Ektar 100 Photographs - Post Links Here

Thanks Les. Once again your efforts are appreciated. I’ve been working on an Ektar image scanned by Don Hutton that he posted on the Rangefinder Forum. He scanned the Leica capture with a Howtek 4500. Nice tight, sharp grain. It also maintains detail VERY well. Leaves a DSLR like the 40D looking like mush in a big print.

 

Man I’m loving this film…..and hating my DSLRs more and more all the time!

Craig Zander....

 

I see you were in Oceanside, CA (fire engine). Did you get your film at Calumet in Escondido or were you able to find it somewhere else? George's in North Park did not have theirs and Calumet was the only one I called that day who said it was in. However, UPS came with it while I was driving up to the Calumet store. I took 10 of the 20 rolls in the shipment. I wanted 20 rolls but did not want to buy the only 20 in San Diego whereby nobody else could use it.

 

Tom

Dave, why are you hating your digital equipment with increasing fervor?

Wow...it definitely seems to like blue! Dave, does the sky really have that deep blue in the actual pictures or did you do any kind of editing? Did you use any kind of filters? I love that! I've always wanted to get a nice dark blue sky like that in my pictures!

 

Okay, so it seems like pretty much everyone is saying that a little bit of overexposure is safer than underexposure with this film. So would "Sunny 16" probably underexpose it in most cases? If I wanted to keep the shutter speed at around 1/100 so I don't have to use a tripod, would it be better to open up the aperture to f/11 then?

 

Does anyone else have any tips? I ordered a few rolls of Ektar 100 and hopefully I'll get them soon. I can't wait to try it out and I want to really see what it can do.

oop...sorry, Craig. I meant YOUR pictures in the link. That's the second time I've done that. I really need to stop scrolling so fast.

I shot some everyday items if you guys want to take a look. Colors are good. Grain is good. I like it. The prints look really

good. The shadows did go blue, easy to see in the prints. These were all shot in sunlight with a few shadows here and there

from clouds. No filter was used. The boring landscape stuff prints look fantastic compared to the reality of the day. The

water and sky really came alive in the prints.

 

http://web.mac.com/chrisomeara

 

I don't know what the etiquette is for posting a link to images that will not be there someday. I will promise to leave these up

until December 1, 2008.

Nice test shots so far - I'm debating trying some (having shot mostly all slide film for last 2 years).

Can we please see some portrait shots of some people? I'd like to see the skin tones...

Thanks,

Jed

Chris,

No.

I never do any post-processing. I wouldn't know how to be honest with you. I don't even own a copy of Photoshop.

 

The film does lean towards the blues, but the lens I was using on my second day of shooting was the EOS 28-105 f3.5. That lens is more also more contrasty than my FD f1.4.

 

I may go back to Walgreens and have them scan my first roll for me. I think the pictures would turn out much better on the computer.

 

Tom,

No, I went up to Samy's Camera in Santa Ana to get my Ektar.

The last time I went to Calumet, they had seriously reduced their Kodak film selection. I was really disappointed.

I normally go to Nelson in dowtown San Diego though when I'm in the area.

Chris Tobar.....

 

I had asked about the same question about how to rate this new film in earlier photonet.com Ektar threads and never

quite got an answer.

 

Both the web information on Kodak's site for Gold 100 and Kodak Tech Pub E-4046 for Ektar 100 says to meter it at

ISO 100 but then gives the non metered recommendation of Bright or Hazy Sun (Distinct Shadows) 1/125, f/11 which

corresponds more to ISO 50.

 

Both Fuji Reala and Kodak Tech Pub E-4024 for their E100 G says to meter at ISO 100 and then gives the non

metered recommendation of Bright or Hazy Sun (Distinct Shadows) 1/125, f/16 for E100 G and 1/250 at f/11 (same

as 1/125 f/16) which is consistent with their ISO 100 ratings.

 

Furthermore, several subsequent postings with actual photos on both photonet.com and Flicker show no signs of

underexposure at ISO 100. In fact some are quite bright and sparkle.

 

The next sunny day that NW Montana has I will break out my Minolta 9xi. When I last used it about 6-8 years ago,

it was the one of many "full auto" cameras that I had at that time. Most of them were name brands and upper level

models, but the 9xi gave the most consistently accurate exposure under the widest shooting parameters. I will run

one of my rolls of Ektar 100 through it. Since there is a lot of speculation of needing a lower rating I will set it up to

as ISO 80, do a three shots burst of the 80, then 1/3 over (100) and 1/3 under (64) of each subject. That will give me

the suggested ISO of 100, 1/3 over at 80 and 2/3 over at 64. I will also try a few shots manually done according to

my hand held meter that has proven reliable with most of my medium format cameras I now use. I'll see which one

both scans and prints best. I'll use Costco so that the printing is not hand corrected as it would be at my regular

photo processor. I have several film only scanners, Nikon 9000, Nikon IV ED, Minolta 5400 II and Canoscan

4000US.

 

After that, I should have a pretty good idea how this film behaves. Then watch Kodak "tweak" the film in its second

production run!

 

 

C O......

 

All of your shots look well exposed. The water does look pretty dark blue in # 73050025 but any more exposure and

your sky would look very pale. The colors in most of the posts look pretty much like the older Kodachrome in the

ASA 10 and ISO 25 days except for the water which looks like Korean war era Ektachrome (E-2?).

Craig Zander....

 

I have not lived in San Diego for over 20 years now and did not think to call Nelsons on India! Yes, I was surprised that Calumet had so little film this trip. I had last been there not too long after they bought the store location from an independent. They then had the largest film inventory I'd seen in San Diego in the 2000s. Alas, no more!

hey...can someone do me a really BIG favor. If anyone still has a roll of Ektar loaded in their camera and wouldn't mind wasting a couple of frames, can someone try doing a long exposure? On another topic I posted earlier, someone was saying that Ektar 100 can handle exposures of up to 1 second. I like doing long exposures sometimes, but it seems like that wouldn't work with Ektar. What would happen if I tried to do a long exposure with it anyway? (Like several seconds). Would it look grainy or would the colors get weird or something?

 

So as an experiment, can someone try doing a long exposure with the bulb setting and just see what happens? I ordered a few rolls of Ektar, but unfortunately, I have gotten them yet :(

"Arjun Mehra [Frequent poster] , Nov 03, 2008; 08:33 p.m.

 

Dave, why are you hating your digital equipment with increasing fervor?"

 

 

Not to get into a digital vs film thread.....but I feel that when looking at large prints from film vs

digital.....the film print always looks more natural, lifelike, almost 3 dimensional to the digital print. I

feel it's the gentle rolloff of highlights and resolution as opposed to digital handling of highlights (even

specular) and brick wall rolloff of detail.

 

Just my thoughts and feelings.

<i>That tending to blue tendency of E100G is one of the things I can't stand about that film - but it appears that this is what Kodak's new technology has (d)evolved to.</i>

<p>

Huh? The standard Ektachromes have always had this tendency. They have made warmed-up versions for outdoor use for many years.

<p>

If Kodak's intention is to replace Ektachrome with Ektar, then it's understandable that they're aiming for similar characteristics. In any case, it does seem to me, that profiling would solve this problem - shoot a color chart in the light you're going to use it, generate a profile and scan using that.

Chris, you can make long exposures with any film. Ektar 100 simply claims reciprocity faithfulness down to a one-second exposure (100UC promises it down to ten seconds). Beyond that, the "rules" for exposure no longer apply, and color casts begin showing up. Actually, depending on which color Ektar 100 turns, it might help fend off some of the inherent excessive blue everyone is saying it contains.

@Ilkka:

<p>

E100G goes bluish-green in shadows caused by <i>studio flash</i> - in other words, the color balance of the film

seems exposure dependent. If you underexpose by a stop, the balance changes - in constant color temperature

light. Nothing to do with blue skies here, and quite unlike any old Ektachrome.

<p>

My tests are based on visual perception of 8x10 inch EPP versus E100G (no E100GX in 8x10); pictures taken with

Profoto studio flash, viewed on a Just lightbox. I loaded several filmholders with EPP on one side and E100G on

another and had them processed in the same run by Calypso Imaging in Santa Cruz, CA; in other words, as tightly

controlled as I could make it.

ok, thanks Arjun. Yeah, I've noticed that most films tend to shift color a little bit with long exposures. But it seems like they shift to the warm side, which I like. Kodak Gold 200 kind of has a "greeting card" look to it with a long exposure under incandescent lighting. So we'll see. I'll try long exposures with Ektar anyway. If the color shift starts to get really weird and is too much, then maybe I'll have to use a filter or something.

 

I just got an email from Freestyle that my order was shipped...I checked the tracking number and the expected delivery is TODAY! heck YES! I'm so excited.

Chris,

Good luck with your shooting.

I would be interested to see what this film does with longer exposures, so post some as soon as you can.

Your film will be ariving just in time for some decent weather.

can the film be bumped up to 200 asa?

I like this film very much so far. The blues are gorgeous. The yellows and orange are great. Greens I'm not sure about yet.

The reds are the only let down so far. Next roll I test up I think will be all red things. The reds so far seem to be blocking a little

and are not accurate to the subject. If this holds true, than I can live with it. I'll just use a Fuji film if I know red is going to be a

prominent subject color.

<p>Here is my first test of EKTAR 100 in 120 format rated at 100 ISO (Boxspeed)</p><div></div>

<p><!--StartFragment -->Interesting. I would say it has a overall greenish blue cast to it. Could be the dominate blue sky and all the grass effecting skin tones? It looks like less of an exposer might help make it a little bit more saturated. Though I don't know what's causing the the blue cast.</p>

<p>I did a assignment for shooting a magazine cover. I intended to use Portra 160NC but in the hurry i grabbed wrong 120 containers and ended up with Ektar 100. But it turned out great also for indoor portraiture. Daylight coming from windows in picture left. Balanced with umbrella from picture right and beautydish in front. Standard C41 Development.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the whole 120 frame from the Hasselblad.</p><div></div>

<p>From Rob Skeoch's Big Camera Workshop (<a href="http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/default2.asp">http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/default2.asp</a>) </p>

<p>Here's a good example of what Ektar 100 can do when placed in front of great color: http://www.youtube.com/user/thepicturedesk#p/a/u/0/JTdQccBp5mg</p>

<p>I like it and use along with Fuji 400 Pro H as well as E100G. It's all good for me...</p>

<p> </p>