Ektar eye candy

<p>I've done a good bit of shooting with Ektar, and some film tests. Here are some posts from my blog:<br>

<a href="http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/02/second-roll-of-ektar.html">http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/02/second-roll-of-ektar.html</a> <a href="http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/04/ektar-100120-roll-2.html"><br /> </a><br>

<a href="http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/04/ektar-100120-roll-2.html">http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/04/ektar-100120-roll-2.html</a><br>

<a href="http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/04/ektar-100-roll-4-walk-to-store.html">http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/04/ektar-100-roll-4-walk-to-store.html</a><br>

<a href="http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/02/third-roll-of-ektar.html">http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/02/third-roll-of-ektar.html</a></p>

<p>Very nice indeed.</p><div></div>

<p>Louis-<br>

Nice tonality in the B&W shot of the poison ivy patch. I will try try some B&W conversions of my Ektar shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Larry D</strong><br /> <em>I am not wondering if it is not the lens on a 35mm camera that makes the difference over the 120 film. that and enlargement.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br /> Well yes I'm not 100% convinced they are different (hence the evaluation statement) The differences are slight, I've printed optically, scanned myself and had Frontier prints made of negatives exposed of the two under the same light.<br /> I've done the same with Portra and seen less difference between the formats, so equipment is not making the difference.<br /> What I'm seeing is the 120 still has the same vibrant reds, powdery blue cyan sky and warmish skin tones but somehow the luminance range seems longer slightly less blocked up in the shadows while still holding the highlights (less overall contrast).<br>

It could be that often toted 120 'tonality' but as I've stated I've tested other colour films in different formats and not found such a difference.<br /> I've only shot 8 rolls of 120 Ektar so far so it's early days.<br /> Mark</p>

<p>The posted examples are beautiful, but I don't see anything here that couldn't be achieved with Portra.</p>

<p>Tim <br>

Portra is very different, even the VC version. If you are printing optically try taking a picture of a red pepper on a Neutral B/G on both films and look at the results.<br>

Ektars strength IMHO is the ability to show deep saturated reds and blues and yet get quite neutral skin tones. I find the reds are larger than life, skies more cyan, although if you scan and manipulate individual colours all bets are off...<br>

Possibly the 120 has a little more of the Portra DNA I'll have to do more tests but so far we have a slightly more saturated film that gives good skin tones and very fine grain.<br>

Can only be good....</p>

<p>Tim,<br>

Portra is great, but Ektar is also not bad for portrature. <br>

This is my shot taken with Hexar AF. No post processing, only crop in PS:<br>

<a href="../photo/9776815">http://www.photo.net/photo/9776815</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is one more shot, Yashica GX, Ektar 100 overexposed 1 stop:<br>

<a href="../photo/9669853">http://www.photo.net/photo/9669853</a></p>

 

<p>Yeah, there's defiantly something unique about the film stock. It just has this almost eerie spirit at times. What I've scene too is that there seems to be a few different key looks to it from the photos come across. Almost as if it is adaptive to the contrast within the frame. You can defiantly tell when it's a bit under; has a ghostly look, but also very nice sometimes. It seems to hold the extreme highlights very well. And there seems to be an upper mid range boost in the tonality under a normal contrast range. Almost reminds me of how ilford hp plus 400 responds, only in color.</p>

<p>On a recent trip to Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia's far East I shot five 120 rolls of Ektar 100 (it was not my primary emulsion) and I agree that the film has a very unique look. The funny thing about it, though, is that the colours very often do seem somewhat odd, and (most of the time) it is not scanning or post-processing – when they look strange and you try to correct them in, say, Photoshop they only start looking even more wacky. The question, then, is weather one likes colour reproduction characteristic of this emulsion, which, naturally, is a matter of personal taste. At first I was very attracted to the film; now, however, I am not so certain that this immediate attraction (infatuation?) will grow into a long-term relationship. For one thing, I am not even sure that I will be taking Ektar 100 on my next photo expedition in early October. Below is yet another example photograph shot with the film.<br>

<img src="http://www.olegnovikov.com/gallery/kamchatka/kamchatka10.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></p>

<p>Mark - I need to to some optical prints then. I've been scanning Ektar mostly. Thanks for the heads up!</p>

<p>Slava - Beautiful shots! It appears Ektar handles overexposure very well. What about underexposure?</p>

<p>Looks like I need to get out and shoot more Ektar, in both 35 and 120.</p>

 

<p>It's interesting that folks have used it for people pics. Kodak warned us when the film was released that it is not suitable for portrait use, and the two rolls I shot when it came out confirmed this. You can of course scan it and tweak the flesh tones, but why? Wouldn't you be better off using a portrait-friendly film like Portra or even Reala?</p>

