Ektar 100 Photographs - Post Links Here

<p>I've <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=873329">posted</a> in my photo.net folders a group of

photographs I shot with Ektar 100 this morning.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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".</p>

 

<p>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.)</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<i>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. </i><p>

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks for the examples John. It looks promising to me. I wonder if it stands any chance of coming out in 120 format?

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

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

"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?

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nicholas, do you shoot at f/1.4 often...?

Narrow latitude is no sweat. Didn't we learn proper exposure with the slide films?

"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.

<P>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.</P>

<P></P>

<P>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.</P>

<P></P>

<P>Kodak billed this as a replacement for E6. I don't see it replacing slide film, at least not based on these

examples.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>What is the proper exposure when the scene's brightness range exceeds that of your slide film?</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>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.</P>

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

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.

 

 

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.