question on Ektar 100

[cb1]

I have not tried the Ektar yet so when shooting Ektar would it be advisable to use a Skylight 1B filter?

I have used both the Portra 100 and 400 flavors and found that the 1B filter warmed it up nicely, especially when shooting outside on a bright clear day.

since the Ektar is saturated color would the 1B warm it up too much?

Thanks! Chris

 

[Berri]

Ektar has a neutral rendition of colours when used in 5500K daylight, you could use a warming filter when the light is cooler (early morning, open shade) or in direct sunlight if you like a slight warmish tone to your photos.

 

[chassis]

I have used Ektar in 4x5 and 120 formats, in daylight and with strobe. Like any subject lit by daylight, there will be a lot of blue in the recorded image. A filter wouldn't hurt, depending on your desired aesthetic. If you are using a digital/hybrid process (e.g. scanning the film) you can adjust colors in postprocessing.

Since this your first go with the film, you can try frames with and without the filter to see which you like better. I do not use a daylight filter.

 

[Les Sarile]

If you are shooting light skinned portraits with a high noon sun I believe you will need a warming filter. In any other natural light - or very light skinned portraits. I don't believe you will need it.

Of course this may be moot if the method used to extract the image from the film is not good.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I use a UV filter for all color films.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use a UV filter for all color films.

PE

Me too. Also for black & white unless I am using contrast filters or a polarizer. Do not use two filters at once.

 

[mhanc]

timely thread here. i have shot ektar 100 in both 35mm and 120 -- getting images with varying amounts of what i see as a cool tint [magenta] has always been an issue. can't say that i have ever gotten images from this film that i would say are on the warm side. so, using a filter to warm things up is definitely a good idea. also, the suggestion to shoot frames with and without a filter is a good one to better understand this variable.

as for me, i will be breaking up with this film. after an 8 year, on-again-off-again relationship, i think i am going to have to be honest with ektar... "i have been seeing some else. her name is portra. so lovely and vibrant with a big warm heart. its getting serious... its not me, its you."

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer Portra to Ektar by far.

 

[cb1]

Thanks for the info guys! got a roll in the RB67 and the AE1P! w00t!

 

[btaylor]

I just discovered Ektar. I have always used and enjoyed the delicacy of Portra, but sometimes I miss the punch of something more vibrant (I used to use Kodachrome and Cibachrome for some subjects- kapow!). I wet print (on Fuji CA), and Ektar's a favorite of mine now for landscapes. I want to try Kodak paper soon and see what that yields.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I want color saturation I use my stash of Kodak Vivid Color and Kodak Ultra Color.

 

[chassis]

The Portras and Ektar are nice films. Different characters for different aesthetics. To be honest in PP the films can be made to look similar, grain notwithstanding. The challenge in a hybrid/digital workflow is to extract the uniqueness of the different films. The C-41 to RA-4 workflow is quite a different process.

 

[Les Sarile]

The Portras and Ektar are nice films. Different characters for different aesthetics. To be honest in PP the films can be made to look similar, grain notwithstanding.

Similar but nowhere near the same specially when considering lighting response, latitude and the multitude of variables introduced by the hardware and software used. IOW, you're really making very large assumptions.

Kodak did state there are no standards when it comes to scanner response.

 

[zanxion72]

A correctly exposed ektar is by far more saturated than the rest. It tends to give out reddish skin tones, so a warm up filter is not recommended. By no means it gives neutral tones! It is very picky with exposure too. Underexpose by a bit it and you will get a slight bluish cast, overexpose it by a bit and you will get a warmer cast.
In contrast, Portra 160 has such a large latitude, that at one stop over/under-exposure you can hardly tell the difference with normal exposure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have a LOT of experience shooting Ektar in formats up to 8x10, as well as printing it in a true darkroom. It's different from Portra. I always carry a pinkish 2B sky filter for UV control or neutralizing mild blue casts, an 81A for overcast days, plus an 81C for deep blue morning shade at high altitude etc. I Rarely use the 81B. Mixed lighting is a more complicated subject. Shoot it at box speed (100), plus any minor filter factor. Meter carefully and you'll be fine, but don't rely on any "latitude" hearsay nonsense.

 

[DREW WILEY]

As per film choice per se, I would definitely go with Portra 160 for portraiture, but find Ektar distictly more hue-accurate for lanscape work IF you understand it. But I do used advanced masking tweaks in the darkroom in addition to proper color temp balancing with appropriate filters in the first place. Those who claim you can simply tweak everything after the fact in PS are basically selling you imitation ice milk; it works, but only sorta.

 

[cb1]

more info! thanks guys!

 

[btaylor]

proper color temp balancing with appropriate filters in the first place. Those who claim you can simply tweak everything after the fact in PS are basically selling you imitation ice milk; it works, but only sorta.

Yes. Get the color right in the camera. Mixed, unbalanced lighting especially can be a nightmare.