Under/over exposing Kodak Ektar

keenmaster486 · Feb 2, 2017

I have some Ektar medium format stuff I want to shoot.

But I'm wondering: what if I underexposed it by a half stop, or even a full stop? What would this do to the colors? I was able to find good examples of overexposure, and, though the latitude is tremendous on the over side, I don't like the way it looks. I thought I saw some examples of underexposure which had stronger blues and contrasty shadows, which I do like.

I'm aware that this is very hard to get right. I have a light meter; let's assume I know how to use it (not a perfect assumption but that's not the point of this thread).

Does anyone have experience with this?

zanxion72 · Feb 3, 2017

Some guy did the test with the expensive Ektar 100.
Look here.

MattKing · Feb 3, 2017

All those test sites are basically measuring how that scanner and that operator and that software are interacting with each other and the film.
Change any of the variables and you will see a change in the results and, for some reason, the change will be attributed to the film.

LAG · Feb 3, 2017

keenmaster486 said:
I'm wondering: what if I underexposed it by a half stop, or even a full stop? What would this do to the colors?

When you change down the light you change down the spectral radiance of colour proportions. When you underexpose you change down the density of the film.

keenmaster486 said:
I was able to find good examples of overexposure, and, though the latitude is tremendous on the over side, I don't like the way it looks. I thought I saw some examples of underexposure which had stronger blues and contrasty shadows, which I do like.

zanxion72 said:
Some guy did the test with the expensive Ektar 100.
Look here.

MattKing is right! If one wants to know what happens to a film, one should look for film examples, not prints nor positive/d-g-t-l photographs on the internet. However, If you want to analyze those link examples anyway (or any others) you must "invert" those images at least, and treat them as "negatives", and just in case those test were made seriously you might find that deviation, but taking into account that you would be analyzing a negative of a previously treated d-g-t-l positive, with all the factors involved in the way, that will lead you inevitably to "a hypothetical estimatation" and to a more than possible mistake.

Best

markbarendt · Feb 3, 2017

keenmaster486 said:
But I'm wondering: what if I underexposed it by a half stop, or even a full stop? What would this do to the colors?

It's not a direct to positive process, so it probably won't effect the look of the print noticeably because a one stop change is normally within the film's latitude and print exposure is adjusted separately.

Lachlan Young · Feb 3, 2017

keenmaster486 said:
I have some Ektar medium format stuff I want to shoot.

But I'm wondering: what if I underexposed it by a half stop, or even a full stop? What would this do to the colors? I was able to find good examples of overexposure, and, though the latitude is tremendous on the over side, I don't like the way it looks. I thought I saw some examples of underexposure which had stronger blues and contrasty shadows, which I do like.

I'm aware that this is very hard to get right. I have a light meter; let's assume I know how to use it (not a perfect assumption but that's not the point of this thread).

Does anyone have experience with this?

I've worked with this film quite a bit both for myself and others - mainly scanning on high end scanners (not epsons!) etc, so this may not entirely translate through to fully optical RA4, but hopefully it'll be of some help. My own experience is that a very large percentage of what you see online from Ektar has been incompetently scanned.

It's finer grained than Portra 160, but Portra 160 is somewhat better resolving. It has good latitude, but really wants an accurate exposure - more like transparency in that regard. It saturates quite strongly, but is pretty neutral colour-wise. Overexposure is a bad idea, can go purple in the shadows etc. Bracket a roll (1 on the exposure reading, 1 stop under, 1 stop over) and compare how they look - bear in mind that if you go the minilab route, all bets are off as to what it'll look like, though it might be OK.

peter k. · Feb 3, 2017

MattKing said:
All those test sites are basically measuring how that scanner and that operator and that software are interacting with each other and the film.
Change any of the variables and you will see a change in the results and, for some reason, the change will be attributed to the film.

++1

EdSawyer · Feb 3, 2017

I prefer over exposure of ektar to under, but 1 stop under will still work pretty well overall. If anything, the colors/contrast will be more muted, though often it takes more than one stop to get to that point (like 2-3 stops).

keenmaster486 · Feb 3, 2017

zanxion72 said:
Some guy did the test with the expensive Ektar 100.
Look here.

I have seen this before! I don't know why I didn't remember that. YES, about the -1 on that scale is what I'm looking for.

I can't look at negatives because what I care about is the end result look and feel of the color, which I can't discern from a negative.

Yes, of course the scanner makes a difference, but that's OK as I'm concerned with subtle color changes here. You couldn't take the "0" from those tests, decrease the brightness, and end up with the "-1".

I detect an overall blue hue there, especially in the -2 stops frame. I like that as long as it's not too pronounced.

MattKing · Feb 3, 2017

keenmaster486 said:
Yes, of course the scanner makes a difference

It doesn't make a difference.
In the examples posted, it and the software and the operator are the difference.
You really cannot tell anything about the film from that link. Nor can you tell anything from flickr albums, or just about any example posted on the internet.

trythis · Feb 3, 2017

I shot a roll of Ektar 100 at EI 400 accidentally and had it lab processed. I honestly wouldn't have known the difference.

LAG · Feb 4, 2017

keenmaster486 said:
I can't look at negatives because what I care about is the end result look and feel of the color, which I can't discern from a negative.

I thought you were interested in the film's response to those exposure changes, not on a screen. My mistake

keenmaster486 said:
Yes, of course the scanner makes a difference, but that's OK as I'm concerned with subtle color changes here.

Subtle colour changes ... but in what proportion? and in what direction? (from exposure to film, from film to file, from file to screen - and everything in the middle to all of them)

keenmaster486 said:
You couldn't take the "0" from those tests, decrease the brightness, and end up with the "-1".

Yes, you could. But you would end up with the same distrustful control & result

keenmaster486 said:
I detect an overall blue hue there, especially in the -2 stops frame. I like that as long as it's not too pronounced.

... but based on a colour correction (on every step from file to screen)

trythis said:
I shot a roll of Ektar 100 at EI 400 accidentally and had it lab processed. I honestly wouldn't have known the difference.

One roll (Lab) ... difference? with what?

zanxion72 · Feb 5, 2017

MattKing said:
It doesn't make a difference.
In the examples posted, it and the software and the operator are the difference.
You really cannot tell anything about the film from that link. Nor can you tell anything from flickr albums, or just about any example posted on the internet.

Sure, but it is an excellent example of what you can get from that film on your scanner and this is mostly what matters.

markbarendt · Feb 5, 2017

zanxion72 said:
Sure, but it is an excellent example of what you can get from that film on your scanner and this is mostly what matters.

One of the biggest problems people have in photography is improperly diagnosing various problems.

An example of that is the negative or negative development getting blamed for all kinds of exposure or printing problems. People, IMO, expect their camera work to produce perfect prints without any work later; that's far from the norm with negatives.

Wayne · Feb 5, 2017

markbarendt said:
One of the biggest problems people have in photography is improperly diagnosing various problems.

An example of that is the negative or negative development getting blamed for all kinds of exposure or printing problems. People, IMO, expect their camera work to produce perfect prints without any work later; that's far from the norm with negatives.

I abhor spending hours in darkroom manipulation; my goal is to train the person behind my camera to help my camera make near perfect negatives. The camera definitely can't do it without his help.

MattKing · Feb 5, 2017

zanxion72 said:
Sure, but it is an excellent example of what you can get from that film on your scanner and this is mostly what matters.

I don't know about that.
There are so many variables in the chain that one has no control over.
In the days before digital, I used to be able to expose film in controlled conditions, take it to my lab and get back developed negatives and prints which would faithfully record things like backgrounds the same way, even though two examples might be years apart.
And I used to be able to mix slides (Kodachrome or Ektachrome) from different years in the same slide show, and they would be consistent in colour and appearance throughout the show.
If I did that now, and handed the various negatives and slides to a bunch of different people with the request that they scan them and post the results to the web, I'm quite confident the results would be all over the place. So when I viewed the result of that experiment, which results would indicate "what I could get" from the film?

LAG · Feb 5, 2017

zanxion72 said:
Sure, but it is an excellent example of what you can get from that film on your scanner and this is mostly what matters.

That: and only that film
Your: and only that scanner

markbarendt said:
One of the biggest problems people have in photography is improperly diagnosing various problems.

Agreed

Wayne said:
I abhor spending hours in darkroom manipulation; my goal is to train the person behind my camera to help my camera make near perfect negatives. The camera definitely can't do it without his help.

There is an important stage in the middle (for the negative at least)

markbarendt · Feb 5, 2017

Wayne said:
I abhor spending hours in darkroom manipulation; my goal is to train the person behind my camera to help my camera make near perfect negatives. The camera definitely can't do it without his help.

That's a reasonable preference of process Wayne.

Darkroom manipulation is work that I do try to minimize. For example I like using a strobe to help control subject tone placement, minimizes burn and dodge. I don't though worry about getting overall exposure too close, there I just reset enlarger exposure.

trendland · Mar 25, 2017

it is always better to have a little overexposure especialy with Ektar100.

never try underexposure negative Films

with regards

Under/over exposing Kodak Ektar

keenmaster486

zanxion72

MattKing

Moderator

LAG

markbarendt

Lachlan Young

peter k.

EdSawyer

keenmaster486

MattKing

Moderator

trythis

LAG

zanxion72

markbarendt

Wayne

MattKing

Moderator

LAG

markbarendt

trendland

Under/over exposing Kodak Ektar

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency