I would like to hear some tips on shooting Ektar. I had a closer look at a few rolls I shot recently and I really like this film. I am getting better at achieving more consistent results but there is still room for improvement.
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Tips on shooting Ektar
-
A
- Thread starter Romanko
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Leica Summicron-M 50mm F/2.0 Black 11826 V5 (Boxed 2018) (6-Bit)
- Started by jshcrlsn
-
For Sale CAMERA KIT
- Started by jeffreyg
-
For Sale Mint Nikon Lenses
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale 3 Mint Nikon D2X Camera Bodies
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Minolta SR Extension Tube Set
- Started by Jon Shiu
Forum statistics
I have only shot this film in 35mm so far. When I come across a color dense scene that is sure to kick the saturation into overdrive, I shoot it @ 80iso to control it.
MattKing
Moderator
@George Mann
I moved your post from the Gold 200 thread to this Ektar thread.
I moved your post from the Gold 200 thread to this Ektar thread.
DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,060
- Format
- 8x10 Format
I shoot Ektar all the way from 35mm to 8x10 format, and darkroom print it. For the moment just let me highlight some basics :
1) It's higher contrast and more hue saturated than typical CN films. Expose it as carefully as a slide film and you'll be fine in that respect. But you get only about 1 stop more of quality latitude either side of what slide films get. Use actual rated box speed of 100 for best results.
2) It isn't artificially warmed like portrait films, but does have a more neutral gray balance than those, and a much cleaner hue palette if you understand how to control that (next).
3) It should be color temp balanced to the scene using appropriate filtration at the time of the shot. For example, this afternoon I was shooting some Fall foliage in the shade under a blue sky. Without filtration, the content in the shade would come out too blueish, so I added a slight warming KR 1.5 filter. Lacking that you risk crossover in the blue/cyan region ...
4) The Achilles heel of Ektar is its propensity to blue/cyan crossover. If anyone says they can easily post-correct it in PS, their head is full of cobwebs. Crossover issues get embedded - they can't just be rebalanced out. Let's just say it's a hundred times easier to spend 10 seconds screwing on an appropriate balancing filter in the first place than trying to futz around on a computer afterwards.
5) Just have on hand a light pinkish-salmon skylight filter for general use (a Hoya 1B is fine), plus something a little stronger like an 81A or KR1.5 for blueish overcast sky conditions and deep blue shade. That's a simplification; but it should handle 90% of conditions.
1) It's higher contrast and more hue saturated than typical CN films. Expose it as carefully as a slide film and you'll be fine in that respect. But you get only about 1 stop more of quality latitude either side of what slide films get. Use actual rated box speed of 100 for best results.
2) It isn't artificially warmed like portrait films, but does have a more neutral gray balance than those, and a much cleaner hue palette if you understand how to control that (next).
3) It should be color temp balanced to the scene using appropriate filtration at the time of the shot. For example, this afternoon I was shooting some Fall foliage in the shade under a blue sky. Without filtration, the content in the shade would come out too blueish, so I added a slight warming KR 1.5 filter. Lacking that you risk crossover in the blue/cyan region ...
4) The Achilles heel of Ektar is its propensity to blue/cyan crossover. If anyone says they can easily post-correct it in PS, their head is full of cobwebs. Crossover issues get embedded - they can't just be rebalanced out. Let's just say it's a hundred times easier to spend 10 seconds screwing on an appropriate balancing filter in the first place than trying to futz around on a computer afterwards.
5) Just have on hand a light pinkish-salmon skylight filter for general use (a Hoya 1B is fine), plus something a little stronger like an 81A or KR1.5 for blueish overcast sky conditions and deep blue shade. That's a simplification; but it should handle 90% of conditions.
Last edited:
Excellent! Thank you. I should start using filters with Ektar. How do you adjust exposure when using these filters?
I always like to have a look at the datasheet to try and understand what's going on with a film. I can look at negatives, scans and prints all day, and gladly do, but the datasheets often help me to make sense of what I'm seeing - or not seeing, as it sometimes happens.
Since I'm familiar with Portra 400 and Ektar, it makes sense for me to compare the two. It also helps that Kodak publishes really nice and complete (and comparable!) data on their films.
