Ektar 100 Photographs - Post Links Here

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by john_shriver, Nov 1, 2008.

  1. I've posted in my photo.net folders a group of photographs I shot with Ektar 100 this morning.
    These are all scanned on Nikon Coolscan IV ED, with Nikon Scan 3.1. I work in sRGB color space, so there's some gamut clipping here.
    As for film grain, there pretty much isn't any! I can't resolve any grain in the sky with the Coolscan IV. 2900 dpi just isn't enough to catch the grain on this film. There's some noise in underexposed areas, but even it is quite muted, and very fine. Nothing that you could call "speckled".
    It doesn't like underexposure. It doesn't go grainy, it just goes dark, with a thump. I had more underexposed shadows than I would have liked, given the high vignetting of the CV 15/4.5 lens I used for many of the photos. (It may also have a T-stop versus f-stop issue, and the Canon 7s doesn't meter through-the-lens.)
    Like Ektachrome E100G, it will gleefully go cold blue when you take pictures lit only by sky. Also, shadows just tend to go a bit blue. This corresponds with the HD curves in the Kodak data sheet, the blue is a bit out of parallel in the shadows.
    As for the colors, they are perky, but I think it's in good taste. I think greens get the biggest jump, along with red and orange. Yellow just sits there, doesn't have as much fire as the other colors. I'd say it's more saturated than E100G and E100GX. I've never used E100VS, so I can't compare it to that. It's certainly not as warped as my stereotyped impression of Velvia 50, the saturation is pretty balanced all around.
     
  2. Like Ektachrome E100G, it will gleefully go cold blue when you take pictures lit only by sky. Also, shadows just tend to go a bit blue.
    Just what I was afraid of. 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.
     
  3. Nice to read some impressions of this film. I've learned (today) that my local store has finally gotten its shipment of Ektar 100. I hope to try some soon.
     
  4. I agree with John.
    On the test shots I did, undexposing the film by one, then two whole stops, the images came out with a heavy bluish caste in the shadows.
    I'm gonna scan some more images in the next day or so, and I may go out tomorrow and shoot the next roll.

    Again, I would have to say that this film seems to work best if "overexposed" by a half or full stop.
     
  5. Looks like narrow latitude, almost as bad as... dare I say, d-i-g-i-t-a-l?
     
  6. Well, remember that cold blue shadows are technically honest, that's what you should get out of a truly netural film. Blue sky sends out really cold blue light, like 9000K. It's just that our eyes/brain don't notice it. (Really automatic white balance!) That's why Kodak makes E100GX, it's warmed-up for just this reason. E100G is very neutral, it's really best for studio work with electronic flash.

    It's trivial enough to take some blues out of the shadow areas of Ektar 100 in a digital darkroom. Just play with the color curves.

    I suspect also that with more exposure, the shadows are a little warmer with Ektar 100.

    It might be rather tricky to have a non-neutral color balance with a high saturation film, colors might get slammed into the wall.

    Meanwhile, Ektar 100 has less grain than E100G or E100GX.

    I'm glad it's available, but it won't be my primary film. That's 400NC-3.
     
  7. Thanks for the examples John. It looks promising to me. I wonder if it stands any chance of coming out in 120 format?
     
  8. John Shriver....

    Hello...

    The Ektar 100 data sheet says to expose it at ISO 100 but the recommended exposures in sunlight, bright day, etc., look more like ISO 64 or 80. Your comment about it not liking underexposure may back that up. Have you tried to expose it at a lower ISO?

    Tom
     
  9. John Shriver....

    Hello again...

    Just looked at your shot done through the chain link fence. It does not look underexposed. Did the Coolscan IV adjust the scan to lighten or does the negative look that bright? The rail car looks like a correct exposure even though the shadows in the building's sidewalk look pretty dark. Does the negative look like the same light ratio as you remember it when you took the picture?

    Thanks, Tom
     
  10. "Looks like narrow latitude, almost as bad as... dare I say, d-i-g-i-t-a-l?"

    There's no way you can judge that without looking at the unprocessed scans. As Les indicated the highlight roll-off of any negative film is very different than digital's hard clipping- why would this film be different?
     
  11. Enough talk guys, where are all the links the OP asked for (and I'm waiting for?). <g>

    If I could get a hold of any in the podunk town I live in, I'd have shot some already, but I'm lucky to get Fuji or Koda color.
     
  12. "Like Ektachrome E100G, it will gleefully go cold blue when you take pictures lit only by sky."

    That's why we used to use skylight filters! Now you can just warm it up a bit in post processing.
     
  13. Thanks for the early reports, guys. While I know not to make too much of small sized examples from scans, I am curious about the sharpness of this film. My two standard ISO 100 color negative films these days are Reala and UC100, and I really appreciate the high acuity of both of these films. My impression from these first examples (and again, see my qualifier above) is that the sharpness is more on par with Portra 160. As this is a replacement for 100UC, I'm hoping that I'm simply reading too much into small examples.

    Any thoughts on this John or Craig?

    Scott
     
  14. Thanks again to Les Sarile for his Craola box. The colors look like the older versions of Kodachrome. To me, that is a good thing. May I ask what camera, lens and scanner you used?

    Tom
     
  15. Robert, in my experience, skylight filters do nothing but add an extra surface for light to bounce off. Even using fully analogue methods, isn't the typical way to control color simply adjusting printing filters? From the examples that have been posted thus far, it does look as though Ektar 100 has a tendency toward blue (of which I amn't fond); 100UC, on the other hand, has a gentle inclination for warmth.
     
  16. Wow, those red crayons are just nailed against the edge of the color gamut, aren't they? Like my shots, the yellow just isn't going anywhere very hot, blues have some perk. There's a lot of dark crayons in that box, too.

    I think it's more saturated than Kodachrome 25. But the red-happiness is familiar.
     
  17. the colors look like a pallette I can use -- to my eye nothing like Kodachrome, which is much more saturated, Ektar good color without going over the top. I bought 20 rolls to test out with my Leica ASPH glass. Thanks for posting.
     
  18. Given that this is a print film you can warm it up when enlarging (which is what I assume all of you will be doing with this). Looking at that grain structure I'm dying to get some after shooting a lot of 200 speed consumer print film.

    Kodachrome is not a saturated film. That's what people like about it. It represents an older more natural palette as opposed to the over saturated images of today. That's why it's good for portraits. If a film is bad for portraits that generally corresponds to the phrase "over-saturated." I'm not saying I don't love the look of a freshly processed velvia 50 120 slide, I'm merely reflecting other's oppinions.

    Wouldn't it be nice if kodak did this for kodachrome? I know there's no market at all but adding two stops to Kodachrome 25 could make a really cool slide film. Then maybe release it in 120.

    FYI kodak states that the "plans" are to release this in 35mm alone. To me that says "here is a film we made to replace the 100UC with an updated version to combat dwindling sales and people switching to Fujifilm but aren't confident enough will be good at capturing market share to invest in medium format slitting. Realizing that Ektar has become a buzz word, we used that name to attract new found interest to our new film"

    Also would it be possible to make finer grained films that had an ASA 25? Am I the only person who looks at the numbers and realizes ASA 10 kodachrome is fast enough to do everything I need to except action? At F1.4 the sunny 16 rule gives me a shutter speed of 1/1280th of a second.
     
  19. Les, I don't know if you are using the exact same box, but if you are, the thing I noticed between the Ektar scan and one of your 100UC scans in your album is that the subtlety of tone of the crayons (the ones pictured on the box, not the actual crayons) appears to spank the 100UC. The color palletes are definitely very different if these were scanned the same way. Can't wait to process my first Ektar roll to see what it really looks like.
     
  20. Nicholas, do you shoot at f/1.4 often...?
     
  21. Narrow latitude is no sweat. Didn't we learn proper exposure with the slide films?
     
  22. "Didn't we learn proper exposure with the slide films?"

    What is the proper exposure when the scene's brightness range exceeds that of your slide film?

    Let the shadows get blocked up?

    Wait for a cloudy day?

    I am interested in the experience other people are having with this film. I will get some with my next Freestyle order and will know what to look for in my tests.
     
  23. Looking over the crayon sample just reminds me of how spoiled we all are with digital. I think you would have to shoot ISO 800 on a 40D or 50D to match the noise, and that's a "fine grained" film. It's also very soft and lacks the "snap" I see in digital and some slide films.
    The film is too blue for my tastes, as confirmed by John's gallery. This is clearly a bright, sunny day film, and probably benefits from some overexposure.
    Kodak billed this as a replacement for E6. I don't see it replacing slide film, at least not based on these examples.
    What is the proper exposure when the scene's brightness range exceeds that of your slide film?
    What is the proper exposure when the scene's brightness range exceeds that of your print film? Same as it always was. Pick and choose what you want to keep, or slap on a GND filter. Or with digital, bracket and do a HDR merge.
     
  24. Les Sarile...

    Thanks. I have bookmarked your page. I had lost the bookmark when changing computers. I see there that you use a Coolscan 5000.

    You are a prime contributor to this group!

    Tom
     
  25. I shot my second roll of Ektar 100 yesterday and got them developed today.
    I also had them scan the roll to CD this time, and the results were MUCH better than my out dated HP Scanner.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/44301880@N00/sets/72157608620979052/

    The film is definately best shot at 80 or 50. The first roll I shot was with an older Canon F-1. This time, I used my Elan 7N, and the results were similar in terms of under and over exposure.

    The full size shots show just how fine the grain is, even with the resizing that Flickr does for their website.
     
  26. 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!
     
  27. 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
     
  28. Dave, why are you hating your digital equipment with increasing fervor?
     
  29. 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.
     
  30. 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.
     
  31. 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.
     
  32. 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
     
  33. 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.
     
  34. 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?).
     
  35. 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!
     
  36. 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 :(
     
  37. "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.
     
  38. 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.
    Huh? The standard Ektachromes have always had this tendency. They have made warmed-up versions for outdoor use for many years.
    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.
     
  39. 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.
     
  40. @Ilkka:
    E100G goes bluish-green in shadows caused by studio flash - 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.
    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.
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. 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.
     
  43. can the film be bumped up to 200 asa?
     
  44. 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.
     
  45. Here is my first test of EKTAR 100 in 120 format rated at 100 ISO (Boxspeed)
    00TpJh-150501684.jpg
     
  46. 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.
     
  47. 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.
    00VoO3-222051584.jpg
     
  48. Here is the whole 120 frame from the Hasselblad.
    00VoO5-222051684.jpg
     
  49. From Rob Skeoch's Big Camera Workshop (http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/default2.asp)
    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
    I like it and use along with Fuji 400 Pro H as well as E100G. It's all good for me...
     

Share This Page