Ektar - a bit dissapointed

<p>I know there 's been a lot of talk about Ektar, but I wanted to share my 2c worth.  I've heard people call it "the 'new' chrome" and boy they aren't wrong!  No latitude at all!  Here in Australia there is no Ektar so I ordered a 5 pack in120 from the US.  Very excited to finally try it out, but I have to say I am disappointed with my results.  The colour seems sooo off and there's a sort of harshness to it.  I absolutely LOVE Portra and perhaps in a way I was just expecting a finer-grained, more saturated version of that.</p>

 

<p>So what do you think - have other people warmed to it immediately, or is it an acquired taste?  Does it get better of time as you get used to it?  Perhaps I need to rethink exposures - be more exact and never go over...  I want to love it :-)</p>

<p>Like every other film it is a matter of personal preference. I love Ektar and did so from day one.</p>

<p>David, First, I think your website is terrific. You should post some of those images here on Photo.net. I can see, with the harsh contrasty lighting conditions you have down under, why Portra works for you & Ektar doesn't. I think Ektar would do for low contrast, low saturation scenes but is overkill for the conditions you work under. Though I've never used it myself the results I've seen from Ektar on this site put me in mind OF TEXTING ALL IN UPPER CASE. KIND OF LIKE SHOUTING! Not to say there's not a place for it. Also, could it be the printing causing much of the trouble? Lot's of possibilities. Best, LM.</p>

<p>First, don't cross-post and the C-41 gods will be kind to you. :)<br>

Next, I thought I was the only one, I agree with your assestment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard people call it "the 'new' chrome" and boy they aren't wrong! No latitude at all!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If properly exposed, Ektar will show <a href="http://cceder.com/turkey/dervent_01.html">good latitude</a> . Not at all similar to slide film in that respect.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The colour seems sooo off and there's a sort of harshness to it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You are correct, the colors can be rather off for some applications, but mostly it can also be corrected quite well if you're scanning the film. For general landscape photography I don't think Ektar is too useful, but sometimes Ektar can also give a 'wow' effect to a photo.</p>

<p>I have used Ektar 100 in 35mm form and loved the results. However I'm quite sure that I have read that it isn't the same formulation in 120. Has anyone used Ektar 100 in 35mm and 120 and can verify this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However I'm quite sure that I have read that it isn't the same formulation in 120. Has anyone used Ektar 100 in 35mm and 120 and can verify this?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Kodak's technical publication for Ektar shows no difference between the 35 and the 120. The only difference I see is that the 35mm has a .003mm thicker base.</p>

I am finding Ektar a little temperamental. Generally I like it, but sometimes it is harsh and shifts way toward red sometimes for me. I have not figured out how to predict it yet. I like saturated colors and smooth grain and have some images that I thought were good; then others that I thought should have been good that turned me off. For me it seems to be when yellows and oranges are mixed. That seems to blow Ektar out of the ballpark. I can fix it in post but I don't like to have to.

 

Example as shot, Nikon Coolscan V with just Ice turned on. This was early AM, just after sunup. There were several shot on this roll that acted the same, different times of day, different atmospheric conditions.<div></div>

<p>Very interesting - thanks for the replies everyone. Looking at my negs I think I have committed the big Ektar sin and am under exposing a little! :-) Good learning nonetheless. I will give another few rolls a go and be more careful this time around. Whether it replaces or complements the 160VC... not sure. I also have a roll of 35mm which will go into the Konica S2 today. </p>

<p>Kodak classify s Ektar as a professional film. As a rule kodak pro films offer almost no latitude and require presice exposure The trade off is that when you get it right, the pro films produce a perfect image.. </p>

I can process my TIFF images as in RAW in my editor Joseph. If what you say is correct, I should be able to correct for exposure/white balance problems in it. And, correct the problem. But I have to adjust advanced color settings to correct the red/orange over saturation. Could you explain what I am doing wrong with exposure or editing?

<p>Sometimes I get excellent scans with Ektar, and sometimes not. What scanner/software are you using? I usually get very good scans of Portra because I use SilverFast, and there is a film profile for it. I'm looking forward to SilverFast providing a film profile for Ektar. In the meantime, my negative film of choice will be Portra.</p>

<p>David, could you post a sample and share your scanning setup?</p>

 

<p>Thanks Dan for clearing up the the difference between 120 and 35mm Ektar 100.</p>

<p>Mr. Waugh.....</p>

<p>Yes, if you've been using Porta, Ektar is going to look different to you. I, like several other posters, think it comes down to a combination of personal tastes and the way our own personal individual eyes see and brain interprets colors. I understand Porta was formulated for skin tones, as well as keeping blacks and whites for formal and wedding people photographs. Even someone who is more attuned to the Ektar color palette would appreciate Porta for those particular uses.</p>

<p>I'm an old fart. I watched movies when Technicolor was the only color process movie film. I lived in a large city where we got the film first, before it had faded due to projection. I also grew up in the Kodachrome world, and I'm talking about the original Kodachrome. Also most quality color prints were three-color takeoffs in a carbo type process as I grew up. Those are the colorpalettes that look natural to me. Although each was a little different from one another, they all had some of the same character of the new Ektar (very different from the Ektar of the 1990s). Naturally, I like Ektar. I especially don't like films that had the strong red-orange look of the 1970s movies, when they got away from Technicolor. It's a matter of both personal taste and how my brain processes color.</p>

<p>Also Ektar has been said to pick up the blues in shadow areas. One of the first public postings (Flicker) of the new Ektar 100 was of a fire engine pointing out of its station in Oceanside, CA. In the shadows under the truck, the area had a slight dark blue tint to it. Years ago, I spent a lot of time in and around Oceanside. In the afternoon, with light bouncing off a not-so-distant sea, picking up some of its color to be reflected in airborne particulant, when looking at sky-lit, rather than sun-lit, natural light areas (shadows), they are going to look a little blue if you are both aware of it and have the color accuity to see it. When being recruited for the military, I took a pilot's vision color test out of a book. There were no computer monitors or television monitors to use in those days. As one went toward the back of the book, the tone and color differences became more and more subtle. You had to get in about ten pages to pass your officer's physical, and somewhere around 20-25 for pilot or bombadier. The book was about 150 pages. Despite the heavy recruiting load, with massive amounts of young men processing through, I was the only person the tester had ever seen make it to the back of the book. I obviously see color a lot differently than the person who got to page 2. We all fall somewhere in that spectrum and see/perceive colors differently. The picture of the fire engine looked like I would expect it to, yet many, many people said the shadows were too blue. They of course were just as "right" as I was, giving their opinion through their color perspective.</p>

<p>Mr. Sarile, one of Photonet's color film enthusiasts and experts, mentioned the difference in scanner results. Not only are there differences between makes and models of scanners, but also from sample to sample. As to printing, I'm sure you realize that practically all prints are no longer made through glass enlargers with color gel filter packs. The film is scanned, interpreted by computer software, and then electronically transferred to the print paper. At each step, a decision is made by a group of programmers as to how bits and bytes of electronic data should be interpreted in the color spectrum. How good were the programmers? How would they have done with their flight physical color exam? What are their color preferences due to their age and experience? How well are the various electronic devices calibrated that process the information on the film?</p>

<p>Yes, I like Ektar, but then I also like the original Kodachrome ASA 8-10.</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Stegal....</p>

<p>Right you are, sir. Determining color differences on a negative has always been a little more difficult to me than doing the same on a positive piece of film. I've shot Ektar 100 in both 135 and 120 format. Looking at the clear areas of the film, I think, but am not positive, that I perceive a slight difference in the base. Using different cameras with the same size film seems to give some difference in color, however slight. I suspect that is due to the different lens coatings. I suspect if there is a perceived difference between 120 and 135 film, the perception may be due to the different lens coatings, or even lack of coating, or even perhaps the glass itself. This last summer, within minutes of one another, using Kodachrome 64 out of the same ten-pack, in two cameras, I got a slight difference in color. I saw it in the original film, as well as the scans and prints. One camera was a Yashica T5 with a Carl Zeiss T-coated Tessar lens. The other camera was an old Kodak Signet 35 from about 1953 with an Ektar lens having their patented "Luminized" coating. I had bought the old camera, hoping it would make the modern Kodachrome look like results obtained years ago from the then-currently-formulated Kodachrome. It did somewhat, certainly enough to differentiate it from results when using modern lenses. I doubt there is as much of a difference when using different brand modern lenses, but there is probably still some. There is certainly a noticeable difference using Velvia 50 in my Rolleiflex GX vs. my Mamiya 7II with the 80mm lens. </p>

<p>Referencing my above comment to Mr. Waugh about the shadow areas beneath the fire truck, I suspect the results would have looked even bluer with the old Ektar "Luminized" lens. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>I have read that Ektar came about as a side benefit of research for a new cinema film. If true, that would help explain why Kodak might spend money and time developing a fundamentally new and finer-grained film so late in the history of film as a medium for still photos.</p>

<p>I usually reserve film for black-and-white and digital for colour, but I enjoy shooting Ektar. It does seem to go a bit blue in the shadows, and when it first came out a lot of people recommended rating it at iso 50 (to increase exposure by one stop). I tried this and preferred the results with the nominal film speed.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I love Portra too, and will continue to use it. But Ektar still has a wonder all of its own which i find utterly compelling.</p>

<p>160VC: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4078354069/in/set-72157618590943732/<br>

Ektar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4079331114/</p>

<p>Everything from the Ektar photo above to the most recent on my Flickr pages is Ektar and I didn't warm to it right away in December but now I think I like Ektar more than anything else at this speed. It also appears you want to have it processed by a well seasoned lab, or you may get slight colour shifts.<br>

It's not for everyone and I can see you reasoning for liking Portra but Ektar in the right light is stunning, even in lowly 35mm format. Did some RA4s at the weekend (couple of 12x16s) and they look wonderful on the wall.<br>

Correct exposure is the key (ie: I can manually expose other C41 fine but with Ektar I really need the light meter)<br>

Vicky</p>

<p>Sincere apologies to Les and others for not answering your question: I have been scanning the negs on a V700. I realize it's not a professional level scanner, but in the conditions I am living (central Australian desert at the moment) it's the best I can justify. Interestingly, I stopped using lab scans a while ago because I was getting similar weird colour results using Reala.</p>

<p>Les - I have been looking at your site and the comments re: V700 are very interesting. It's just that the Portra seems so easy to scan and I seem to get predictable results. BTW I am using Epson scan, 48 bit colour @ 2400 dpi. Small bit of PS and then a convert to 8bit. Tried Silverfast - kind of liked it but found the app unstable on my Mac (the only thing that has ever crashed on me!)</p>

<p>Unfortunately I don't have the scanner setup at the moment (packed up due to a 3 day dust storm!) but here is a sample here. I already did a bit of colour work on this image but I am sure you can still see the problems. Weird skin tones, awful sky... more than just a green cast I think (although my colour isn't too crash hot).</p>

<p>I wish I had something similar in Portra on file - sorry. I did also shoot 3 rolls of Ektar in a rainforest a few weeks ago and the results were woeful but definatley my fault - about 1-1.5 stops under and nothing is salvageable. Shadows all blue as people have commented. </p>

<p>Mr Burke - your take on colour I find informative and completely understand. Perhaps it is just something I am not used to. The only thing that bothers me is that I can't seem to correct the Ektar scans easily. Now I am just an enthusiast with little real photographic technical experience, but I am a graphic designer who holds Adobe accreditation in most apps. I know PS pretty well and have worked as a high-end retoucher but I am still fighting these scans. I'm not making out that I am a guru (I'm certainly NOT one) - it's just that I should be finding these colour corrections easier :-)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.wirliyajarrayi.com/images/ektar.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>BTW Les - I wish my rainforest shots looked like your samples! :-) Here's one of mine... aaaggghhh.<br /> <img src="http://www.wirliyajarrayi.com/images/ektar2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Vicky - stunning sample pic and yes... that Ektar one is particularly good. It's those kind of pics that got me excited about Ektar in the first place!<br>

Chrise - just looked at your folio too. Very, very nice and certainly more like what I have been trying to achieve. Out of interest, could you share your scanning method please?</p>

<p><em>I have scanned the same frames of Kodak Ektar with my Coolscan 5000 and a colleague's 9000 and they are exactly the same results</em></p>

<p>But these are different scanners with different optics. I find the 9000 to be noticeably less sharp across the frame (the DOF does not appear to be as good) than the 5000 when scanning 35mm film. Slower, too. At A4 size prints it doesn't make a difference but A3, the sharpness difference is noticeable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can see, with the harsh contrasty lighting conditions you have down under, why Portra works for you & Ektar doesn't. I think Ektar would do for low contrast, low saturation scenes but is overkill for the conditions you work under.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I love Ektar but I think the statement above is true. I have had good results with it on slightly overcast days with diffused light. I haven't had a chance to use it in bright sunlight yet. About 1/3 or 2/3 stop over exposure works well too.</p>

<p>I too have shot ektar and scanned with an Epson v700. Those cyan skies of the kids in the tree (gorgeous shot by the way) look familiar, but are easily remedied in PS.<br>

Image >adjustments>selective colour><br>

-choose cyan in top box, then adjust sliders<br>

Cyan 0<br>

magenta +20<br>

yellow -10<br>

black +20<br>

Try a little shadow and highlight too!<br>

Once the colour cast is fixed , Ektars ability to hold highlights, and its small grain make it a very interesting film.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hearing the raves about Ektar 100, I shot a side-by-side comparison with a plain-vanilla consumer film, FujiColor 200. I was expecting great things from Ektar. I did not get the resolution advantage I expected: I see a little better resolution of detail with the Fuji consumer film. This was a surprise to me.</p>

<p>This isn't to promote Fuji... It's just a handy benchmark. The Ektar produces nice images, but not a resolution advantage that I can see. Both films produced good clean images in 8x12 prints without a lot of fuss.</p>

<p>Test details: I'm a science-guy; I like direct comparisons. Same shot, minutes apart, Same Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens at f/8, tripod. Nikon Coolscan V, Nikon Scan default settings at 4000ppi and ICE=OFF, Noise Ninja default settings self-profiled, then capture sharpening with Smart Sharpen 60% 0.5px, and minor curves adjustments to match colors. Display images at 100% in Photoshop, screen grab, saved as .jpg at highest (11) quality.</p>

<p>To my eye, the edges of the white lettering, the clarity of the chalk writing, and the texture of the granite is better with the Fuji. Can I see the finer grain of Ektar? Well, maybe the white lettering and the blue background are smoother with Ektar. In the grazing late afternoon light, there is texture in the granite that neither film picks up very well at all.</p>

<p>Here are 100% crops.</p><div></div>

<p>Richard, your scan looks out of focus- the grain isn't visible. I'd try scanning it again and set the focus point on an edge with some contrast.</p>

<p>David, you're losing data in the scanning process. It looks like highlight clipping is set to .1% or so which is pushing the moss on top of the rock too close to blowing out. I'd be more conservative with these software clipping settings- you can always adjust the white point in Photoshop. Here's a quick edit- used the gray dropper to set overall color balance and then added contrast in the shadows with curves.</p><div></div>