Spectral sensitivity H/D curves; Portra in magenta, Ektar in brown:
This is the absolute comparison which mostly shows that Ektar is slower. Well, duh.
But how do those curves overlap? This will tell us something about contrast and crossover differences between these films. Let's shift the Ektar curve left (and create a virtual "Ektar 400"...!):
The curves are remarkably similar at the toe, and overall gamma/contrast tracks fairly closely on average. However, Ektar shows a steeper blue curve (it crosses to yellow highlights in the positive), while green and especially red shoulder off distinctly (creating green and red = brown highlights). When shooting bright blue skies, I can see how this can be mistaken for a cyan crossover, since the yellow + brown combined with the blue sky will shift it to a cyan color (that's not particularly attractive). Note that earlier on, with a little less overexposure, there is really a cyan crossover due to the bump in the red channel. But it's accompanied with a yellow crossover as the blue channel is quite steep at that point, too, so it's more of a green than a cyan crossover.
From this, I would surmise that Ektar is a film with a certain character or zest to it, if you will, while Portra succeeds in just being very (remarkably) accurate and well-behaved.
Let's have a look at spectral sensitivity:
What's remarkable here is that we see the same bump of magenta contamination/crossover at blues that are close to UV (400-420nm). This is also present in Gold 200. In fact, the bump in yellow density (i.e. a 'blue boost') around 470nm that Gold shows is also present in Ektar. The other channels match Portra reasonably well, so Ektar really isn't a "modified Kodak Gold". This is also evidenced by the fact that the very distinct cyan/red contamination in the lower wavelengths that Gold exhibits is not present in Ektar (or Portra). For amusements' sake, here's Gold 200 (cyan) vs Ektar (brown):
Ektar will overall render brilliant and rich reds in comparison with Gold, and also rich blues. Sure enough, if I reflect on my hands-on experiences with Ektar, this really stands out at least for me: Ektar's blues and reds are really 'something else', and nothing seems to get close to them especially when printed on Kodak Endura.
For completeness' sake, here are the dye densities (not to be confused with spectral sensitivity!!!!) of Portra 400 (magenta) and Ektar (brown):
Note how Ektar will render a mid-grey subject with much higher blue density in the negative. I.e. if you were to scan or print correctly exposed and processed negatives of a grey subject on Portra 400 and Ektar side by side, the Ektar scan/print would look cooler/more blue (more blue density in the negative = less yellow dye formation in the paper). This will be more pronounced when using a narrow-band light source for printing or scanning with its blue centered around 450nm. With e.g. a Kodak Wratten #2 (centered around 430nm) filter in an additive setup, the difference will be less apparent. Of course, the difference can simply be filtered away in printing or digital post processing.
Note also that the orange mask of Portra 400 and Ektar will look nearly identical.
So, using this to attempt to formulate an answer to the question @Romanko asked, I would surmise:
* Shoot Ektar not for its real-world accuracy (although it's no slouch in this department). In a subtle way, it's a 'special effects' film that emphasizes certain things.
* One thing Ektar will certainly emphasize, is 'cool shadows'. Since the blue curve is steeper than the others, highlights have a tendency to go yellow (in the positive/print/scan), and if you balance this out, it'll create a blue cast in the shadows. I guess this isn't problematic since it matches our subjective experience quite well.
* Enjoy Ektar's blues and reds. They're particularly richly differentiated since the film manages to capture more nuances in those bands than 'consumer grade' films - although Portra 400 is really close in terms of reds.
* Overexposure of Ektar emphasizes its unique character as it'll push the image up on the curves into a region where they no longer track perfectly.
* Don't freak out if your Ektar prints or scans a little differently than Portra in terms of yellow/blue balance; it just does. But this is only an issue if you run an absolute comparison.
Since I'm familiar with Portra 400 and Ektar, it makes sense for me to compare the two. It also helps that Kodak publishes really nice and complete (and comparable!) data on their films.
This is the absolute comparison which mostly shows that Ektar is slower. Well, duh.
But how do those curves overlap? This will tell us something about contrast and crossover differences between these films. Let's shift the Ektar curve left (and create a virtual "Ektar 400"...!):
The curves are remarkably similar at the toe, and overall gamma/contrast tracks fairly closely on average. However, Ektar shows a steeper blue curve (it crosses to yellow highlights in the positive), while green and especially red shoulder off distinctly (creating green and red = brown highlights). When shooting bright blue skies, I can see how this can be mistaken for a cyan crossover, since the yellow + brown combined with the blue sky will shift it to a cyan color (that's not particularly attractive). Note that earlier on, with a little less overexposure, there is really a cyan crossover due to the bump in the red channel. But it's accompanied with a yellow crossover as the blue channel is quite steep at that point, too, so it's more of a green than a cyan crossover.
From this, I would surmise that Ektar is a film with a certain character or zest to it, if you will, while Portra succeeds in just being very (remarkably) accurate and well-behaved.
Let's have a look at spectral sensitivity:
What's remarkable here is that we see the same bump of magenta contamination/crossover at blues that are close to UV (400-420nm). This is also present in Gold 200. In fact, the bump in yellow density (i.e. a 'blue boost') around 470nm that Gold shows is also present in Ektar. The other channels match Portra reasonably well, so Ektar really isn't a "modified Kodak Gold". This is also evidenced by the fact that the very distinct cyan/red contamination in the lower wavelengths that Gold exhibits is not present in Ektar (or Portra). For amusements' sake, here's Gold 200 (cyan) vs Ektar (brown):
Ektar will overall render brilliant and rich reds in comparison with Gold, and also rich blues. Sure enough, if I reflect on my hands-on experiences with Ektar, this really stands out at least for me: Ektar's blues and reds are really 'something else', and nothing seems to get close to them especially when printed on Kodak Endura.
For completeness' sake, here are the dye densities (not to be confused with spectral sensitivity!!!!) of Portra 400 (magenta) and Ektar (brown):
Note how Ektar will render a mid-grey subject with much higher blue density in the negative. I.e. if you were to scan or print correctly exposed and processed negatives of a grey subject on Portra 400 and Ektar side by side, the Ektar scan/print would look cooler/more blue (more blue density in the negative = less yellow dye formation in the paper). This will be more pronounced when using a narrow-band light source for printing or scanning with its blue centered around 450nm. With e.g. a Kodak Wratten #2 (centered around 430nm) filter in an additive setup, the difference will be less apparent. Of course, the difference can simply be filtered away in printing or digital post processing.
Note also that the orange mask of Portra 400 and Ektar will look nearly identical.
So, using this to attempt to formulate an answer to the question @Romanko asked, I would surmise:
* Shoot Ektar not for its real-world accuracy (although it's no slouch in this department). In a subtle way, it's a 'special effects' film that emphasizes certain things.
* One thing Ektar will certainly emphasize, is 'cool shadows'. Since the blue curve is steeper than the others, highlights have a tendency to go yellow (in the positive/print/scan), and if you balance this out, it'll create a blue cast in the shadows. I guess this isn't problematic since it matches our subjective experience quite well.
* Enjoy Ektar's blues and reds. They're particularly richly differentiated since the film manages to capture more nuances in those bands than 'consumer grade' films - although Portra 400 is really close in terms of reds.
* Overexposure of Ektar emphasizes its unique character as it'll push the image up on the curves into a region where they no longer track perfectly.
* Don't freak out if your Ektar prints or scans a little differently than Portra in terms of yellow/blue balance; it just does. But this is only an issue if you run an absolute comparison.
Last edited:
The postman brought 6 rolls of Ektar as I was reading @koraks' post.
The difference in the characteristic curves is very subtle but I see what you mean with different contrast of the three Ektar curves. It would be interesting to experiment with exposures on a low contrast scene to see the effect on color rendering.
The difference in the characteristic curves is very subtle but I see what you mean with different contrast of the three Ektar curves. It would be interesting to experiment with exposures on a low contrast scene to see the effect on color rendering.
I believe these are characteristic curves.
'magenta' means green channel, right?
Interesting suggestion. Australia in the summer is mostly yellow-brown but we do have nice blue skies and some red soil.
Sorry, you're absolutely right. corrected!
Yes, indeed. I'll correct that, too. It's the same channel, but calling it 'green' is less confusing.
I imagine it would work wonders on iron-red/brown rock! We don't have any of that around here...
Fez, Morocco. February 2016. Scan of 35mm negative. I must have a print of this somewhere on Crystal Archive; it's a lot richer than the version above.
I like this Morocco image. Yes, this is the kind of color palette I was thinking about.
DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,060
- Format
- 8x10 Format
I've done oodles of actual testing. Portra and Ektar are quite different. IF it is color temp balanced, Ektar provides a more realistic hue palette than any other CN film. The exact nature of its crossover issue can certainly be prognosticated using the curves; but it's easier to describe visually. I do disagree with some of Korak's color prognostication based on just plain experience, and lots of it. Most people will find the excessive blue of shadows annoying because of its greenish tinge (visually cyanish). That can be corrected, but not necessarily post-corrected.
While earthtones with many CN films come out like undifferentiated warm mud - essential all like "skintones" - Ektar can be wonderfully differentiate them. While almost all CN film struggle discerning golds from yellows from oranges from warm skintones, Ektar does a far better job. But Ektar does have a bit of an issue cleanly separating different hues of blue or violet; in that category Portra 160VC did a better job. Greens are cleaner. Overall, a look more like chrome films than traditional color neg films.
The heritage of the present Ektar 100 goes clear back to Ektar 25, with major improvements. It has no relation to the Kodacolor Gold series. When PE was still alive he discussed this. His habit was simply to leave a skylight filter on the lens the whole time. If someone chooses to do that, the very best candidate in relation to Ektar is a pricey Sinh-Ray version once labeled "KN" but now something else, perhaps "Hi-Lux Warming". It's right between a 1B pink skylight and 81A amber in characteristics.
The filter factors involved is whatever they're specified as. Usually only a third of a stop correction.
While earthtones with many CN films come out like undifferentiated warm mud - essential all like "skintones" - Ektar can be wonderfully differentiate them. While almost all CN film struggle discerning golds from yellows from oranges from warm skintones, Ektar does a far better job. But Ektar does have a bit of an issue cleanly separating different hues of blue or violet; in that category Portra 160VC did a better job. Greens are cleaner. Overall, a look more like chrome films than traditional color neg films.
The heritage of the present Ektar 100 goes clear back to Ektar 25, with major improvements. It has no relation to the Kodacolor Gold series. When PE was still alive he discussed this. His habit was simply to leave a skylight filter on the lens the whole time. If someone chooses to do that, the very best candidate in relation to Ektar is a pricey Sinh-Ray version once labeled "KN" but now something else, perhaps "Hi-Lux Warming". It's right between a 1B pink skylight and 81A amber in characteristics.
The filter factors involved is whatever they're specified as. Usually only a third of a stop correction.
DF
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 644
Please,
someone help me out here:
If I actually understood everything discussed thus far, these graphs with their "diffuse spectrul sensitivity" "log exposure" "hd curves" etc., would I be a better photographer?
I've tried to teach myself basic photographic densitometry (Kodak's guide) with little or no progress. I have this inner voice that says if I worry about the scientific side to my photogging, I'll loose my easthetic feel (love) for it.
I've shot ONLY film for over 30 years, both 'chromes and B&W darkroom work and have a HUGE volume/portfolio -
but no mind for how the processes explained technically, but want to.
Any such book "Photographic Densitometry For Dummies" ?
The Beatles didn't know sheet music....
someone help me out here:
If I actually understood everything discussed thus far, these graphs with their "diffuse spectrul sensitivity" "log exposure" "hd curves" etc., would I be a better photographer?
I've tried to teach myself basic photographic densitometry (Kodak's guide) with little or no progress. I have this inner voice that says if I worry about the scientific side to my photogging, I'll loose my easthetic feel (love) for it.
I've shot ONLY film for over 30 years, both 'chromes and B&W darkroom work and have a HUGE volume/portfolio -
but no mind for how the processes explained technically, but want to.
Any such book "Photographic Densitometry For Dummies" ?
The Beatles didn't know sheet music....
MattKing
Moderator
But they did have George Martin
All the sensitometry and related stuff is extremely useful if you are the sort that often asks about how or why something works.
Plus they have the added advantage that they permit meaningful communication of certain useful matters across far distances.
You will understand what I mean if you have ever had "how-to" discussions with people who are both talented artists and sloppy technicians.
DF
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 644
But they did have George Martin -
And How:
And How:
"For those wanting to “warm up” Ektachrome, an 81a or b, or light red colour compensating filter could be used."
from a brilliant review of Ektachrome by Mark Darragh.
Review of Kodak Ektachrome E100 4x5 sheet film by Mark Darragh - View Camera Australia
Ektachrome 100 4x5 review by Mark Darragh.
viewcameraaustralia.org
jmrochester
Allowing Ads
And this is related to Ektar how?"For those wanting to “warm up” Ektachrome, an 81a or b, or light red colour compensating filter could be used."
from a brilliant review of Ektachrome by Mark Darragh.
Review of Kodak Ektachrome E100 4x5 sheet film by Mark Darragh - View Camera Australia
Ektachrome 100 4x5 review by Mark Darragh.viewcameraaustralia.org
Tangentally. Many photographers find these film stocks somewhat similar in rendering colors. Both could benefit from using a warming filter. They both start with "Ekta".
DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,060
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Partially unrelated, partially related. An 81A will slightly warm E6 film too; but with Ektar it has a stronger corrective function in overcast light, since Ektar tends to exaggerate any cyan in the blue (therefore a KR1.5 filter works even better). Hollywood filmmakers would often use an 80A simply to change the mood of the scene to amber, like in "The Godfather".
I find uncorrected cold color temperature to be quite annoying with Ektar; and it's the main reason people fail to get good neutrality out of this film, while uncorrected chrome E6 films tend to come out lovely if uncorrected, even if a little off. Old Ektachrome 64 was prized by many landscape photographers for its excess blue; but that blue was clean and neutral. Yet the greens were contaminated with a bit of red, so never clean - no film is perfect. Clean greens arrived with Fujichrome 50D and later with Ektachrome 100S. The present E100 is one of the best balanced chrome films ever, but not quite as good in that respect as Fuji Astia was. Ektar is unquestionably the best balanced color neg film ever, PROVIDED one understands how to filter correct it if necessary.
I find uncorrected cold color temperature to be quite annoying with Ektar; and it's the main reason people fail to get good neutrality out of this film, while uncorrected chrome E6 films tend to come out lovely if uncorrected, even if a little off. Old Ektachrome 64 was prized by many landscape photographers for its excess blue; but that blue was clean and neutral. Yet the greens were contaminated with a bit of red, so never clean - no film is perfect. Clean greens arrived with Fujichrome 50D and later with Ektachrome 100S. The present E100 is one of the best balanced chrome films ever, but not quite as good in that respect as Fuji Astia was. Ektar is unquestionably the best balanced color neg film ever, PROVIDED one understands how to filter correct it if necessary.
Last edited:
jmrochester
Allowing Ads
As an historical anecdote the people who developed these two film types never spoke to one another. Any similarity between the two is largely coincidental.
DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,060
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Ektar's antecedent was Ektar 25 in the 90's. But the whole Ektachrome brand line of chrome films goes way further back, but not as far back as Kodachrome.
Alan Edward Klein
Allowing Ads
Ektar 25 in medium format was amazing for the amount of detail/resolution.
Flickr Search
www.flickr.com
DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,060
- Format
- 8x10 Format
The present Ektar 100 is way better hue balanced, equally fine grained, obviously a lot faster, and available in sheet film version too. Somewhere way back in this Forum, there was discussion of the details between me and the late Ron Mowrey (P.E.), who had inside knowledge of the issues with the first version. But there wouldn't be a present Ektar 100 without that previous 25 experiment.
MattKing
Moderator
I recall Ron Mowrey (Photo Engineer) posted that the original Ektar 25 had lousy keeping properties, which was a major reason for its short production life.
DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,060
- Format
- 8x10 Format
I only shot a little bit of 25 in relation to a temporary commercial ad display, so doubt I even kept the original negative. I have successfully reprinted old Vericolor sheet film negatives twenty years later with no evident fading or color shift. And that film also had a bad reputation for shifting. But I suspect a lot of that issue had to do with both the quality of processing and the long-term storage conditions. The Vericolor film itself certainly kept better than the Ektacolor prints of that era made from them. But chrome originals keep even better. And I'm fairly confident that current Portra and Ektar shots if properly stored will last long enough for any practical purpose I have in mind. Real progress has been made by Kodak on that front.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |