Putting Ektar Through its Paces

<p>piggybacking from some previous topics that seems to have died, i wanted to post some of my recent ektar photos and am hoping some others will post theirs here as well.<br>

usually i stick to fuji for colour and kodak for b&w and after nearly a brick of ektar, i think i'm going to stay with fuji pro 160s or superia 100 as my low speed mainstay. i like ektar's smoothness of tone but i really don't think the grain is any finer than any other 100 speeds out there. saturation is good but not mouthwatering like agfa vista or even the fuji pro series. i do think that for portraits, ektar should be great because of its tonality and accurate colour reproduction.<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2526/3697603071_9fb7282a42_b.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="1024" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2430/3698812306_9db7bf4ea1_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="679" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3697521691_0d788aa3aa_b.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="1024" /></p>

<p><img src="http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs130.snc1/5580_98659823977_638133977_2097883_924751_n.jpg" alt="" width="604" height="400" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>btw, i bumped the levels a little on the shot of the violets to add contrast, everything else is more or less straight from the camera/processing/scanning...</p>

<p>thanks for the compliment less!</p>

<p>i haven't printed any ektar shots yet, only had the negatives scanned at development. i'm comparing work developed and scanned by the same lab with the same instructions. </p>

<p>i didn't mean to compare ektar to superia. just saying that i'm still going to reach for 160s or superia before ektar when i need a 100 speed print film. 160s because i find the grain to be at least as fine but more saturation and the look matches with the rest of the fuji pro line. superia because it's cheap and yields OK results. </p>

<p>what are your results? </p>

<p><img src="http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/spr04/jidong/1pk_100_Superia_Lt_l.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="486" /></p>

<p>this is fuji superia 100. they also make a reala 100 that i find too grainy for a 100 speed but is supposed to be nicer. </p>

<p>it's rumoured that the fuji pro series are the same emulsion as the superia series but with better quality control. i am not sure if i believe this but i have to say that fuji superia 400 is my 'regular' film and every once in a while, for unknown reasons it seems to perform like fuji pro. so this makes me wonder. i have never used press or natura but thought press was just the old name for npz which is now just the pro line. </p>

<p>for paid work or anything that's of particular import to me, i always shoot on the pro line. </p>

<p>scans were done on a noritsu machine. i am not aware of pro labs using fuji machines. </p>

<p>yeah, i don't see a way to post larger versions of these images and am reluctant to post crops...</p>

<p>oh no, i didn't see this topic:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00TnAO</p>

<p>sorry if i'm being redundant! </p>

<p>I don't think redundancy is much of a problem given the different takes on the film and its quality, especially since you very nicely give a link to the other thread.</p>

<p>I confess I only shoot film for the most part because there are no digital adapters for all my old and beloved film cameras. (If they still made Kodachrome 25, however, I'd be shooting <em>that</em> ). However, I have just resumed B&W processing for the first time in over 30 years, and I am shooting up some film just to see what it's like, ranging from some old film found after the recent power outages here buried deep in the freezer, to some exotics sent to me by a friend. Some color emulsions that I have are so old, I'll probably have to develop them as B&W, since no one uses the old processes any more except at something like $30-40 a roll....</p>

<p>Anyway, what I am seeing of Ektar, looks like it's worth a try. First, however, it's on to the Nova SilverPlus!</p>

<p>The Press series are the superia, but with better control. If you go to buy some Press 400 and it's not refrigerated, walk across the street to the CVS because it will have reverted to its primal nature.</p>

<p>I love the look of slide film and immediately fell for Ektar because, to me, it was the closest thing to slide film without the hassle of having slides turned into prints. My main observation was it is a print film and does best as a print as opposed to digitizing by scanning. I am newer to serious film photography than a lot of you, though. Maybe I have not given the lower-speed Fuji films a fair shake? I automatically reach for Fuji Pro films (color) for higher speeds.</p>

<p>As for color scans, my local target seems to do better scanning the modest Kodak Gold 200 over Ektar 100.</p>

<p>The following scan, however, is from Dwayne's (though shrunk substantially to post on Photo.Net) who do much better scans, period. Though with a much longer wait.</p>

<div></div>

<p>P.S. Shot taken with Ektar 100 film.</p>

<p>Morgan.....that shot is just screaming to be converted to B&W. Have you tried running it through Silver Efex?</p>

<p>Morgan, great shot, agree with Dave, it screems B&W<br>

I shot my first roll of Ektar 100 about a week ago, and got it developed at a local pro lab. Kodak states that it is a good film for scanning, and they are absolutely right. Using my Canoscan 8800F and Silverfast it was easy to get good scans.<br>

<a title="Building blocks by Necator, on Flickr" href=" title="Building blocks by Necator, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2547/3695509138_0c7bf15ca4.jpg" alt="Building blocks" width="500" height="330" /> </a><br>

