new ektar 100 vs 160vc?

[Steve Smith]

Just to stray off-topic for a moment longer, Does Kodak's C41 black and white film have an orange base because it is optomised for printing on colour paper whereas Ilford's has a clear base for traditional monochrome printing?

Or is there more to it than that?


Steve.

 

[Bruce Watson]

It's nice spin. But spin it is IMHO.

Besides being an LF photographer who has shot many a box of 5x4 color negative and B&W film, I'm also a drum scanner operator. If you have the right equipment, software, and experience, drum scanning color negative is little different than scanning trannies. But the wrong equipment, software, and experience can make scanning negatives a serious PITA.

That, I think, is WCI's problem. They have a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner and its Linocolor/Newcolor software. I've never driven a Tango scanner, so I'm just repeating what I've read and heard over the years from other scanner operators, but what I've heard is that the Tango and it's software are highly optimized for scanning tranny films. It was marketed almost exclusively to pre-press houses for advertising and magazine work. And that market was exclusively tranny. The reason for that is art directors -- they demand WYSIWYG. Scanning negatives with a Tango is supposed to be, well, awful. I've never heard an Heidelberg operator say a good thing about negative film.

There were however scanners aimed at a more general market that have hardware and software that are considerably more negative friendly. The old Optronics ColorGetters I can personally attest to. All I shoot is negative film (color and B&W), and my ColorGetter 3Pro runs all of my film just beautifully. And the current Aztek scanners and DPL software also make color negative work easy from what I hear.

All I'm saying is that WCI is protecting their investment and trying to make things easier for WCI. Who can blame them for that? That WCI discourages their customers from using negative films because WCI can't scan them well or easily is only a reflection on WCI. In my experience it doesn't have anything to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the films themselves. And it shouldn't have any effect (although I'm sure it does) on photographers choosing the film that works best for what they are trying to achieve.

PE is right when he says that color negative material is superior to tranny material in a bunch of different ways. I've seen it over and over and over again.

 

[mbsmith]

In response to the original question, invest in a couple of rolls of film and you'll have your answer, but my impression is that Ektar 100 has better saturation and finer grain than 160VC. I think 160VC is too close in tonality to 160NC to be that interesting, while 160NC makes a great film for portraits or other situations where you might want a more neutral color palette.

I think David's spot on. Ektar 100 is a lovely film IMO (I've only used 120) at 2/3 the price of 160vc. Definitely try some.

 

[Chazzy]

I would hate to see Ektar 100 replace Portra 160 VC. The new Ektar film is just too saturated for my taste in most situations. I hope that Kodak can sell both films.

 

[Q.G.]

Ektar 100 is a lovely film IMO (I've only used 120) at 2/3 the price of 160vc.

I pay about 10% more for Ektar than i pay for Portra

 

[stradibarrius]

The thing I really like about Ektar100 is the range and contrast and of course the vibrant colors. It is easy to work with and even the quickie labs can process it.
When I shoot it in my little "studio" I need a filter of some sort to correct the "white balance" so to speak. I set my digital to 3000 deg. and it works perfect. what suggestion could someone make for a color filter to use with Ektar100?
Shooting Ektar outside is a piece of cake.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Again, back to the original question, I've used both and so far the advantages I can discern are:

Grain
Ektar 100 (especially in 120) is perfectly grain free, whereas there is a touch of grain left with 160VC. AFAIK, Portra 160 films have not been optimized for scanning the way Portra 400 have been. In 120, I would skip Portra 160 altogether, and would go for either Ektar 100 for saturation or 400NC for portraits. Even in 35mm, I would stick to Portra 400NC for portraits.

PORTRA

EKTAR

Price
At least in Canada, Ektar 100 is nearly half the price of Portra films, and half the price of Ektachrome 100VS.

Colours
While E100VS is more fun to look at, it does not scan as nicely as Ektar. Between Portra 160VC and E100VS, the latter is a bit warmer, so it has some impact on the blues. Concerning Ektar 100: well, I don't have a shot taken in the same setting at the other two, but at any rate it seems rather neutral.

PORTRA

E100VS

Overall, for scan or print, for now I would go with Ektar 100. I do like the look of E100VS, and it's gorgeous to look at, but for now I can only dream of projecting it.

A note on the shots: the Portra 160 were taken around 5AM-6AM, so obviously the light was awesome, a touch golden, the setting gorgeous (Île d'Orléans, near Québec city) whereas the Ektar 100 shots were taken around noon in an alley in Montréal... Camera was a Mamiya C330, using either the 55mm, the 105mm DS, or the 180mm Super.

 

[Lee L]

The thing I really like about Ektar100 is the range and contrast and of course the vibrant colors. It is easy to work with and even the quickie labs can process it.
When I shoot it in my little "studio" I need a filter of some sort to correct the "white balance" so to speak. I set my digital to 3000 deg. and it works perfect. what suggestion could someone make for a color filter to use with Ektar100?
Shooting Ektar outside is a piece of cake.

Try an 80A or a KB20 filter. These are for shooting daylight film under lower wattage tungsten lamps. An 80B is a bit weaker, but might get you there as well.

Lee

 

[Eric Leppanen]

I have a couple questions for folks who have printed digitally with both Ektar and the Portra films:

1) According to Kodak, Ektar theoretically has less exposure latitude than the Portras (-1 to +2 stops, versus -2 to +3). How noticeable is this difference in real world situations when scanning?

2) I've always been told by digital labs (in the pre-Ektar era) that color saturation differences among color negative films make little difference when digitally printing, as the digital printmaker ultimately adjusts color to taste anyway, and any minor saturation differences between emulsions gets lost in the shuffle. Is this also true with Ektar, or does the additional saturation make a difference?

Thanks!

 

[mawz]

I have a couple questions for folks who have printed digitally with both Ektar and the Portra films:

1) According to Kodak, Ektar theoretically has less exposure latitude than the Portras (-1 to +2 stops, versus -2 to +3). How noticeable is this difference in real world situations when scanning?

It's a little noticable. Ektar is a bit higher contrast and it does show in a loss of shadow detail vs Portra.

2) I've always been told by digital labs (in the pre-Ektar era) that color saturation differences among color negative films make little difference when digitally printing, as the digital printmaker ultimately adjusts color to taste anyway, and any minor saturation differences between emulsions gets lost in the shuffle. Is this also true with Ektar, or does the additional saturation make a difference?

Thanks!

Colour saturation differences are quite noticeable with colour negative film. You can compensate somewhat via post processing, but the differences are still there. IMHO, Ektar ends up looking a lot like E100VS if you can keep the sky's exposure down, it will go Cyan if the sky gets enough exposure to get rather light, but not quite blown.