Ektar 100 vs. Ektar 25 grain

I shot a comparison of Ektar 100 compared to a roll of Royal Gold 25 from my freezer collection. I've started

scanning some of the frames with my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite (2820 ppi). The first question I wanted to deal

with is grain. It was claimed that the grain of Ektar 100 matches the grain of Ektar 25 (later named Royal Gold

25). The attached image contains side by side 250x250 pixel crops of the gray patch on a color checker. Can you

tell which one is 100 speed?<div></div>

Ektar 100 is on the right is the first post.

 

Here is the full color checker for Ektar 25.<div></div>

Here is the Ektar 100.<div></div>

That's interesting, I actually would have picked that the 100 was on the left, doesn't seem as 'smooth' as the right half of the frame.

Ron,

 

Thanks for posting this. Ektar 100 looks very impressive.

I plan on doing this test fairly soon myself. I have a couple rolls of early 90s Ektar 25 waiting, and some Ektar 100 coming from Kodak fairly soon. I'll post my results when I get them.

 

But I'd like to point out old Ektar doesn't keep very well in the freezer in some cases (as per Ron Mowrey's comments). Apparently freezing makes the grain size increase (due to some reaction on the film), so what were are seeing above may be the result of this. To do a proper test between these two films is impossible, because the old stuff will have aged changing the properties compared to what it would have been like when new. But its still a valid test since some of us still have some of these old rolls, and its as close a test we'll ever get today. Stay tuned.

 

Ron any chances (in case my roll of Ektar 25 is bad) that you would have shot some identical outdoor shots between these two films and scan some up?

Thanks, Ron. Will Ektar bring you back from the dark side?

Here is a shot with some Ektar 25 that was fresh when it was shot and developed; it was scanned at 2720 dpi<BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdishBase640.jpg?t=1226037904"><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdish640.jpg?t=1226037761">

Film like beer ages. Trying to get a comparison to 1990's film to 2008's is like trying to compare a can of Billy Beer opened tonight versus a fresh brew.

True, but now we are looking at comparisons of currently available Ektar 25 to currently available Ektar 100. Those individuals who scour eBay for obscenely priced Ektar 25 may now choose to do some rethinking.

James; meybe I am missing something; Ektar 25 has not been made in a long time thus one has no reference accept older negatives from long ago. How can one get fresh Ektar 25, Billy Beer or Space Food Sticks except for time travel? Then one may ponder the if the grain is effected by time travel too.;)

I scanned more of the negs. I collected all of the normal exposures in this album:

http://homepage.mac.com/randrews4/PhotoAlbum27.html

 

The D200 digital comparison is far from perfect since I don't have a 35mm prime lens to match the 50mm prime lens

on my film camera.

 

Benny, I wont be leaving the dark side (digital) entirely, but this film is good enough to compete (and surpass?)

my 10 MP DSLR. I'm not sure my 2820 ppi scanner is good enough to completely exploit the quality of this film.

 

I also shot a K-64 comparison. I'll add it when the slides come back.

Kelly,

 

You can't get any fresh Ektar 25. The only Ektar 25 currently available is what has been kept in freeezers by people who bought it long ago. Many people who extol the virtues of Ektar 25 pay $20 or $30 or more for a roll. If Ektar 100 is as good if not better, then they won't have to pay that price for a film that delivers the same results as the Ektar 25 that they now get.

So Ektar 25 rendered blues as purplish,

it wasn't just Kelly Flanigan's scan?

And Ektar 100 does the same?

Here's how I'd expect the Macbeth chart to look.<div></div>

The lower right square on my color checker looks black rather than dark gray. After scanning, I set the lower right

square to black and the lower left square to white.

Ron....

 

at: http://homepage.mac.com/randrews4/PhotoAlbum27.html

 

The scan of the 25 looks to have more resolution and is "crisper" than the 100. Is that the scan, the focus or is 25 that much shaper? I noticed it right away on the plaster, trim and window frames then confirmed it on the bush.

 

Tom

I did my best to eliminate those concerns. I used the same camera (Nikon N90s) with the same 50 mm

f/1.8 Nikor lens on a sturdy tripod for all shots (on film). I used autofocus on the camera and verified the focus in

the viewfinder. My scanner (Minolta Dimage Scan Elite) has no focus adjustment and I've never had a

problems with scanner focus.

 

I haven't seen any MTF curves from Kodak, but I know they claimed grain parity and did not claim

sharpness parity. Ektar 25 sharpness was always considered legendary. The structure is thinner than

most color negatives giving it an advantage in light scattering.

 

Bottom line: I believe Tom is right. Ektar 25 is sharper.

Ron, Thanks very much for sharing your research.

 

Regarding sharpness, I have prints made from the old 100 speed Ektar and Royal 100's from about the early, to mid-nineties.

Those films were something special, too, and compared very favorably with the few images I have on the old 25, imho. So, I

think there will be very few people complaining about sharpness with this new film if it at least equals the old versions in this area..

 

Given that I don't think any of the old films I mentioned were made with scanning in mind (?.. please correct me if wrong),

and I'm sure this new Ektar was, I am very eager to use it.

 

My only complaint with the old films was in regard to the process of getting colors right in the final product from a scan, be it a screen

image, or a print. It seemed there was a lot of guess work and subjectivity involved in P.S., whereas, when working from a

transparency one has the original to refer to. Perhaps I was doing things wrong all together? Or, if not, has this part of

processing negatives been improved substantially?

James; <BR><BR>Here I know that Ektar 25 is not available anymore as new. I just wanted to clarify that your post didnt imply to OTHERS that it is now. Not an argument but a clarification.:) Your post seemed to me imply that is was; or you thought it was; thus thats why I questioned your response of; <i> "True, but now we are looking at comparisons of <b>currently available Ektar 25</b> to currently available Ektar 100.</i><BR><BR>Here I have unused Ektar 25 still in the feezer; stuff I bought new and squirreled away long ago. It doesnt have any massive grain increase like Scott mentioned that Ron Mowrey said; its just like any other frozen stuff I have; it gets worse with time But i find it really not any worse is storage than other stuff I have frozen in the 4 decades. Because mine old Ektar 25 didnt get get giant grain I got attacked in another thread as saying Mowerys claims were wrong; when it was total new to me how my declineing stash of Ektar 25 is now declared as grainey crap; when I had successfull results for long time. My stuff is in the factory sealed boxes; the stuff was/is in ball jars; an Old Kodak method mentioned when gas refrigerators were common in the 1940's. Folks who buy old Ektar 25 on ebay today have a more uncontrolled situation than a stuff kept in a freezer by one person ie me; that have kept film in the freezer whether is amateur stuff; or custom ordered glass plates for astro work. The really oddball thing is that having worked off most all the freezer kept Ektar 25 to Kodaks methods with great results for 14 years; I learn that it wasnt possible; since an ancient test found some batches had layer problems with cold storage. Its like my used Nikon F I got in 1962 with no CLA for 26 years and somebody says its needs a CLA; or foam that it never came with.

I shot my first roll of the new Ektar and I liked the results. I have a roll of Ektar 25 which I took out of the freezer a few weeks ago. As soon as the sun comes out again I will shoot the old roll and see how it looks. I used to look at grain by using my 12.5mm f/2 Bellows Rokkor-X as a loupe. The best grain and sharpness test will probably be making a test b&w print of a section of a negative with a 25mm enlarging lens. For me, the most useful thing about Ektar 25 was that you could make very large prints from 35mm negatves. The 35mm format is very versatile and it allows you to do things which the larger formats either can't do or can't do as conveniently. If I remember correctly Ektar 25 was also made in 120. If the new Ektar is ever made in 120 I will get some but even with plain Reala in 120 or one of the Portra 160 films in 120 you can make very large prints with excellent sharpness and fine grain. An enlargement made from Reala shot in one of my Bronica GS-1s will look a lot better than anything I would expect from the new Ektar in 35mm size.

 

The new Ektar roll I shot was done with a Canon F-1 with a 35/2 FD SSC, a 50/1.8 FD chrome front, a 100/4 New FD and a 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. I shot mostly foliage and I found that color similar to that of UC400. My local lab always does a great job scaning and printing UC400 and the Ektar 100 looked just as good. With a good enough scanner you can tell quite a lot about sharpness and grain but if you have to view the result on a monitor or if the print is made digitally you are not really seeing the inherent grain pattern of the film. For that I think projection printing is still best.

Kelly Flanigan...

 

Its obvious from you and other posters that only some, but not all of the old Ektar 25 gets grainy. We can only wonder what made the grainy stuff that way? Was it that the truck driver delivering the then new film stopped at the Mustang Ranch for a few days and left his truck in the hot Nevada summer sun? Did it get x-rayed in one of the old poorly calibrated airport machines at some time? Did the sleezebay seller falsely claim to have kept it refrigerated? Was it just a poor batch from Kodak in the first place (not that they would EVER make a mistake!!!)?

 

The facts are that some does grain up and some does not. I keep mine at -40 in a massive old WWII era freezer. Stuff I bought new and have kept there all these years still has tight grain and high sharpness. Some that I bought second hand is not quite as good but none of it has had 400-1600 size grain...so far.

 

Tom

Nice comparison. Seeing as Ektar 25 is no longer made, it might be interesting to see this sort of test comparing Ektar 100 with 100UC and/or 160VC, as well.

I've added some K-64 pics to my picture comparison at: http://homepage.mac.com/randrews4/PhotoAlbum27.html

 

I shot them all on the same day, but the Kodachrome took longer to get back. I will let others make their conclusions, Here are a few details about how the comparison was made. Since I'm scanning all of the film images, the classic question is how much digital processing to do. I set my own rules:

 

no sharpening

 

no grain reduction

 

no color enhancement

 

I did some curves adjustments. For the color checker, I set the white, black, and gray patches as white, black, and gray with the eye droppers. For the house and door pictures, I adjusted the middle tones to an approximate match. Am I covering up some real differences in the film? Sure, but I'm doing less digital processing than I ordinarily would If I were preparing an image for display.

 

Why Kodachrome? I shoot Kodachrome as often as any other film. I shoot it partly for nostalgia and partly to add to the collection started by my grandfather that will likely outlast my digital and color neg images. I can't see a difference in sharpness when digital ICE is used with Kodachrome on my Minolta scanner, but I turned it off anyway.

Tom Burke; in another few threads in the past by maybe Scott Pickering or another it was mentioned by Kodaks Ron Mowrey that Ektar 25 didnt far too well with cold storage. I mentioned mine frozen stuff didnt reallys seem to be degraded an worse than other color stuff I have used thats kept in sub zero temps. I got blasted by some because my own experience differed from the former Kodak gurus tests. what is funny is now that I have worked off most of my stock this claim come out in public that it will not work; a decade after it has. What ticks me off is I used Kodaks own methods they have preached for decades for storing film cold; and if friging worked; and now after the party is about over its comes up there is this weird thing of the layers gettng ruined and more grains arrises with cold storage. Since my own results were not super grainy but great I got blasted that I was not agreeing with the guru Ron. I never said that ALL ektar 25 would keep forever. One has different emulsion numbers; different ways its stored; darn luck too.There was NO public mention whern Ektar 25 was sold new NOT to store in in a Sub Zero; some of us did this; it worked well for another decade plus; no we learn it wont work; AFTER it already has. REwriting history is not my bag to fit an agenda. Its been MY experience that Ebay bought panatomic X and Ektar 25 ; etc thats claimed to have been kept cold/frozen IS WORSE many times than the stuff I have squirelled away. HERE I tend to buy film in batches; ie bought at the same time; same emulsion number; SO the stored stuff I know abit how the otehr rolls are going to work; or NOT work. I dod this because I did this with astro plates and films; ie for control. I don not think Ron Mowrey is wrong about some weird layer issue with cold and Ektar 25; I just didn see any really issues HERE to get excite about. This bothers some folks; because they WANT to think that results don no vary; that stuff all degrades in some textbook way.

I re-read the old threads about Ektar 25 grain build-up in the freezer. It is very unclear what actually happened

and why. The problem was certainly not universal. Does anyone have an example of Ektar 25 showing extreme

graininess? I'm wondering whether the problem was coupler crystallization or "snowflaking" which is a problem

with the gelatin.