Kodak Ektar 100 - Is This a Bad Joke from Kodak?

Andre Noble · Jul 14, 2012

Hello,

I shot a couple rolls of this and I thought the cyan color cast was depressing - as in some 1950's or 1960's era type color film.
I mean, google the name Kodak Ektar 100 and look at all the images, they also look like it has a very limited color pallet...

I mean who's drinking this Kool-Aid, er using this film? Why? I won't argue with you. I just want to hear your viewpoint if you like this film.

The reason I seem upset is that I am looking to stockpile some color neg film that will last, hence the slow speed. But Fuji Reala 100 has been discontinued and Kodak Ektar 100, well, looks less than promising.

xenophon · Jul 14, 2012

All I can say is that with normal lab processing and subsequent scanning (Coolscan 9000, Silverfast 8.0 on a Mac), one usually has to tweak the color profile for accurate color; in Silverfast this is accomplished by editing the (proprietary) "Negafix" profile.

My out-of-the-box result with this scanning setup are exactly like you described.

It's supposed to be a film emulsion specifically designed for scanning, and I guess it is worth persevering to get optimal results.

Oh, and one final thing - underexposure probably shifts the colors to a hellish blue/magenta cast!

The bottom line is probably that Ektar does live up to its hype.

With greetings from Athens,

Xen

hugopoon · Jul 14, 2012

I've shot a few rolls in the past few years and have had no problems with scans. Some shot at night, some shot during the day.

Steve Smith · Jul 14, 2012

I like it but I found I had to over expose a little bit to stop the sky going too cyan.

Steve.

mhanc · Jul 14, 2012

i have had similar results - mainly with the sky being too cyan. I also do not find the film to be "ultra vivid color" as described by kodak... but then i mostly use transparency film when i shoot color.

markbarendt · Jul 14, 2012

If you like Reala there's a fair chunk of it available. (I assume you are talking about 120 given your profile).

Amazon has it.

Adorama has it.

B&H is showing a backorder not a discontinuance.

There's plenty on eBay.

Why are you grousing about a film you aren't being forced to use and apparently haven't even tried yourself?

Arkasha · Jul 14, 2012

markbarendt said:
If you like Reala there's a fair chunk of it available. (I assume you are talking about 120 given your profile).

Amazon has it.

Adorama has it.

B&H is showing a backorder not a discontinuance.

There's plenty on eBay.

Why are you grousing about a film you aren't being forced to use and apparently haven't even tried yourself?

To be fair, the OP did indicate he'd used a couple of rolls of the Ektar . . .

Fotoguy20d · Jul 14, 2012

I bought a 5 pack earlier this year in 120, expecting it to be like the Ektar I used in the 90s. I dont think its terrible, but I'm mostly using it with lenses that weren't intended for color film anyway (1920s and earlier generally). But, needing some more, I bought Reala (a 5 pack from Amazon - better price than Ektar anyway, around $20, I think)

Dan

Grainy · Jul 14, 2012

Haven't shot a ton of Ektar, but so far I love it. But I don't like it for all purposes, so I also use a Portra 160 when I need low ISO.

markbarendt · Jul 14, 2012

Arkasha said:
To be fair, the OP did indicate he'd used a couple of rolls of the Ektar . . .

You are absolutely right, I goofed there. My apologies about that Andre.

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 14, 2012

Color palette is always a matter of taste. If there was fresh Agfachrome 100 with the pastel look it had in the late 1980s, I'd be shooting it.

That said, a cyan cast sounds like a printing issue more than a film issue, since it's negative film, and the negative always has to be interpreted to produce accurate color.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jul 14, 2012

I love Kodak , I have no problem with them and I use them but I cant agree with their Ektar and movie films. I saw many Ektar shots at gallery and high contrast and low contrast colors seem to me out of taste , not artful or harmonic. But Portra is excellent , may be they stopped Ektachrome and stop its compete with modern film colors to open space for new films. If I cant find fresh portra anymore here , I will go back to 5222 route with Microdol 1+1 and leave the color photography. Wow I have a problem with Kodak management also.!!!

Umut

TareqPhoto · Jul 14, 2012

In fact i was thinking Ektar will be my favorite color neg, i liked it, but once i used Reala 100 i changed my mind completely, Reala is my favorite color film now, and if this is going to be discontinued also then i will give up color film and use digital for color, Ektar100 will not make my mind over Reala as it didn't so far.

batwister · Jul 14, 2012

Been using Ektar exclusively for a project recently and it's my colour film of choice for anything other than people. Definitely an acquired taste and very problematic in my experience under blue skies - and I won't go anywhere near dawn or sunset with it either. I've been producing most of my work in a very green place and this is the reason I chose the film. It does something quite unique with greens, specifically under overcast skies - which are just about the only skies we get here.

In flat light the added punch you'll get from colours can work wonders if you're very selective - but isn't that the trick of photography anyway?
The saturation and contrast are definitely too much for me in direct sunlight. And of course, that cyan cast isn't going to be helped by blue skies - yes, shadows look like swimming pools.

