons, fine. Or if you don't want to bother with it at all, shoot Kodak Gold instead - but that's only available for small cameras, and will never attain the kind of clean-hued chrome-like look
Ektar can if properly filtered as needed. Porta 160 is a superb film, but has a very soft palette, distinctly color-neggish-filmical. It's labeled "Portra" (Portrait) for a reason, with an emphasis on skintone repro.
 

Agree, Ektar produces well saturated prints.
 
koraks said:
I don't think anyone addressed crossover as such in this thread. But yeah, overexpose Ektar and it'll crossover. It's right there in the datasheet, too, so Kodak definitely knows about it, since they told the world about it.
Click to expand...

Do you mind pointing out at it in the datasheet? I am looking at the characteristic curves and they are not parallel, but that's the case for all films except maybe Portra 400 which is absolutely incredible of course.

Also, I struggle with the use of the word "crossover" on Photrio. It is used in contexts that are unusual to me, i.e. outside of processing errors. For example, I do not quite get your statement on crossover due to over-exposure. From the film's perspective there is no such thing as under/correct/over exposure, it's just density. If you are saying that above certain density Ektar curves wildly diverge/cross, this basically means the film is not capable of reproducing pure white and cannot be used to shoot sunsets, for example
 
Thanks Drew for the reply It might be that the shots I have seen most of in Ektar were probably those of the Flyingcamera. They looked very good to me in terms of colours including the blue of the sky but of course I have no idea if he used a skylight filter similar to yours or other parts of your procedure

Does Kodak suggest that to avoid this cyan problem that a colour correction filter is needed? If it doesn't then it may mean that it considers it to be insignificant enough for Mr Average not to have to bother about it

Certainly Mr Average describes me

On the green effect produced by fluorescent lights, I have taken a picture in my kitchen that has one such light without the FLD and it looked fine This was at night so no daylight outside nor with any incandescent light in the scene

However what I am trying to establish is what is the effect of such a filter in a shot where there is either daylight or normal incandescent in the scene also It sounds as if there is no correction possible that doesn't adversely affect the other light in the scene be that daylight or incandescent?

Is this the case? On this part about fluorescent light problems which isn't directly addressed to Drew anyone with knowledge of this problem and experience of solving or mitigating its effect without PS is welcome to contribute

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
@Steven Lee look at the high densities where a cyan crossover emerges. At high exposures the blue curve runs away, green progresses linearly while red drops off. You'll notice it when overexposing e.g. skies which can indeed tend towards cyan, so what you said is correct: Ektar doesn't behave all that politely when overexposed.
A typical sunset doesn't suffer all that noticeably from this since it tends to have little cyan in it, at least the high tones. Moreover there is no reason why a sunset would have to be overexposed by definition.
On crossover I've written a blog post that you may find helpful; it's a sticky on top of this forum.
 
@koraks Thank you for clarifying. If that's what crossover means now, then Ektar is not unique in that regard. What I find interesting that the word has not been used this way and feels like a recent phenomenon. Instead, we simply used say "film's color profile" because all CN films have shadow/highlight color balance mismatch with the notable exception of possibly Portra 400 which is almost clinically accurate. Crossover was reserved to severe color deviations from normal processing resulting from poor storage or processing errors. i.e. "crossover" was something you did, as opposed to being a film's intrinsic trait. Anyway, not arguing, I was just clarifying this for myself.
 
Although Ektar has gained an amount of popularity due to its hue saturation, I don't think of it as an amateur style film. Crossover is not synonymous with "color profile". Warming crossover over is built into typical portrait oriented color neg films; but that creates a side effect. Not Ektar. It doesn't have that warming crossover, but a cold crossover issue. Ektar has a much more accurate overall color gamut than Portra 400, but there's a caveat to that - you have be more careful to correctly balance to color temp.

Otherwise, Koraks phrased the issue correctly.
 

So in practical terms, Drew, what does a warming crossover as opposed to a cold crossover mean in practical terms. In fact what does all of the above mean for Mr Average who has bought a roll of Ektar.

It seems that you may be agreeing with koraks whom I interpret as having allayed a number of fears about using Ektar?

pentaxuser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register