Tips and insights shooting with Kodak Ektar 100

Uncle Bill · Jul 13, 2009

I am really happy with the results from Ektar 100 with shots taken on overcast days. However in direct sun, I find the sky has pronounced cyan cast to it. Now I have shot the film both at ISO 64 and at box speed with largely the same results. Is there a trick to get decent blue skies with this film aside from being anal with metering?

Here is a sample image:

Anon Ymous · Jul 13, 2009

Bill, could you please tell us if you're using a minilab to get prints? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if you get more or less the same image at 2/3rds of a stop lower EI. And if you do have minilab prints of the same scene at different EIs, could you tell us what's printed at the back of them?

Uncle Bill · Jul 14, 2009

The above image was shot with an Olympus OM2n, shot tons of Fuji slide and c-41 with that camera with no issues, I usually overexpose by a stop with Fuji C-41 and shoot box speed with E-6.

The above scan this was my first landscape shot with blue sky in the backgound. Now looking outside my window at about 8:30 a.m. the skies in my part of the world (Central Canada) is a pale blue.

Other shots taken with Ektar 100 that don't involve blue sky look mind blowing great even at box speed. I am going to follow your advice, play with the EI and run it through another camera (a Nikon F3HP). I am using Shoppers Drug Mart C-41 mini lab and I think they are using a Noritsu (sp?).system.

The only other time I shot with Ektar 100 was with my Leica M3 exposed at ISO 64 and all shots were incident metered with a Gossen Profisix but did not shoot any landscapes with big blue sky in it.

Jim Edmond · Jul 14, 2009

Haven't used this film myself, but just read a post on another forum which stated that overexposure can cause weird color with Ektar 100. Perhaps try bracketing in the other direction. I would suspect the mini lab, though.

keithwms · Jul 14, 2009

So far I have only seen cyan skies with it. Not my cup of tea. Perhaps it is indeed an issue of processing. I'd be curious if anyone has gotten realistic skies with it... without any scan/software adjustments....

Photo Engineer · Jul 14, 2009

You may need a UV filter over the lens.

PE

nocrop · Jul 14, 2009

I look forward to using this film in 120 size. I develop C41 at home, so there should be no excuses for processing shortcomings!

Uncle Bill · Jul 14, 2009

I have UV lenses on all my lenses with all my camera systems. I think I am going to eat the cost and get the next roll done through a pro lab and eliminating the lab issue. I think also bracketing is also in my future in my continued testing with this film.

MikeSeb · Jul 14, 2009

I shoot this film in 120 only--not that it probably makes a difference. I've seen knowledgable opinions that it should be shot at 64, but my own experience is that it looks fine at box speed. This film produces saturated reds and greens, and I've found certain skies to look more purplish than they do cyan to me.

A very good film that I could see becoming my low-speed mainstay once I've fully learned its quirks.

WolfTales · Jul 14, 2009

I didn't like it so much.

The histograms on Ektar are pretty alien to me regarding digital scanning.

Tried about 5 rolls in 120 and 2 in 35mm but decided it wasn't worth the time to re-interpret where my colors should/can be at.

Currently using Portra 160NC mostly for color

brianmichel · Jul 14, 2009

I love Ektar 100 for 120, nice saturation, really runs the borders of cartoony imho, but I've metered at box and at 64, I prefer the 64 I think it provides a better coloring that pleases me.

Chazzy · Jul 14, 2009

The reds and blues struck me as garish, and blue skies looked as if I had used a polarizing filter. If I wanted that effect, I would rather use a real polarizing filter than have a "filter" built into the film which I can't remove. It might be useful for pictures of flowers, when a saturated look is wanted, but otherwise I can't think of when I would want to use it. Certainly not as a general-purpose film.

Uncle Bill · Jul 14, 2009

I'm not giving up on this film. Outside of landscape shots with big open skies where there is an learning curve, I have got great results at box speed and and EI 64.

I'm trying my Nikon F3HP instead of the OM2n and see what my results will be.

Sirius Glass · Jul 14, 2009

I understand that with rangefinder cameras, the quality of the Ektar 100 photograph is greatly improved it the lens cap is removed before firing the shutter.

Steve

Chazzy · Jul 14, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I understand that with rangefinder cameras, the quality of the Ektar 100 photograph is greatly improved it the lens cap is removed before firing the shutter.

Steve

I've been there and done that.

Uncle Bill · Jul 14, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I understand that with rangefinder cameras, the quality of the Ektar 100 photograph is greatly improved it the lens cap is removed before firing the shutter.

Steve

Very true

TheOtherEast · Jul 14, 2009

I like my Ektar results
http://www.aristocratphotography.com/displayimage.php?pid=398&fullsize=1

Uncle Bill · Jul 15, 2009

Now that's the kind of sky I am shooting for.

TheOtherEast · Jul 15, 2009

Uncle Bill said:
Now that's the kind of sky I am shooting for.

I didn't do any post processing, that's a negative scan from Walgreens. So your problem might be in your scanning.

Uncle Bill · Jul 15, 2009

I think you are right. I got the below results from my Epson V500 and they look great compared to the first post. Looks like I am scanning Ektar myself.

Mark Antony · Jul 15, 2009

Bill your shot looks cyan and light even in the foreground so I guess its the printing/scan that's mainly at fault.

the above is just minus cyan plus yellow with a tweek in curves.
that said:
Ektars colours are slightly on the vivid side, cyan, blue and red are stronger than with Portra NC although I quite like this for most colour work if you want accurate colours then Portra (or even Fuji) will be more your bag.
This is the saturated look I get from the film:

that was a just slap it on the scanner attempt, but just as I visualised it during capture...

skyrick · Jul 15, 2009

Colors can be super-saturated with Ektar. Here's a couple of mine. The flower is 35mm Ektar f4 @1/100. The tandem is 120 sunny 16. The 35mm using metered settings does seem saturated, but the 120 @sunny 16 represents accurately the mid-summer grass and 100 degree/85% humidity look of the sky based on the atmospheric density in those conditions.

Rick

PS: for some reason the flower didn't upload.

RN

c6h6o3 · Jul 16, 2009

skyrick said:
but the 120 @sunny 16 represents accurately the mid-summer grass and 100 degree/85% humidity look of the sky based on the atmospheric density in those conditions.

what's with the flare on the right?

I'm looking forward to shoot the pro pack of this stuff I just received when I take the kids to the Outer Banks in a few weeks. I plan to have it processed at a pro lab. If it's anything like the Ektar 25 of about 15 years ago, I know I'll love it. That stuff was the next best thing to Kodachrome 25.

Lee L · Jul 16, 2009

c6h6o3 said:
what's with the flare on the right?

Not flare, overlapped exposures.

Lee

Sirius Glass · Jul 16, 2009

Lee L said:
Not flare, overlapped exposures.

Lee

If you really want to have some fun, try explaining double exposures to a clueless digisnapper!

Steve

Tips and insights shooting with Kodak Ektar 100

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency