Kodak Ektar 100 .... I think I'm in love again!

Jacko1729 · Dec 1, 2008

Is this the right forum to discuss and/or show images of a particular film? If not, please delete or move. Thanks.

I finally had go with a few rolls. The first roll I had processed at my local Rite Aid, and I've never seen such filthy negatives, ugggh. Anyway, the last two rolls I processed myself and I was tickled with the sharpness and detail of this film. I've never seen a color negative film with this 'tight' of a grain, or sharpness, I really don't know what the correct term is. Anyway....

Here's a few shots

Jack

Chris Nielsen · Dec 1, 2008

Looks fantastic!!!

I'm pleased it's nice, as I've just received a bag today with 8 rolls in it of Ektar. Was supposed to be 10 but someone at the camera store stole 2 before I could get it picked up - shows how popular this stuff is!!!!

Uncle Bill · Dec 2, 2008

I can't wait to try this film....looks great.

Ian Grant · Dec 2, 2008

It appears to have a Kodachrome 25 look, judging by the colours. Definitely worth a try, I did really like the previous Ektar 25 but by most accounts this is even better.

Ian

Michael W · Dec 2, 2008

Nice examples, I look forward to trying some.

Jeff Kubach · Dec 2, 2008

The images look great! I have to try Ektar 100.

Jeff

Joe Grodis · Dec 2, 2008

<------ Taking notes to self

ccbob · Dec 2, 2008

Hey Jack,
I haven't tried this film myself, but it looks impressive (and I certainly recognized your train shots). I had to comment on the Rite Aid processing. I had a roll processed by them a few months back and the negs were full of spots and just plain looked terrible.
Bob

wogster · Dec 2, 2008

ccbob said:
Hey Jack,
I haven't tried this film myself, but it looks impressive (and I certainly recognized your train shots). I had to comment on the Rite Aid processing. I had a roll processed by them a few months back and the negs were full of spots and just plain looked terrible.
Bob

This is what happens when the people doing the processing don't care about what they do. I was able to observe a guy running a mini-lab once for about 10 minutes, and he took an uncut roll off the rack, dropped it on the floor, then fed it directly into the machine. Now he might clean each image before scanning, but think how much detritus is in that machine where they feed the negs in, if they do this once in a while. I wouldn't bet on them cleaning the image very well before scanning either.

Does raise a question though, is there anything you can apply to a negative to give it a better cleaning, that will not hurt the negative itself? I would think water should be okay, but that softens the emulsion, and how do you dry it before using.

nickandre · Dec 2, 2008

Yeah CVS processed mine quite nicely in well expired developer which caused it to be "pulled" a stop or two or three. Nice effect. Sort of a dull gross color.

Jacko1729 · Dec 2, 2008

ccbob said:
Hey Jack,
I haven't tried this film myself, but it looks impressive (and I certainly recognized your train shots). I had to comment on the Rite Aid processing. I had a roll processed by them a few months back and the negs were full of spots and just plain looked terrible.
Bob

Hey Bob,
It's kind of amazing that these places (or at least my local Rite Aid) can be so filthy. I'm assuming it's lack of training? or they just don't care. I'm certainly not the cleanest when it comes to processing film, but my negatives look pristine in comparison to the mini-lab stuff I've been getting. I guess that's why I started processing my own stuff decades ago.

I'm so impressed with the grain of this film, I'm really torn as to whether I'm going to switch to color negative entirely, or color positive film.

Jack

Jacko1729 · Dec 2, 2008

Chris Nielsen said:
Looks fantastic!!!

I'm pleased it's nice, as I've just received a bag today with 8 rolls in it of Ektar. Was supposed to be 10 but someone at the camera store stole 2 before I could get it picked up - shows how popular this stuff is!!!!

It surely does seem to be a popular film, at least for now. I've just not been that impressed with color negative films so I stuck with positive films, but this new Ektar changes everything for me. I'm excited to have the dynamic range of negative film and the grain quality of positive film (at least that's the way I'm looking at it now).

mtjade2007 · Dec 4, 2008

I hope Kodak will announce 120/220 packages of this new Ektar100. Before that happens I am forced to stick to Portra VC or UC. Any hope that Kodak will release 120/220 packages any time soon or never?

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2008

mtjade2007 said:
I hope Kodak will announce 120/220 packages of this new Ektar100. Before that happens I am forced to stick to Portra VC or UC. Any hope that Kodak will release 120/220 packages any time soon or never?

Are you trying to make me feel guilty for buying up all the 120 rolls of Kodak UC in Los Angeles to keep it from the hoarders when Kodak announced that they were discontinuing it? Well, it won't happen. I am still using it and I still have a freezer that is full of it.

No, No, No!! You can't have it!

Steve

ccbob · Dec 5, 2008

Jacko1729 said:
Hey Bob,
It's kind of amazing that these places (or at least my local Rite Aid) can be so filthy. I'm assuming it's lack of training? or they just don't care. I'm certainly not the cleanest when it comes to processing film, but my negatives look pristine in comparison to the mini-lab stuff I've been getting. I guess that's why I started processing my own stuff decades ago.

I'm so impressed with the grain of this film, I'm really torn as to whether I'm going to switch to color negative entirely, or color positive film.

Jack

Yeah, I tried to cut them some slack, initially, because it was right around the time that Rite Aid switched to the Fuji system. I thought it was a training issue, but when I look at the negs... yikes! Luckily it was just a roll I shot to check out my new Nikkor 16mm Fisheye , so the pics were nothing important, but it left a mark on my confidence to use them in the future.

I am certainly intrigued to try this film after all the talk regarding it's quality. I guess I'll have to give them one more shot to redeem themselves since they're about the only show in this small town.

mjk · Dec 6, 2008

This is a film I'd really love to try, I haven't been able to gather the courage to drag myself through the cold to Calumet, the only store in the Boston area likely to have the stuff...

Commando303 · Dec 10, 2008

I've gone through a roll of Ektar 100, now, in a very informal comparison with 100UC. The two films are quite different. I found 100UC to be a little grainier (itself, it's very fine), with about equal sharpness (again, extremely high in each emulsion). As for contrast, in the night shot I took with each film, Ektar 100 delivered an unpalatable degree; as well, it demanded an exposure of about half a minute to compare to what 100UC delivered in about eight seconds. Ektar 100's typical color rendition was not so blue as many seem to have suggested it is, but the palette is different from 100UC; it's a difficult quality to describe through text — one would do best to simply try a roll.

Did I like Ektar 100? Yes. Did I love it? Maybe not, but, indubitable, it's a film I'd not mind using again. Do I feel it's an acceptable replacement for 100UC? No; I feel Kodak is making an unfortunate error in doing away with 100UC in favor of Ektar 100. The two emulsions are simply too different from each other for either to be a "better alternative" to the other — it's a little like replacing Tri-X 400 with T-Max 400.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 10, 2008

Jacko1729 said:
Is this the right forum to discuss and/or show images of a particular film? If not, please delete or move. Thanks.

I finally had go with a few rolls. The first roll I had processed at my local Rite Aid, and I've never seen such filthy negatives, ugggh. Anyway, the last two rolls I processed myself and I was tickled with the sharpness and detail of this film. I've never seen a color negative film with this 'tight' of a grain, or sharpness, I really don't know what the correct term is. Anyway....

Here's a few shots

Jack

What are you in love with, the name change, or the consolidation of a 400 and 100 speed line into a line with only a 100 speed offering?

Sheesh, you guys make me wonder if maybe Kodak isn't right blatantly lying, cheating its clientele, and treating the remaining film consumers like crazy people/idiots/children.