<p>When Ektar 100 first came out, I rushed to use it, and was caught up in the euphoria that surrounded it.<br>

However, I've shot several more rolls in both 135 and 120, and I realize that it is definately not my favorite emulsion.<br>

I love the grain free prints and scans. I just wish it had the look (colors and contrast) of Portra 160VC.</p>

<p>Craig, that's understandable. I love the look of Ektar, but it's not for everyone. It took me a little while to get used to it. The colors are really poppy, but it does have a little bit of a "cold" tone to it, and I didn't like that at first. It just looked so different from any other film I've used that I wasn't sure if I could use it. It's kind of an "acquired taste." The other thing is that it's so unforgiving with exposure. I tried the "Sunny 16 Rule" with my first roll and I was so disappointed with the results that I almost gave up on it. I had underexposed it, and my first pictures came out with really weird colors and a bluish tint to everything. But when I used a light meter and I was more careful about the exposure, I got much better results. Then I figured out which subjects worked best with it...and since then I've been hooked.</p>

<p>Ektar is temperamental. It's picky about exposure, and it has a totally unique look to it that might not be for everyone. And there are some subjects that I wouldn't shoot with Ektar. But for people who do like the "Ektar look", you end up loving it. </p>

<p>For those scanning Ektar: you MUST use a dedicated conversion tool. Without it you will never get the colors right. Your shadow regions will go red on you.</p>

<p>Last time I checked Silverfast did not yet support Ektar. That's when I switched to ColorNeg which handles it well. Hopefully Kodak will hurry up and have ICC targets soon.</p>

<p>Cris, While I have to admit your examples are eye stoppers and I know Ektar 100 is the latest craze among some of us, I can't help but feel EKTAR IS TO NEGATIVE FILM LIKE UPPER CASE IS TO TEXTING. Kind of like shouting! I prefer something more muted & natural looking but to each his own. I'll read the above comments when time permits but not tonight. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Edward, how does ColorNeg handle Ektar better? Is there a dedicated profile or similar for it?<br>

I'm using Silverfast Ai Studio 6.6.1r1 and have not experienced the red shadow issue you describe. I usually set my Negafix profile to Portra 160NC or 160VC, depending on the image, and tweak as needed.</p>

<p>Well....I've been doing alot of scanning these past couple of weeks. Using SilverFast, I find that the scans of Ektar are sometimes not so good. Interestingly, I've been scanning alot of Portra 400UC. Remember that film? In general, I'm getting much better scans from 400UC than from Ektar, and the colors really pop with 400UC, but still look natural. I think I'll just go back to 160NC!</p>

<p>I'm not finding it difficult to use and to me the skin tones are warm but nice (similar to Fuji RDP)<br>

Also I find it easy to print optically and scan, often guess my exposures like below which was taken on a 1930's Bessa (with leaky bellows)<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/115284872.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>

<p >For me, Ektar works perfect for nature/ landscape photography. Vibrant colors, sharpness, excellent blues and whites.</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9264774&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9264774&size=lg</a></p>

Will try it more next winter.</p>

<p>

 

<p>I've just returned from a holiday in Italy and tried a roll of Ektar in 135 and several more in 120.</p>

<p>Although I think Portra 400NC (3) will continue to be my main film of choice, the Ektar colours are dreamy and very classic Kodak-esque.</p>

<p>I'll post them slowly but steadily on Flickr if you fancy a peek:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nevermore/tags/ektar100/</p>

 

</p>

<p>Tim, maybe Silverfast has fixed the problem. Last time I talked to them they did not yet have the custom curves for Ektar. They said they were waiting on Kodak for a usable target. ColorNeg has full support for Ektar, which is why I use it. If Silverfast now supports it I may switch back, although I like being able to work in terms of CC points they way I used to in the darkroom, something I get from ColorNeg.</p>

<p>This weekend I shot my first roll of Ektar 100. I have to say I am impressed. Such a great look. I just was not disappointed at all. There were quite a number of high contrast early afternoon ocean/boat shots that the film handled beautifully, handling highlights well and still giving good sky color. But the shots on the roll that really impressed me were a few of a Fresnel Lens on display at Monterey CA. Ektar handled the low light situation impressively.</p><div></div>

<p>Sam that is beautiful that light house reflector looks like it belongs in outer space.</p>

<p>I may have joined this a bit late, but here are a few photos shot with Ektar 100 this last week. My wife and I went on a 5 day backpacking trip into the cascade mts of Washington State. I may have make a mistake in shooting it at ASA 80, thinking back to my days when I shot film everyday, I remember being told by a Kodak rep to shoot Portra 100 at 80. I think some of the photos came out a little overexposed, but they still look great. All taken with a Nikon FM2, 35-70 f/3.5 lens.<br /> Randy</p><div></div>