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

[Les Sarile]

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

The joke apparently is that some people expect automatically perfect color/contrast interpretation from C41color film.

Googling may turn out lots of captures but not all of them may have been interpreted correctly - or for that matter shot correctly, as well as their results may be just fine for themselves.

 

[Les Sarile]

My Ektar scanned on Nikon 5000. Cyan cast. Also vast majority of online examples of Ektar 100 also look bad.

Btw, what scan software and settings do you use?

 

[hrst]

Three things;

1) Kodak Ektar 100 is, by purpose, non-realistic. If you expect realistic color rendition and have accidentally bought this film, it is your problem of not doing your homework.

It is good to have choices; it is even better to have freedom to not choose them if you don't want to. However, you should not ridicule other's right to make these choices.

It is so funny to see people complaining of too many choices of film today!

2) There is no universal definition what is "good" or "bad". Multitude of people, me included, like the color rendition of Ektar. It is not about being wrong or right. Of course, there can be a certain reference of being NEUTRAL, but Ektar does not even try to be neutral, and it doesn't have to, because Kodak already has two other neutral color neg film products.

3) APUG is not for discussing scanning. (99% of scanners sold are broken and 99% of scanning software sold are nearly useless, due to idiots designing them. I have built my own scanner from scratch and written the software for it, and it was one of the easiest tasks in my electronics/programming field of hobby ever.) This is a typical scanning-related problem and due to the difficulty of solving it, discussing scanning has been forbidden in APUG. You can try DPUG.org instead, but don't expect to get an easy answer when it comes to film scanning with broken equipment.

I print my Ektar optically (that's what we discuss here at APUG), and it prints without cyan cast with the standard filtration like any color negative film. It has SOMEWHAT increased saturation and a MINOR shift towards cyan in certain colors that ACTUALLY look somewhat cyan in real life to begin with.

99.999% of images shot on Ektar you find on the Internet, are indeed shot on Ektar, but then scanned with a broken scanner, autoadjusted for colors behind the users back on the scanning software, and then further modified by the user using some piece of broken software such as Adobe Photoshop, which automatically creates color crossover errors when trying to color correct due to an amateurish bug or design error in handling of gamma-corrected values. Then the users hassle with all the knobs this piece of software allows until they have something they are satisfied enough with, and upload it to the 'net. It has NOTHING to do with how Ektar performs or what you or me can do with it anymore.

In reality, the color of the sky is a VERY complex system, like many things in the nature are!

It varies hugely depending on time of day and quality of light. The amount of scattering is dependent on the amount of water droplets, smoke and other particles. The higher the scattering, the more light is mixed to the "background" color of the sky. Now, near the sunrise or sunset time, this mixed light is yellow in color, so that the combination can vary wildly from yellowish-green to green, cyan and blue.

If you try to use sky as any sort of color standard, you are severely off. It is surprising how ignorant people can be about our very surrounding nature -- how blind can we be even for something we look at all the time? "The sky is blue" -- is it really? What is blue, anyway? If "blue" is the color of sky, then there are quite a bit of different blues.

If we look at the art of painting, there are many ways of expressing sky color or reflecting sky in water. Sometimes it is depicted as having a deep, almost violet, ultramarine shade. Sometimes it is painted cyan, sometimes even cyan-green. This all is based on reality, but typically exaggerated. Ektar is a film with exactly this purpose; it exaggerates colors to create painting-like depiction of the reality, with a certain palette that indeed leans a bit toward green-cyan. This is great because there are already products leaning towards ultramarine-violet thing, such as Fuji chrome films (especially Velvias), but AFAIK, Ektar is really the only one that has this particular green-cyanish palette. If you don't like it, it is your problem then. You don't have to use it.

You can vary the palette quite a bit with filters (pre or post) or adjusting exposure, but for more realistic products, try Portra 160 or Portra 400. It is best to have them all so you can choose according to your needs.

 

[polyglot]

If you're googling for Ektar or looking on flickr, you will see, on average, very very poor results with bad saturation, bad colour casts, etc. C41 requires some skill to scan and Ektar in particular can be difficult to get right because the "black" point is not the film mask colour and this confuses most inversion programs and scanning operators. People also tend to include too much dynamic range, which results in flat pastel results.

I can report though that Ektar has very saturated colours with accurate hues; it looks a lot like a chrome when printed. For example (all are RZ67, Ektar and Nikon 8000): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Ektar is not a bad joke; most photographers are a bad joke.

 

[RPC]

All this only reinforces the knowledge that it is ridiculous to try to judge a film based on what you see on a computer screen!

It is often even difficult to judge a film printed optically. If two films are printed on a given paper and well color balanced, each will likely give different results if those same two films are printed on a different paper. This is due to the different spectral characteristics of the dyes of the two films and spectral responses of the different papers having different match-ups. With severe enough mismatch, crossover can occur.

I can see scanners having the same response differences and would require some type of careful adjustment for each of the different dyesets in all the films out there. Do you think such critical match-ups occur? Is the software and profiles making the proper corrections? Is your monitor calibrated? Can you trust what you see?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

All this only reinforces the knowledge that it is ridiculous to try to judge a film based on what you see on a computer screen!

And this is precisely why all of the various APUG traveling portfolios and print (and at one point, transparency) exchanges exist. They're real things. Created by someone's own hands. Held in your own hands. Beheld with your own eyes. No abstractions. No indirection. No algorithms. No calibrations. Just the thing itself. The real deal.

Everyone should give one of the exchanges a try. Experiencing real materials, techniques and approaches becomes so much more meaningful than simply staring at a computer screen.

Ken

 

[batwister]

It does seem that most people shooting the film on Flickr are blind to colour casts. What might be off-putting about what you're seeing is the lack of creative control, less some ugliness inherent in the film. We're all going to get different results after all, either optically or digitally, and that's the joy of looking at other people's pictures? Hopefully people aren't condoning a 'right and proper' standard for interpreting this film, but that we arrive at some kind of balanced and neutral result - but our own treatment is what makes the pictures our own. People will always be hyper-sensitive to slight colour shifts and the art of shooting colour is controlling them to evoke mood and atmosphere - in other words, it's as clear as day when it's unintentional.

If you see a cyan cast and it bothers you, like other people have suggested, it can be easily remedied either on the computer or in the darkroom. I still think Ektar does something different with blue dominated light, but isn't inhibited by it in the way suggested.

EDIT: Also, as I have done with new colour films in the past, it might be an idea to send a roll off to a decent lab for a balanced scan. Then you might have a slightly better idea of the palette and what you're working with. Home scanned images you'll see on Flickr will inevitably be all over the place.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Are you all using a UV absorber fro outdoor shots? Most all color films benefit from one! So far, my shots are fine but were all taken indoors with flash.

PE

 

[TareqPhoto]

Well, in fact i never care about colors in film, i started to shoot film not so long time ago only because of the B&W, not the color, i did shoot with slides and color neg and i have nice results and no complaints unless it is my mistake of exposure as number one, then scanning or adjusting colors/curves, saturation...whatever can be another factors.

I keep looking at most color films to see what look it should be or what other people are looking for with certain film, and then it is up to me what look i want from this or that film, in fact even in B&W those debates are there whether print wet or digital scan, so it is not surprising to have same debates with colors too.

What i will do in film is just to keep shooting testing until i feel i am in love with film and i will not think a lot about the look, because i will always find an issue with whatever look i will get with all films, so better i settle my mind to have done rolls/sheets then later i may try to understand and work on the looks i am after and i will not force myself to be either analogue 100% or digital 100%, i will use whatever tools i can use to have the art works even mixing film with digital if necessary, i have some friends who gave up to print in darkroom even they all stated that film print is unmatched.

 

[TareqPhoto]

By the way, when i looked at rolls i did with 5 MF cameras [RZ, 501CM, GSW690III, Holga 120N/120WPC], the most i love rolls were from RZ and GSW690III, then Hassy, can't wait to fix Mamiya 7II and then this will have a top place.

 

[Pioneer]

Are you all using a UV absorber fro outdoor shots? Most all color films benefit from one! So far, my shots are fine but were all taken indoors with flash.

PE

Excellent. I rarely use UV filters but now I have something else to try out with my Kodak film. Thanks

 

[RPC]

Some have said the use of an 81A filter improves overall color rendition with Ektar. It should block some UV.

 

[pukalo]

Excellent shots Polyglot! Now that is what film shots should look like. Unfortunately, most of the film shots on Flickr have bad color balance and just plain look ugly IMO. Especially the negative film images. Many young hipsters apparently think that color casted, grainy images look cool. Not me, I remember what film shots should look like.

 

[pukalo]

As for Ektar, I too went thru the same reaction when my first roll came back. And admittedly, I do think Kodak dropped the ball on this one, and introduced a film with serious flaws, particulary the blue/cyan cast issue. The new film should have ben designed to give fantastic colors straight out typical consumer grade scanners, such as Nikon Coolscans, Minolta Dimages, Pacific Image Prime Films, etc. That is the primary tool available to and being used by most film users nowadays. Most film shooters are NOT pros who use film for a living and send their film to a Pro lab to be scanned on a $45,000 Kodak Professional scanner.
Yes, the typical reply to this is that color can be adjusted in post. But really, so can almost anything - colors, contrast, color balance, shaprness, etc. With this mentality, why not just design a cheap film with high profit margin that has bad colors, that isnt very sharp,etc., with the premise that everything can be fixed by the user in post...no thanks, Id rather shoot slides or good negative film like UC400.

 

[pukalo]

However, I have come to see that when the conditions are rtight, Ektar can be stunning, as good as slide film.
For flowers:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/6415453819/
Or especially, sunsets. Ektar is the only negative that can match slides for sunsets - the full red spectrum is captured, giving vibrant, specatcular results:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/4508848695/in/set-72157623550553701/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/3963287654/in/photostream

 

[Les Sarile]

Yes, the typical reply to this is that color can be adjusted in post. But really, so can almost anything - colors, contrast, color balance, shaprness, etc. With this mentality, why not just design a cheap film with high profit margin that has bad colors, that isnt very sharp,etc., with the premise that everything can be fixed by the user in post...no thanks, Id rather shoot slides or good negative film like UC400.

Also from previous posts, the typical reply is to know the characteristic response of the film your are shooting and how to develop and print it after to achieve what you were trying to attain. If this is not what you are achieving shooting Ektar, then it has also been highly suggested that you find one - or more, that is most suitable for you such as one that works automatically or one that requires thought and/or work.

To your point, because there are no standards in scanning - which is the workflow that a great majority of people judge their results even by experts Kodak’s Ektar 100: 35mm Roll Film; A New Color Negative Film From Kodak, you will have to test and judge it's suitability to your taste. I for one disagree with most of the results reported by this Shutterbug article - as well as the OP, and I have only shot a few dozen 60 rolls to date of various scenes under various lighting conditions.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's not that "color can be adjusted in post," but that with any color negative film, it has always been the case that color must be adjusted at the printing stage. There is no other way to do it, unless your workflow is so standardized and and every batch of film tested at the printing stage (which is to say, you're probably a catalogue photographer who feels a peculiar compulsion to shoot color neg) that you can measure the light at the shooting stage with a color meter and filter up front. Often, when dealing with available light, a combination of filtration up front to match the light to the film and fine tuning when printing gives the best result. Adjusting color in post is just inherent is a color negative/positive system.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I can report though that Ektar has very saturated colours with accurate hues; it looks a lot like a chrome when printed. For example (all are RZ67, Ektar and Nikon 8000): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...

Those are without doubt technically the most beautiful images I've seen from color negative film in almost 50 years of looking. You definitely have the process under control. "Looks a lot like a chrome" is an extremely accurate characterization and, in my opinion, a very good thing. Approaching the appearance of a back lighted transparency is quite an accomplishment!

Congratulations and thanks for sharing.

 

[Leighgion]

It's not for every day and every subject, but I like my Ektar.

The blue/cyan tint is something that's only slugged me in certain kinds of light (which are also on Flickr and no doubt causing negative reactions in some) but I haven't shot enough of the film to really work with controlling that. My scanning workflow is pretty basic with an Epson 4870, but I've still extracted some lovely Ektar shots from it. As pukalo says, it can be chrome-like.

Olympus XA

Bar de Molen by Leighgion, on Flickr

Mamiya 645 Super + 120mm f4 Macro

Red Afternoon by Leighgion, on Flickr


Yellow Pause by Leighgion, on Flickr


A Yellow Sign by Leighgion, on Flickr

 

[Alan Klein]

polyglot and pukalo: Both of you presented some very nice shots. Would you care to share you scanning techniques and PP?

 

[Steve Smith]

Despite this:

APUG is not for discussing scanning.

I would like to see this:

I have built my own scanner from scratch and written the software for it, and it was one of the easiest tasks in my electronics/programming field of hobby ever.)

Steve.

 

[polyglot]

Thanks Sal, Alan and everyone else. I suspect I'm going to have to add a "howto" to my FAQ. Believe me, I spent many many hours fighting with inverting C41 and have a lot of sub-par results (just browse the rest of my photostream!) to show for it.

Short version though is: use a good scanner and VueScan, get the film base density/colour correct (i.e. black point, and this is harder with Ektar), don't try to keep all the dynamic range because the film has way more than can be displayed and turn the "brightness" slider down if the film was even slightly overexposed. The VueScan Brightness thing will give a boost to saturation and highlight-contrast, it's what allows you to get the right gamma and make the pastelness go away without blocking up highlights and/or shadows unnecessarily.

 

[polyglot]

I have built my own scanner from scratch and written the software for it, and it was one of the easiest tasks in my electronics/programming field of hobby ever.

If you can beat (or merely equal) the resolution, Dmax & flare-resistance of a V700, there are some people on LFPF who would dearly like to hear from you.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As the conversation moves to scanning equipment and technique, it should move to our sister site, DPUG.org. If someone wants to create a thread on DPUG about scanning Ektar 100 it may be linked here in this thread.

 

[nworth]

I have shot some Ektar, but not much. It is a very fussy film, rather like Velvia in ways. Although I didn't have any of the problems the original poster noted, I did have problems with its extreme contrast and saturation. It is not very tolerant to underexposure, and it has rather limited latitude for a color negative film. As shown in some of the examples above, it does have its uses, though. When properly exposed, it scans quite well. (I've only tried it using Epson Scan, but that worked out quite well.)