Never before have I seen such an overwhelmingly-positive response to the consolidation of a line (and incidentally, eliminating far-more-useful 400UC)

Maybe they should pull old "Panatomic" out of their name bag next. :rolleyes:

Commando303 · Dec 10, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
What are you in love with, the name change, or the consolidation of a 400 and 100 speed line into a line with only a 100 speed offering?

Sheesh, you guys make me wonder if maybe Kodak isn't right blatantly lying, cheating its clientele, and treating the remaining film consumers like crazy people/idiots/children.

Never before have I seen such an overwhelmingly-positive response to the consolidation of a line (and incidentally, eliminating far-more-useful 400UC)

Maybe they should pull old "Panatomic" out of their name bag next. :rolleyes:

In my mind, there's not much doubt that, had Kodak released, "Super-Terrific Awesome 100 Film" rather than "Ektar 100," people would have been less eager to try it out and less ready to sing its praises. That said, I have tried it, and it's a good emulsion. I still somewhat prefer 100UC to it, but, once more, they're not very similar films. As for the demise of 400UC, Kodak says it has nothing to do with the introduction of Ektar 100, but is based on the "overwhelmingly positive response" to the newly re-formulated 400VC. I haven't tried this version of VC, but, that which I did use, didn't please me.

I've written to Kodak to express my discontent with their decision to discontinue their Ultra Color line, and they replied (predictably) that they're sorry, but they can't please everyone. Perhaps if a few more photographers disgruntled with the choice sent in e-mails...

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 11, 2008

Commando303 said:
In my mind, there's not much doubt that, had Kodak released, "Super-Terrific Awesome 100 Film" rather than "Ektar 100," people would have been less eager to try it out and less ready to sing its praises. That said, I have tried it, and it's a good emulsion. I still somewhat prefer 100UC to it, but, once more, they're not very similar films. As for the demise of 400UC, Kodak says it has nothing to do with the introduction of Ektar 100, but is based on the "overwhelmingly positive response" to the newly re-formulated 400VC. I haven't tried this version of VC, but, that which I did use, didn't please me.

I've written to Kodak to express my discontent with their decision to discontinue their Ultra Color line, and they replied (predictably) that they're sorry, but they can't please everyone. Perhaps if a few more photographers disgruntled with the choice sent in e-mails...

Thanks for your response. I get so sick of people singing Kodak's praises for this film "line".

I'm actually pleased to here that you not only shot UC, but liked it *better* than Ektar.

What irks the hell out of me is that many people, who have never shot UC, talk about how this is the greatest film ever. . . Greatest necessitates at least three films compared to one-another, linguistically speaking.

It wouldn't bother me if they renamed 400 and 100 Ektar and reformulated, but they didn't.

It wouldn't bother me if they were just honest about declining sales and discontinued an UC film (preferably 100, since 400 is the one that is actually useful), but they WEREN'T.

This is a name change to cover up cost-savings of reformulating their UC "line" to use compatible film components from another line, most likely.

I just get violently, physically ill by the upbeat positive Orwellian double-speak of Kodak. For Christ's sake, how is halving a line and reformulating ( + RENAMING !!!!!!!) a film in any way a benefit to anyone but Kodak's accountants? If anyone wants to come in and attack me here, keep in mind I am not the only one that has called this company by that name. They did, after all, once describe colors that their films couldn't accurately reproduce "SUBJECT FAILURE".

All I want Kodak to do, for once in it's corporate lifetime, is to tell the fucking truth to customers, such as I, who faithfully consume tens of thousands of feet of their film

mtjade2007 · Dec 11, 2008

I tried 400UC, both in 120 and 35 mm. I did not really like them. I liked VC better despite it isn't as fine grain as UC was. I believe I am not the only one who was not impressed by UC. I have not had a chance to shoot the new Ektar 100 yet (waiting for next Spring to come). But I do not believe that all this is only Kodak's praises of this Ektar 100 film. I am impressed by the photos posted on the net so far. You can't ignore praises from people who used it.

Kodak has been honest about their declining sales of films. Their honesty horrified the entire community of film shooters. Many believed that soon it will be the end of the world. I don't think a name change, as you suggested, will save an inferior product. The introduction of Ektar 100 is a very positive news to me. It tells that Kodak is still in the film business. It is not going away and abandoning film lovers as many have speculated.

I suspect any US corporate ever told customers truth, nothing but truth. That is just not realistic in life. At least there is one reason to be cheerful about Ektar 100. It is much cheaper than UC films. I for sure will shoot more 35 mm again because of this Ektar 100.

Sirius Glass · Dec 11, 2008

mtjade2007 said:
I tried 400UC, both in 120 and 35 mm. I did not really like them. I liked VC better despite it isn't as fine grain as UC was. I believe I am not the only one who was not impressed by UC. I have not had a chance to shoot the new Ektar 100 yet (waiting for next Spring to come). But I do not believe that all this is only Kodak's praises of this Ektar 100 film. I am impressed by the photos posted on the net so far. You can't ignore praises from people who used it.

One should use the right tools for the right job. I use UC 400 in 135 and 120 for shooting red rock in Utah and Arizona. I would not use it for a wedding or portraits.

Steve

wogster · Dec 11, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
Thanks for your response. I get so sick of people singing Kodak's praises for this film "line".

I'm actually pleased to here that you not only shot UC, but liked it *better* than Ektar.

What irks the hell out of me is that many people, who have never shot UC, talk about how this is the greatest film ever. . . Greatest necessitates at least three films compared to one-another, linguistically speaking.

It wouldn't bother me if they renamed 400 and 100 Ektar and reformulated, but they didn't.

It wouldn't bother me if they were just honest about declining sales and discontinued an UC film (preferably 100, since 400 is the one that is actually useful), but they WEREN'T.

This is a name change to cover up cost-savings of reformulating their UC "line" to use compatible film components from another line, most likely.

I just get violently, physically ill by the upbeat positive Orwellian double-speak of Kodak. For Christ's sake, how is halving a line and reformulating ( + RENAMING !!!!!!!) a film in any way a benefit to anyone but Kodak's accountants? If anyone wants to come in and attack me here, keep in mind I am not the only one that has called this company by that name. They did, after all, once describe colors that their films couldn't accurately reproduce "SUBJECT FAILURE".

All I want Kodak to do, for once in it's corporate lifetime, is to tell the fucking truth to customers, such as I, who faithfully consume tens of thousands of feet of their film

You know, the best way to resolve this, is vote with that which is the only thing you have absolute control over, your wallet. Okay maybe your spouse has absolute control, but you do as far as film purchases. If you don't like what Kodak is doing, b******g and whining here isn't going to fix it, buying your film from someone else, at least doesn't make it your problem. The only thing I have bought from Kodak in 20 years is some Inkjet paper that was on sale.

mtjade2007 · Dec 12, 2008

Sirius Glass said:
One should use the right tools for the right job. I use UC 400 in 135 and 120 for shooting red rock in Utah and Arizona. I would not use it for a wedding or portraits.

Steve

Steve, I wonder how you quoted my reply and came to a conclusion which seems to suggest that I shoot wedding or portraits with UC 400. I did not say a word about what I shot with UC 400. But I agree that UC is not the best choice for wedding or portraits.

Sirius Glass · Dec 12, 2008

mtjade2007 said:
Steve, I wonder how you quoted my reply and came to a conclusion which seems to suggest that I shoot wedding or portraits with UC 400. I did not say a word about what I shot with UC 400. But I agree that UC is not the best choice for wedding or portraits.

I used a wedding as an example of when UC 400 would be inappropriate. I quoted you because you did not like UC 400. My point was that, as stated, UC 400 is good for certain situations and not for others.

If I am asked to take photographs of a wedding, I respond that I can either attend the wedding or take photographs of the wedding but not both. If I do shoot a wedding, I use NC 400 or VC 400.

Steve

Kodak Ektar 100 .... I think I'm in love again!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency