I'd like to ask about exactly what you're showing us. From what I can gather, the film was run at a 1 hour lab, which scanned the negatives and produced prints. Then you've scanned the prints and posted the results. Is that correct?
If so we're looking at something that's gone from analog film to digital scan to analog print to digital scan and then to an analog computer display. We also don't know how many bits were used at each analog to digital conversion, or what kind or amount of correction was applied automatically or manually at either of the two analog to digital conversions. We also don't know the characteristics of the paper used for the prints. Many 1 hour labs crank up sharpening and color saturation to produce 'exciting' photos, and that may fail miserably with a film like Ektar 100, which has more contrast than typical consumer color negative films. I'd suggest that something is lost and distorted in all this, and that we're seeing the results of a non-optimal process rather than the characteristics of the film itself.
I've scanned Ektar 100 negatives directly myself and had Ektar printed with a Fuji Frontier (which scans and prints) at a good lab, and not encountered the unnatural looking reds you're getting in the posted examples. At my end your posted Ektar images all have some degree of a magenta cast, from slight to fairly strong.
I just noticed that you also posted images with your local calibrated LCD screen color profile on a Mac embedded. That will most certainly distort across different screens, and web browsers can't handle your unknown local custom profile. Newer browsers will handle sRGB or other standard color profiles, and will show more accurately for people with a calibrated monitor, but no browser will show the images you posted with an embedded custom color profile properly except on your computer or one that's identical. Save to a standard color profile that browsers can handle and post those if you want people to see anything remotely accurate on another computer.
Lee