Double exposure - Canon EOS 600, Ektar 100</p>

<p><a title="Wet plants by Necator, on Flickr" href=" title="Wet plants by Necator, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/3694705199_f28d2ac1e6.jpg" alt="Wet plants" width="500" height="330" /> </a><br>

Wet plants, after a good rain</p>

<p><a title="Beets by Necator, on Flickr" href=" title="Beets by Necator, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3695470956_3748c14a27.jpg" alt="Beets" width="500" height="333" /> </a><br>

Swiss Chard, I cannot count how many frames (film and digital) I have wasted, trying to get the red stems just right. They are as saturated as they look :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You all are inspiring me to continue learning how to scan Ektar. Do you expose at box speed?</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you for your nice comments on my picture.<br>

At your suggestions, I have tried every black and white effect in my software arsenal: These include Daguerreotype, Albumen, Platinum, and Infrared Film along with good old black and white using various color filters. My two favorites were Albumen and black and white film with a blue filter. I do not even own a blue filter but, after seeing this, I may get one and try it with black and white photography. It does look like it should be a black and white photograph but, after seeing it in b&w, I realize how busy a shot it is and it gets muddy with the similar tones. In the end, I could only get black and white to look "almost as good as the original." If anyone wants to show me how it looks good in black and white, have at it.<br>

Back on topic. Henrik, you really know how to compose a capture! Those are beautiful photographs which, perhaps more than mine, show Ektar to its best advantage. <br>

Benny, in my experience Ektar 100 is a 'light thirsty' film. Easy to under expose to muddy effect but difficult to over expose. You can not go wrong setting your light meter to 100 and shoot a roll or two. Then adjust for personal taste.</p>

<p>Thanks Morgan. I agree that it is hard to over expose Ektar. The shot below is a triple exposure, done in Av mode without any exposure compensation, and shot on a sunny day.</p>

<p><a title="If double is good, how about triple? by Necator, on Flickr" href=" title="If double is good, how about triple? by Necator, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2555/3695499140_9362758827_b.jpg" alt="If double is good, how about triple?" width="700" height="467" /> </a></p>

<p>i expose almost everything at box speed.</p>

<p>its interesting that two of you have double exposed. is ektar supposed to be better with that? they look fantastic!</p>

<p>Thanks Johnny. I didn't know up front that Ektar would be good for double exposures, I just tried it out. But id does make sense, if it is known to be hard to over-expose.</p>

<p>I nearly always use slide film (Velvia and Provia) for landscapes, but I really like using Ektar 100 for people pictures. This one was taken just before sunset, no flash. Amazing color quality; no color modification when scanned.</p>

<div></div>

<p>My opinion of Ektar 100 is that it's becoming my favorite color film. It has a completely different look, which I've never seen from any other film. The colors are absolutely beautiful...it's awesome how the colors really pop, especially red and blue. It does have a little bit of a "cold" tone. But the colors are so vivid. It's hard to describe...it's just <em>different.</em><br /><em></em><br />Here's a set I have on Flickr, all taken with Ektar 100:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverscape/sets/72157618143834229/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverscape/sets/72157618143834229/</a></p>

<p>The other thing is that you really need to get prints made. Seeing it displayed on a computer screen just is not the same as seeing the picture on a real print. I don't know exactly why, but the same picture looks totally different in a print than it does on a computer screen. The colors are more saturated, and it just looks so much better on the print. Even though I had the same photo lab develop the film and prints and scan it onto a CD.</p>

<p>The only little problem I have with Ektar is that it seems to be very unforgiving with exposure, or at least not as forgiving as other color negative films. Especially underexposure. If you underexpose it, the colors will get really weird and everything kind of has a bluish tint. So you pretty much <em>have</em> to use a light meter. But it's worth it. So far, it seems like a great color film for landscape and architectural photos.</p>

<p>I completely agree with Chris. You have not truly seen Ektar 100 until you have seen it as prints.</p>

<p>I'm with a few here, Fuji 160NPS or fuji Reala may be better or at least Ektar is close to these. These were shot with a Canon P with Canon 50F1.4, no hood or filter. These are scans from the CD from Walgreens. No post production other than resizing.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's another.</p><div></div>

<p>Excellent compositions there, Johnny and Morgan. I have nothing quite as good as yours yet, but I do have a few Ektar shots that I like:</p><div></div>

<p>Number Two:</p><div></div>

<p>and a third one:</p><div></div>

<p>I shot some of the new 120 Ektar 100 at a picnic I attended last Sunday in San Diego and was blown away by Kodak's latest product and how it performed with my venerable Minolta Autocord! Kodak claims Ektar is the finest-grained color negative film available. Couple that with color that is out of this world and you have a contender to be the equivalent of Velvia in print stock. But enough talk, let's look at what my antique camera and state of the art film can do!</p><div></div>