Is it me, or is it Ektar?

[newcan1]

This whole thread has kind of turned out how I thought it would: Ektar is great; no, it sucks; Ektar is easy to print; no, RA4 can't handle it and it is best scanned; Ektar is wonderful but only if you are really clever (the implication being that I am not). The most I can glean from this is that Ektar is only to be handled by really, really smart people; which is indeed an odd invention for the last gasp of a dying company. You'd think that Kodak might have wanted to turn out something capable of use by mere mortals like me, if profit motive were at all relevant.

Many of the scans posted prove that the film can be used effectively; but then again some of the scans posted are not brilliant, and some are but only with the admission that the scans are manipulated.

Well I brought only two rolls of Ektar with me. The comment that most resonated with me is that it is best used with high gamut, low dynamic range subjects, and I will reserve it for that. When people talk about scientific testing and densitometers and color accuracy (even where accuracy produces sucky results because Ektar does not have the interpretative failings of the mere human brain), I am left cold. For me, that is not what practical photography is about, although in saying that, I am not being condescending; I am merely admitting that there is an aspect to the art to which I do not aspire. There are plenty of good films that even mortals can use effectively.

If I am rambling, blame it on jet lag.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

How about we put a new spin on this, hmm?
How about we all just go out and shoot more film, rather than rumble in the jungle. Ektar if you like — or anything, who cares? Have fun and enjoy it.
Just remember this: it's days are numbered.

 

[Roger Cole]

You're making it sound worse than it is, maybe by taking Drew's obvious (to me) humorous exaggeration literally. One doesn't have to be all that clever to be successful with Ektar but probably can't treat it like Portra (depending on how you've been exposing Portra.) I tend to agree with Athril that a bit more exposure is the easiest way to excellent results (and perhaps the processing - mine has all been done by Dwayne's with no apparent issues.)

I will concede Drew's point that it will blow out highlights "at some point" of overexposure but that point must be pretty high because so far I've not hit it.

I tend to expose all C41 generously but not ridiculously so (meter at box speed but expose for shadow detail, in B&W terms I put shadows where I want detail on zone V not the B&W III or IV) and send it to Dwayne's. I'm quite pleased with the results but maybe I'm just not discriminating enough.

 

[Dismayed]

Drew backs up his assertions with facts. How dare he expose the empty and hollow opinions thrown about by others! This is THE INTERNET! Any unsupported whack-jog theory or opinion *MUST* be respected!

 

[perkeleellinen]

I am merely admitting that there is an aspect to the art to which I do not aspire. There are plenty of good films that even mortals can use effectively.

As a fellow mortal and one who doesn't even understand some things written in this thread I can say that Ektar makes nice pictures for me when it is overcast. It's fairly sunny in this part of the UK and I wouldn't choose Ektar today, but if it clouded over...

 

[StoneNYC]

Well neither of the two if them are saying anything bad about me, which confuses me, usually I'm the one on the forums making people upset and getting scolded for being an ass, man I'm loosing my touch

The LAB scans had less blue cast than my own however the reds were duller, so they may have manipulated them without my knowledge. I can't recall which version I wet with and my scanning technique has improved since then so I will have to re-check to see but I do remember the dark rocks having a blue hue, but it wasn't terribly unpleasant.

Skin tones aren't great for normal portrait but my work wasn't supposed to be normal so I wasn't disappointed with it, however I'm an E-6 guy so I don't really like C-41 to begin with, so even thinking it's "ok" is a compliment haha


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lamar]

In the Kodak Ektar 100 Exposure section for Daylight. Bright hazy sun on light sand or snow: 1/125th - f/16
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf

In the Fuji Velvia 50 Exposure section: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/125th - f/16
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-0221E2Velvia50PIB.pdf

For comparison in the Fuji Velvia 100 guide: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/250th - f/16
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-202E.pdf


Ektar 100 shows the same exposure recommendations as Velvia 50 but is rated as ISO 100. I have gone as far as contacting Kodak about this but they offered no response other than they received my comment and would look into it. Probably too busy with looming bankruptcy issues at the time..... For what it's worth I find Ektar works better for me shot at ISO 64 or 50 but I only scan.

Here is a link to the spec sheet for Ektar on Kodak's site: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf

No reference there to EI/ISO 50.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Look folks ... I'm not all that smart. I learned all this the hard way, and when you shoot 8x10 color film, mistakes are costly, and when you've already invested hundreds of hours printing and analyzing,
then you start asking the right questions and get results. You can either just argue based on a whim or you can learn from my mistakes and advice of others. Film doesn't do everything on its own. It won't
automatically correct a sloppy scan, and it won't necessarily forgive significant mistakes in color balance
any more than being way off in a shutter speed or f-stop setting. This isn't Kodak Gold in a disposable
one-shot cardboard camera! You need to treat it with the same degree of care as you would a chrome film, and hopefully understand in which way it differs too. But sloppy technique will bag you mediocre
results. If you don't care - fine. But don't blame Kodak for your own mistakes! This is a very high quality product, but due to its relative saturation compared to other color neg films, will tend to exaggerate color error. Correctly exposed, it's one of the most accurate color films I've ever worked with. And I've got the equipment and experience to accurately make that kind of statement. All I'm
doing is giving a few simple tidbits of advice which can make a very big difference in the quality of your shots with Ektar. Take it or leave it. I don't care. But I do care about people badmouthing a very very
high quality product and potentially impacting film sales at a time when it needs all the support it can
get. And this is a home-run product for Kodak. Maybe not ideal for everyone or every shooting situation,
but something which does potentially give film a new lease on life now that E6 lines are getting scarcer.

 

[wblynch]

Personally, I'm not jumping on this Drew fellow's case. For the photographic knowledge value of what he's got to say seems more plentiful than my own. And it's always been my policy when I'm around people smarter than me; to be all ears.

+1

 

[MattKing]

In the Kodak Ektar 100 Exposure section for Daylight. Bright hazy sun on light sand or snow: 1/125th - f/16
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf

In the Fuji Velvia 50 Exposure section: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/125th - f/16
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-0221E2Velvia50PIB.pdf

For comparison in the Fuji Velvia 100 guide: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/250th - f/16
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-202E.pdf


Ektar 100 shows the same exposure recommendations as Velvia 50 but is rated as ISO 100. I have gone as far as contacting Kodak about this but they offered no response other than they received my comment and would look into it. Probably too busy with looming bankruptcy issues at the time..... For what it's worth I find Ektar works better for me shot at ISO 64 or 50 but I only scan.

Now I see where you are coming from.

FWIW, Kodak's "Sunny 16" recommendations for Portra 160 are exactly the same, whereas their recommendations for Ektachrome E100G and E100GX are for one stop less exposure.

Their recommendations for metered exposures are to use the ISO speeds instead.

This tells me that the the "Sunny 16" recommendations are weighted to protect shadow details for negative films, and highlight details for transparency film.

Which makes a certain amount of sense, if you assume that correctly metered exposures are likely to be more accurate than "Sunny 16" exposures.

 

[EdSawyer]

"And this is a home-run product for Kodak."

Amen to that. Ektar 100 is really a great film. I can excuse most of Kodak's other film discontinuations in light of them bringing out Ektar 100.

Ed

 

[BrendanCarlson]

"And this is a home-run product for Kodak."
--- Agreed.

I'm a sucker for Ektar 100, I love the tone, even though it is a bit strange for skin. I've shot only a few rolls and every picture came out really nice, if not a little too warm. I'm a hybrid person though, so that doesn't bother me.

 

[Lamar]

That sounds right. When I first shot Ektar I had the issue with the shadows shifting purple or blue and excessive grain showing in those shadows, I thought it looked underexposed. When I read the spec sheet exposure recommendations I just started shooting it at ISO 64 or sometimes 50 and that seemed to cure my Ektar issues. It's interesting because the Portra 400 exposure recommendations for unmetered is two stops higher than Ektar or Portra 160 which is on the overexposure side by a stop vs metered. That supports your theory perfectly and it makes sense.

Now I see where you are coming from.

FWIW, Kodak's "Sunny 16" recommendations for Portra 160 are exactly the same, whereas their recommendations for Ektachrome E100G and E100GX are for one stop less exposure.

Their recommendations for metered exposures are to use the ISO speeds instead.

This tells me that the the "Sunny 16" recommendations are weighted to protect shadow details for negative films, and highlight details for transparency film.

Which makes a certain amount of sense, if you assume that correctly metered exposures are likely to be more accurate than "Sunny 16" exposures.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I started printing some Ektar negs last nite taken under deep blue high-altitude shadow conditions, a frosty meadow just after dawn. If I had simply overexposed the film, I would have gotten the scene, but all the deep area would have had a general blue case. Of course, the scene was relatively blue, but by exposing at 100 and using the correct filter, I not only got the realistic overall effect, but very cleanly differentiated nuances of green foliage, cyansish evergreens, yellow-greens etc. This degree of quality in the reproduction would have been impossible with just a generic exposure adjustment. Of course, if you're going to wing it, it's better to SLIGHTLY overexpose Ektar rather than underexpose it, but you won't get the same result. And post-correcting the shot will merely adjust the overall balance in part of the curve at best, and not recover all those subtle nuances that this film is actually capable of.

 

[DREW WILEY]

To follow up on that ... just study the dye curves on the published tech sheet. If you grossly overexposure you do indeed get more exposure on all three layers, but at the same time, force the
shadows down onto the lower part of the curve where's there's an overlap, hence contaminating one
dye with another. Once this happens, you're not going to clean it up. This is just basic sensitometry,
and was well known in prinicple to color photographers for a long time. But lots of things which were
once standard have now been forgotten because people think they can accomplish anything afterwards
with a few Fauxtoshop tweaks. That's simply not the case, any more than one can restore a clean primary hue to paint once you've intermixed two ingredients across the color wheel. Basic color theory.
Once you create dirt (or cowpie, or a complex neutral) you're not not going to easily fix it.

 

[kintatsu]

I just wanted to chime in, without instigating any other angles etc, that I like this film in MF. The colors are nice, the range is sweet, and the images have a crispness that so many other films seem to lack. I've shot some in 4x5, but not developed it for color yet.

I developed a couple shots for Black and White, which turned out incredibly nice... except the orange mask. Contact printing in my place is next to impossible, but I'll keep trying, as I love the incredible detail that the mono film seemed to lack, and the range of tones in the negative was impressive. Every bit as good as XP-2 developed in B&W instead of C-41, except the mask washes out in XP-2.

 

[newcan1]

by exposing at 100 and using the correct filter, I not only got the realistic overall effect, but very cleanly differentiated nuances of green foliage, cyansish evergreens, yellow-greens etc.

Drew, I think I am beginning to get some of this, but one thing that confuses me is: How do you know what filter to use? For example, in my sunlit scene of a barn in a field, where the distant hills are blue: My brain does not see it that way, so I can't really say, "Oh, this is an 8000 kelvin scene" or "I see it's 6,000 in the foreground, but 8,000 in the background" and adjust accordingly. Are we talking about intelligent guesswork in choosing an appropriate filter?

 

[kintatsu]

For me, I found that an 81A will generally suffice. That's during the day, early morning or evening hours will need a stronger filter. It also depends on the lighting, 100% clear skies need maybe an 81B.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Regarding color temp issues, I recommend using a high-quality color temp meter for a little measuring
practice. After that, it's pretty easy to estimate the best filter. The practical difficulty will always be
when different parts of a scene are very differently illuminated. So you either have to make a creative
judgment as to which part to let drift, or find a compromise filter. As long as you're somewhere in the
ballpark, you're still going to have an exposure improvement over doing nothing. I've never tried warming grad filters which split the scene, but I suppose it's inevitable someone will if a scene is somehow evenly divided. Certainly not every problem can be solved using Ektar, but the same could be said for any other film, and you always have the option to carry more than one type. My own immediate
goal is simply to make true darkroom prints from Ektar etc which will set the standard for burning at the stake for incompetent witchcraft those who still does it the clumsy old crude way using inkjet!
I pity all these folks who judge images over the web and have yet to see a well done darkroom print.

 

[wblynch]

I pity all these folks who judge images over the web and have yet to see a well done darkroom print.

That is true but it's kind of hard to pass darkroom prints around.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, the web is basically for business use or general crude visual information. But maybe it's time for
the smart alecs to get off their butt and start looking at some real work, or start learning to print color themselves. Certain laws of physics and color theory just can't be cancelled out with the click of a button. One doesn't need a phD to figure any of this out. It's basically being delivered to their doorstep. It's what cinematographers are expected to know, it's what Kodak Color Guides told you for
decades, it's what every decent studio pro did. Now presto - nobody needs to even screw a filter on a
lens, yet expects miracles from the film. But even if they got a miracle they wouldn't recognize it because everything looks like mush nowadays, that is, if the web is the standard of communication.
Well, that's perfectly fine for a lot of people. But why would such persons even want to tinker with
Ektar to begin with? They go out an purchase a thousand buck lens then don't bother to understand the
film that goes behind it. It's like purchasing a Ferrari and refusing to put gas in the tank. No wonder
someone can move faster on a skateboard and call the engineers a bunch of idiots.

 

[newcan1]

I can't afford a god quality color temp meter - I guess I'll just be in the uncomfortable position of using my digital camera as such a meter for a while to assess optimal white balance - better than nothing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A color temp meter simply helps but is not essential. I recommend using one if creating a printing master neg from something like a Macbeath chart. But for general outdoor shooting, two or three filters
will keep you in the ballpark. I recommend an 81A for general drab overcast situations, and an 81C for
deep shade under blue sky. A light salmon-colored skylight filter is useful for minor warming or cutting
UV at altitude, and might also be useful on your digital camera. Other than that, there's no sense getting too complicated.