KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100

Steve Smith · Nov 6, 2008

Plenty of information directly from Kodak:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarIndex.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...bs/e4046/e4046.pdf?id=0.2.26.14.5.14.16&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof.../ektar/qAndA.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.5.14.14&lc=en

I just want to get some of it and try it for myself. After a few years of buying lots of cameras in different formats I have decided that I am going to use medium and large format for black and white which I will print myself and 35mm for colour which I will get printed somewhere else (I may try it myself one day but not yet). Ektar 100 sounds perfect for me.

Steve.

Cropline · Nov 6, 2008

View this post,Wolfeye: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

srs5694 · Nov 6, 2008

Wolfeye said:
PE has always known what he's talking about, and I personally, believe him, but he offered no more evidence to back up his assertion than the other guy. Both sound plausible to a non-flim expert, and that's how rumors live on, when neither the rumor monger nor its detractors can "prove" their claim to the masses.

I can offer no proof, but consider this: Consumer (and pro) color print still 35mm film is process C-41, whereas motion picture film is process ECN-2 (aka ECN-II). If the new Ektar 100 is marked "process C-41," then either it's a still film product or Kodak is deliberately mis-labeling it in a very important way. Although I'm very cynical about corporations, I don't think Kodak would do anything quite like that. Color balance and image stability would suffer, and the product would do poorly in the market as a result. Kodak might even get sued over it, and they can't afford that risk.

I suspect that the rumor began as distortion of real information -- namely, that the new film incorporates technologies (such as 2-electron sensitization) that were originally used in ECN-2 emulsions. I can see that information getting easily (and innocently) distorted into a claim that the film is a motion picture film.

Photo Engineer · Nov 6, 2008

Well, OK, here are some "proofs":

Cyan Dye CD3 lambda max 655 nm
Cyan Dye CD4 lambda max 674 nm

This is a 19 nm shift in hue making it necessary to change the coupler in two films intended for two developers. This is the only notation I could find in my personal log that would substantiate what I have said, but it is basically this. One film cannot perform properly using two color developing agents. The dye hues shift and the image stability changes (not always for the better). When you change the couplers that form these dyes, then the whole film changes in its response. Everything must be reoptimized.

As a second example, the MP film has an average gradient of 0.50 to allow for long latitude and making many intermediates for SFX. Consumer film is made to an average gradient of 0.60 - 0.65 to compensate for the greater flare of consumer cameras and/or to give higher color saturation. As a result of the redesign for this, the sharpness and grain have to be "fiddled" with to tweak things into compliance with the desired goal.

Having seen the formulas for both films years ago, I can say that they were never identical. There are similarities of course, but they are not the same films and to go from one to the other took over a year of development work. Introduction of 2 electron sensitization into any emulsion at all is a painstaking and lengthy process due to the changes needed for proper keeping and this requires years long experiments for the tests to be completed. I know that it took over 10 years before Kodak felt satisfied with this new chemistry.

My proof comes from experience. The other guy just stated a "myth" too many of which abound here.

Remember, there are similarities just as there are in B&W films but no one would say that Delta is equal to TriX, right?

PE

Shelley-Ann · Nov 7, 2008

I managed to score a free roll - I'm waiting for a sunny day to try it.
I spoke to a guy at Henry's Superstore in Toronto - it's on order.

Photo Engineer · Nov 7, 2008

You may be waiting for Ektar 100, but I'm waiting for an answer either from Wolfeye or GatewaycityCa to let me know if I have satisfied their doubts!

PE

Vonder · Nov 7, 2008

Never any doubts

Photo Engineer said:
You may be waiting for Ektar 100, but I'm waiting for an answer either from Wolfeye or GatewaycityCa to let me know if I have satisfied their doubts!

PE

I can believe in someone and what they say, w/o proof. I did believe you. I merely pointed out that you didn't offer proof, and in that light, someone wouldn't know who to believe. I've read enough of your posts (and have been grateful on many occasions!) to know you speak from experience.

But yes, your research is good stuff. I will point any naysayers I run across, to this thread, if you don't mind.

I have two rolls of Ektar upstairs right now. I'll be shooting them soon.

Matt5791 · Nov 10, 2008

Steve Smith said:
Has anyone seen any for sale in the UK yet?

Steve.

Photologic are the sole UK distributor for Kodak - thay will be able to let you know on this, and who knows, may be able to provide some samples - but I can't confirm this.

Dead Link Removed

Matt

braxus · Nov 10, 2008

I got my free rolls today!

So as soon as the weather clears up and is hopefully sunny- I'll get my Ektar 25 and Ektar 100 rolls out to do some comparison shots.

gatewaycityca · Nov 14, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
You may be waiting for Ektar 100, but I'm waiting for an answer either from Wolfeye or GatewaycityCa to let me know if I have satisfied their doubts!

PE

huh? wait...now I'm confused.

Satisfied my doubts about what? :confused:

I don't have any doubts about Ektar 100. I've been anxious to try it. I finally got my order and I just posted about it on another topic. The forum layout on this site is weird and kind of confusing. I'm losing track of topics now.

- Chris Tobar

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2008

Read the above posts by yourself and Wolfeye, Chris. Then read my post in answer.

PE

gatewaycityca · Nov 14, 2008

But PE, that's what I mean...I'm confused about what you said because I agreed with you. I think Wolfeye had posted a link to that topic on Photo.net where someone was trying to say that Ektar was a movie film. So I think maybe you just got our posts confused.

I don't have any doubts about Ektar 100. It's a C-41 film, not movie film. I was saying that post on Photo.net was a bogus rumor. Anyway, that was several days ago and I had forgotten about it. I'm just hoping the weather will be good and the wind will die down so that I can take some pictures this weekend.

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2008

I was not questioning you. I was asking if that answer was sufficient to show a reason why the films cannot be itentical. Sorry if I was unclear. Seems some people wanted some sort of proofs that they were not identical and I said that they were similar being both color neg, but the similarity ended there.

Did my proof satisfy you both?

PE

gatewaycityca · Nov 18, 2008

PE, yeah your explanation sounded fine to me.

But like I said, that was several days ago and actually I had forgotten all about it.

I just shot a roll of Ektar and dropped it off to get developed. I'm going to pick it up tomorrow morning.

My scanner sucks, but if I get any particularly interesting pictures, I'll scan and upload them and post them here. (or maybe in a new topic). I went up to the mountains and I took what I hope will be really nice photos. I was looking for scenes with a lot of color.

ssloansjca · Nov 18, 2008

Here is my first roll. Ektar 100 should be called Ektar 64 from my use experience. It does not tolerate under exposure.

I chose a contrasty subject to see how the film would respond. Ektar 100, IMHO, is wickedly contrasty and would be great is cloudy weather or diffused sun.

The results are here: http://is.gd/7Z9c

It is like #5 Neg film from my experience. If you like Velvia slide film, you will love Ektar100 neg film.

~Steve Sloan
San Jose, CA

chef_IBK · Nov 18, 2008

Steve nice pics luv them....

ssloansjca · Nov 18, 2008

Thanks, will post my second roll when I finish it.

~Steve

gatewaycityca · Nov 20, 2008

Great pictures, Steve!

I have to agree with you that Ektar 100 is extremely unforgiving about underexposure. My first roll did not come out well out all. There were a few nice pictures, but most of them didn't turn out the way I had hoped. It's super sharp and I liked the colors. It has a completely different look to it than any other color film I've tried. But if you underexpose it, the colors get really weird and the picture has kind of a blue tint.

I'm going to try rating it as 80 ISO and I'll use a "Sunny 11" rule and see what happens. I'm definitely not giving up. I guess I just had some bad luck this time.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Nov 21, 2008

Ektar 100 arrived in Montréal last week, here's my modest contribution:

It's a stupid Frontier scan, I haven't been in the color darkroom for a while now, but from what I know of other film scans, the color palette is very like that of Portra films, but with more saturation, and nonexistent grain. The "grain" you see on the 100% bit is something between scanner noise and jpeg noise.

I will have some scans made on a Coolscan to see how far this can be pushed, but so far it's looking very promising.

What's really interesting is how CHEAP this film is! Portra in 35mm costs about 9$ a piece, slide film is about 13$, and Ektar is 6$.

My guess is that it's meant to cater, among other things, to people who want eye-popping vacation snaps. At my photo store, I often saw people asking about how to achieve greater saturation. Those people would usually buy cheap drugstore film, which is about the worst thing you can do for colour, and wanted something more. The clerks occasionally tried to recommend them cross-processing, but only for the adventurous ones. Now there's something affordable Aunt Tillie could use for her next trip to Spain...

I'm really looking forward to make some RA4 enlargements from Ektar. I was alrady impressed by how grainless an 11x14 of Portra 400NC could be, I hope Ektar will deliver the goods.

ssloansjca · Nov 25, 2008

I have my second batch of photos taken with Kodak's new Ektar film here on Flickr:

http://is.gd/8ZxX

It does much better, in my experience with a touch of overexposure. These were taken at EI64. It is pretty sweet!

~Steve Sloan
San Jose, CA

Chazzy · Nov 25, 2008

It looks as if the color presentation is garish in scenes where there are large splotches of primary colors—especially yellow and red.

ssloansjca · Nov 27, 2008

I reminds me of Velvia, or the old K12 process Kodachrome II.

~Steve Sloan

Marco B · Nov 28, 2008

Hi all,

Some of you may already have read and noticed it, but I have done a comparative test including the new Ektar 100, Velvia 100, Tmax 100 and Portra 160VC (and even a Sony Alpha 900 thrown in). You can read more about it on my website:

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic.htm

Although I ran into a few issues, and intend to rescan some negatives when the Imacon Flextight 848 I initially intended to scan on becomes available again, I still think it holds value enough to be useful to you all.

Marco

ted_smith · Dec 1, 2008

Hi

I just read about this film in Practical Photography (nice to see a film advert in their primarily digital magazine!).

1) Where are people getting these 'free rolls' from?

2) To answer those asking about a UK retailer, I note that 7DayShop.com will be selling it (awaiting stock) and I have just spoken to SilverPrint.co.uk who say they will be getting it as soon as it's stocked in the UK.

Cheers

Ted

JanaM · Dec 1, 2008

Hello,

if you are interested you may have a look at this test of Ektars dynamic range:

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Rb8S

Regards, Jana

KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency