Kodak Ektar 125

[Les Sarile]

I just picked up a box of this in 35mm format and wonder if anyone knows where I can pick up a spec sheet? With all the info on the more recent Kodak Ektar 100, I am not coming up with anything on this older version. I see a lot of mention on the siblings - Ektar 25 and Ektar 1000, but not much on this.

As you can see, these expired back in 4/92 and I am wondering if this is a treasure chest or box of trash now?

 

[brianmquinn]

No matter what was has been said about Ektar 125 you will have to test your stock of old film yourself. There is not way to tell how it compares to when it was fresh by just looking at the box. It may be OK for your needs but there is no way it will be as good as fresh Ektar 100.

 

[dehk]

Can't help you there, but, you need to share your treasure!

 

[aussiecameras]

From memory even when fresh it looked underexposed when shot at 125 ISO. So when you test it try 80 ISO maybe.
I reckon it will be trash rather than treasure!

 

[hrst]

It has nothing to do with the current Ektar 100 but a name and a fact that it's a color negative film.

Overexpose expired film because of
a) speed loss of silver halide
b) increased fog level (you have to place your exposure on the top of the fog)

In addition, color neg films sustain overexposure quite well.

So, I would overexpose it as much as two stops. Test different exposures such as ISO 80, 50, 32. Process normally, but you can try also pull processing if the fog is problem.

 

[EdSawyer]

Nice score! Now if that was ektar 25... that might be even more interesting.

 

[Domin]

I reckon it will be trash rather than treasure!

Even if you'd consider it trash there are certainly people who would gladly buy it.

One man's trash is another treasure.

 

[Les Sarile]

hrst nailed it - 2 stops slower then original rated speed. After the first two test rolls - first shot at ISO125, and the second at 64 with + or - underexposure range, third times a charm at ISO32 . . . bingo!

It has excellent saturation/vibrance, great latitude, grain that rivals even today's fresh Kodak Ektar 100 with excellent sharpness . Yeah I would say it's treasure!

Link for full res 1Meg file - http://www.fototime.com/36997315C6B5E61/orig.jpg

Link for full res 500K file - http://www.fototime.com/AD5F7BE01FBFF9E/orig.jpg

 

[bblhed]

I loved that film back in the 80's, that is quite the score and I see that it looks every bit as good as I remember it looking, well, once you get the exposure right. So, will you be sharing, or using it all yourself?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Les, C41 film of this era probably needs a formalin based stabiliser. The switch to non formalin based "final rinse" was done in 2000. Your film expired in 1992. Long term stability of your negatives will be compromised. (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread has a formula that will work.

 

[Ihmemies]

Sweet.. how much is that? 200 rolls?

 

[Les Sarile]

Anon Ymous - Did Kodak publish anything acknowledging that? I still have not found a copy of the spec sheet although I am not sure if there would be anything mentioned regarding this.

bblhed - I have a couple more rolls to finish up at the newly determined ISO just to be sure the results are consistent. If they hold up I can't imagine parting with it!

Ihmemies - I haven't counted as I wasn't sure it was going to even be worthwhile. The kind gentleman who sold it said there were over 150 rolls in the box and he even wanted to count them out for me when I bought it but for the price I told him not to even bother!

 

[Anon Ymous]

Anon Ymous - Did Kodak publish anything acknowledging that? I still have not found a copy of the spec sheet although I am not sure if there would be anything mentioned regarding this...

None that I'm aware of, but I find it hard to believe that a film coated perhaps in 1989 wouldn't require a formaldehyde based stabiliser; it's about a decade before 2000. And even if you found a relevant data sheet, it wouldn't mention anything about which stabiliser to use. Modern stabilisers weren't available.

 

[2F/2F]

I am glad you have done a proper test to find out what to expect. There is an interesting difference between two stops over (f/4) and three stops over (f/2.8). It is a bit of a hassle that it has to be used at EI 32, but better than nothing!

Be aware that this film is old enough that it ought to be stabilized in the old Kodak Stabilizer, not Final Rinse, as is now used in the C-41 process. The recipe for making your own Stabilizer substitute using Photo Flo as a base is around A.P.U.G. If you are having your negs lab processed, it would be advisable to order the lab not to cut them, so you can more easily stabilize them at home.

 

[Les Sarile]

2F/2F - The ideal exposure is at f8 as I kept the camera setting at f8 @ 1/60 and varied the lights to under (f5.6, f4 and f2.8) and over (f11, f16, f22 and f32) expose.

I will look into stabilizing the none test rolls. Thanks very much for pointing this out.

 

[2F/2F]

2F/2F - The ideal exposure is at f8 as I kept the camera setting at f8 @ 1/60 and varied the lights to under (f5.6, f4 and f2.8) and over (f11, f16, f22 and f32) expose.

I will look into stabilizing the none test rolls. Thanks very much for pointing this out.

I misunderstood your test series to mean that the f stops listed were the f stops used, not flash meter readings. I thought that the one labeled f/8 was rated at EI 125, and the one shot at f/4 was rated at EI 32. The shot that you labeled f/4 is the best, IMO, or possibly the one labeled f/5.6. This is why I thought you had settled on using EI 32. Since this it the method you used, you should be fine at EI 125 or 64. The one labeled f/8 is overexposed to my eyes, and suffers in contrast because of it. However, our computer screens could be very different.