In my mind it should be sold as a 'flat light film'. If you look at any contemporary colour work, you'll notice blank skies a plenty. Something tells me this film is aimed directly at those adhering to this popular aesthetic. Kodak's first 'fine art' film?

An ollllld image, but the kind of 'scene' I feel the film works best under.

The American Jeff Brouws uses Ektar and I'm almost certain this image is - http://www.jeffbrouws.com/series/highway_F13.html

Ektagraphic · Jul 14, 2012

Perhaps something was slightly off with the processing. Give Kodak a call and let them know....

tkamiya · Jul 14, 2012

I used it few times in the past. As Kodak says, it's super saturated in color. It wasn't to my taste. I didn't think any particular color was more saturated than others.

I think of it as a special purpose film where color saturation is important.

Andre Noble · Jul 14, 2012

I agree with most here. Nothing wrong with my processing - done by A&I in Hollywood about 3 years ago. My Ektar scanned on Nikon 5000. Cyan cast. Also vast majority of online examples of Ektar 100 also look bad.

Here's what I think: I think Kodak told their (young, fresh out of RIT, RPI, MIT, etc) engineers to build the best ISO 100 color neg film they could. This is not a film devised by Kodak's all time best and brightest.

If it were any good, they'd be selling a lot more of it. It sells only because its one of the last standing. That's all.

I'll research the Fuji Reala in 120 y'all mentioned.

RPC · Jul 14, 2012

I don't scan, but optically print my negatives and I have never had any of the problems with Ektar that people complain about, no blue in the shadows, no cyan cast, etc. So I believe scanning must be causing a lot of the problems users have. I have been using films for over 30 years and it is not a poorly designed film. I would not use it where good skin tones are important due to its higher saturation but when vivid colors are desired it does well when exposed and printed properly.

TareqPhoto · Jul 14, 2012

This shot alone made my mind for Reala 100

And here are 2 shots from Ektar that i feel it is fine, but i favor color of Reala over Ektar

Sorry, but all scanned by my flatbed, wish to have a drum scanner or at least film dedicated scanner.

TareqPhoto · Jul 14, 2012

Oh there are more of Reala, sorry to hidjack

My bad sharpness killed some of those shots. If you want to see some more from Ektar let me know.

kuparikettu · Jul 14, 2012

I like Ektar very much. It is as its best for me when used for nature and landscape photography. The ra-4 prints from those are just gorgeus. I don't know of you others, but I intend to buy lots of this film to my freezer. I'm not interested in Velvia, as I want to make prints of my photos, so Ektar is exactly the thing I need: colourful, high contrast and those get even better when printed as large prints on Fuji Crystal Archive.

For general photography my choice of film is portra 400, but for the above mentioned uses.. there just is no competition in my opinion.

Tony-S · Jul 14, 2012

I love Ektar.

I also love Portra 400.

And Portra 160.

And Fuji Pro 160S.

And Velvia 50.

And...

Pioneer · Jul 14, 2012

Tony-S said:
I love Ektar.

I also love Portra 400.

And Portra 160.

And Fuji Pro 160S.

And Velvia 50.

And...

I loved them every one...I think there is a song in there somewhere

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 14, 2012

If you're scanning a negative and the result has a cyan cast, then that's a scanning issue, just as a cyan cast when printing conventionally is a filtration issue. There is no such thing as a neutral setting for printing a color negative. Conventional printing always requires a filter pack, and scanning always requires evaluation and adjustment.

Diapositivo · Jul 14, 2012

All photographic scanner should be calibrated, it is a very simple procedure - it requires spending some $40 to buy the calibrated "targets" - but it makes a lot of difference. If you don't calibrate your scanner you might end up never finding a proper filtration.

More than that, to extract the most from a new colour negative film the best would be to take some pictures of a colour chart and create a profile for your scanner/film couple.

The resulting profiles (scanner profile and film profile) should allow you to correctly filter all images taken in the same light condition and not to become mad if you need to filter images taken in different light conditions.

I never practiced colour printing but I suppose it is the same: a new film should require some shots of a colour chart in the light conditions for which the film is calibrated (normally 5500 °K) and finding the filtration which gives a print which closely matches the colour chart. That would give you a filtration which should be valid in most situations.

I've also read that Ektar doesn't tolerate underexposure without punishing you with unbalanced colours.

Kodak Ektar 100 - Is This a Bad Joke from Kodak?

Andre Noble

xenophon

hugopoon

Steve Smith

mhanc

markbarendt

Arkasha

Fotoguy20d

Grainy

markbarendt

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Mustafa Umut Sarac

TareqPhoto

batwister

Ektagraphic

tkamiya

Andre Noble

RPC

TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

kuparikettu

Tony-S

Pioneer

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Diapositivo

Kodak Ektar 100 - Is This a Bad Joke from Kodak?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency