Ektar eye candy

<p>Ok, I know we talk about Ektar 100 a lot here (and sometimes in the Classic Cameras forum). But I just have to say...holy cow! I've been looking on Flickr and on other sites, and there are really stunning pictures starting to show up, that other photographers have taken with Ektar in 35mm and 120. I think it's really starting to catch on. It has such a dinctive look to it, with really poppy, saturated colors and a certain something "else" that's hard to describe. I'm convinced that there is a certain "Ektar look." Personally, I love it.</p>

<p>Here's some of my favorites on Flickr. These were all taken by other people, but I really liked these, and I think it does show off the look of Ektar:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/treveri/3866597704/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/treveri/3866597704/</a></p>

<p><a href="

<p><a href="

<p><a href="

<p><a href="

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/monsterfred/3889902239/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/monsterfred/3889902239/</a></p>

<p>LOL...ok, I didn't mean for this to look like a Kodak commercial! But I just mean that I think it is really starting to get popular, and I'm seeing a lot of people use it. I'm coming across some absolutely beautiful pictures taken with Ektar, and I've been getting really nice results from it too. People are going nuts about it on Flickr, and there are several groups just for pictures taken with Ektar.</p>

<p>What do you guys think...do you think that eventually some day Ektar might become as famous as Kodachrome is/was? I'm not suggesting that Ektar could ever replace Kodachrome, of course. I'm just saying that I think one day there will be a famous "Ektar look" just like how Kodachrome became distinctive for its characteristics. What do you guys think?</p>

<p>Could I say the look is Kodak classic?</p>

<p>There are some nice shots there, and I do like Ektar, but I'm wondering how much of the 'look' is down to post-scan tweaking, or even tweaking on the minilab's scanner. That shot of St John's College looks...well, not quite right to my eyes (or my monitor).</p>

<p>I find the best proof of an emulsion's unique 'look' is when it can stamp the 'look' all over your shots even in situations where you wish it didn't. Kodachrome was, and is, exactly like that...much as I enjoy the results I get with it. As for Ektar, as I said I like it very much; it just concerns me that it brings Kodak closer to dropping their E-6 films, which can't be that far off now.</p>

<p>Leon, the "look" in those pictures is a lot like what I get in my photos with Ektar. And I don't "Photoshop" or tweak my pictures at all. In fact, I take my color film to a lab to get it developed and have prints made. (I don't even have a film scanner). Sure, you could say that the lab might be "tweaking" the scans...except that I have had Ektar developed at several different labs, and it always has the exact same characteristics. I've been using the same local photo lab for a while now. If I take a roll of Kodak Gold 200, and a roll of Ektar, and have them both developed at the same lab, there is an obvious and unmistakeable difference between them. It doesn't have anything at all to do with tweaking. Ektar just has a very distinct look to it. Yeah, you're right that the picture at St John's College might look a little weird...but I can tell you that the other pictures look pretty much like what I get with Ektar. Especially the picture of the steam locomotive, and the picture taken at the mountains. My Ektar shots really do look like that too.</p>

<p>And if you don't believe me, here is another test. There are hundreds of film groups on Flickr now, and of course people post pictures from all kinds of different film. But I've gotten to the point now that I can usually spot a picture taken with Ektar right away, even before I read the description. I guess right usually about 80 percent of the time. Here is a group on Flickr, just for pictures from Ektar. Take a look at the photos in the group pool for a while, and you'll see what I mean. There is a definite and very distinct look to it...and obviously <em>all</em> those pictures <em>can't</em> be from "Photoshopping" or "tweaking." (By the way, there are over 3,000 photos there!)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodak_ektar/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodak_ektar/</a></p>

<p><strong>Some more examples :</strong><br>

<a href="http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/ektar100">http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/ektar100</a></p>

<p>DITTO: "Kodak Classic'. Its high colour saturation may be not for EVERY situation (what film IS), it does though has an interesting 'look'. I use only the 120 type and for every roll i'm liking it more and more...A couple of neg. scans....</p><div></div>

<p>and 2nd.</p><div></div>

<p>One last one, testing for the 'yellows' and 'greens' -</p><div></div>

<p>Second shot taken with Mamiya C330 80mm</p>

<p>I like it! The resolution is the best. Here are a couple taken with my old Kowa Kalloflex TLR from my first roll.</p><div></div>

<p>The poppy color is not for everything but I plan on making some custom curves with my next roll and will try to control the saturation a bit during scanning.</p><div></div>

<p>It nicely coverts to B&W too. I don't know if it will replace Kodachrome/Ektachrome and I don't really care since I only shoot color neg films. Kodachrome is a footnote in history. Ektar is here, let's use it!</p><div></div>

<p>Louis M. - Love the 'Poppy' shot! Was it taken in early a.m. ? And, BTW the 'bokie' from the Kowa lens is also awesome...</p>

<p>Thanks Richard. Yes that shot was shot in the early AM. The 75mm f/3.5 Prominar on the Kalloflex is a wonderful Tessar type optic. Very sharp with a buttery bokeh. You can read my user report and see other pics here:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00RR3V">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00RR3V</a>.<br>

I have only shot B&W with it till this roll of Ektar. Seems like a great match.</p>

 

<p>I find that without film profiles for Ektar in SilverFast and Vuescan, I get inconsistent results when scanning. Usually, SilverFast using the Portra 160NC film profile with the Color Cast Removal CCR button on will work well, but sometimes I will get a bad scan, in which case NikonScan or Vuescan will give a good scan. In this regard, SilverFast and Vuescan sort of complement each other. The skin tones look fairly good, although sometimes they appear a bit too red. I'm not sure I like Ektar more than Portra. I think I'll take a break from Ektar and shoot more Portra 160NC. Maybe Kodak will upgrade their Portra line using the two-electron sensitization technology used in Ektar and their cine film products? Below is a scan using SilverFast on a Nikon 9000, taken with a Hasselblad with 80mm. The subject was in the shade. I don't remember whether I used a warming filter or not.</p><div></div>

<p>It's a matter of personal preference. I happen to like more realistic color, so the Portra NC films are more to my taste. But I'm glad that so many people are enjoying the new Ektar.</p>

<p>I for one like the Ektar look, but like any spice should be used in moderation for full effect.</p>

<p>James<br>

you can see more ektar I've shot at <a href="http://www.photographyri.com">Photography RI</a> in the blog</p><div></div>

<p>I like Ektar 100 for its fine grain and excellent resolution. I think that decisions about contrast and color saturation are best made in post - be that the darkroom or the computer - where one can experiment. </p>

<p>I like it, the 120 to me seems a little less vibrant than the 35mm but I'm still at the evaluation stage.<br /> One thing I like is the saturated reds and good skin tones.<br />The fruit in the table is bang on colour wise<br>

<br /> <img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/117280233.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>In response to the question about post-scan tweaking: My workflow is very stright forward. I do a raw scan, then invert the result using ColorNeg, then I color balance using and iterative cycle of printing and old-fashioned lee color viewing filters. In other words I emulate what I would be doing if making a chromogenic print.</p>

<p>The colors ARE there. Ektar doesn't need tweaking. In fact if you tweak it too much it loses that "Ektar Look". And there sure as heck is an Ektar Look.</p>

<p>You can see some examples of my process in action here:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=879042</p>

<p>PS: if you aren't making prints then you aren't REALLY using Ektar. Prints from Ektar negatives are amazing (if done right). And always work in ProPhoto color space. Ektar's color gamut way outstrips Adobe.</p>

<p>Kodachrome leaves. Ektar arrives. Life is renewed.</p>

<p>Great shots. Thanks, guys.</p>

<p>And Edward, I'm really glad you replied. Ektar <em>does</em> have a very unique, distinctive look. You don't have to tweak it, and if you take it to a lab to be developed, it doesn't matter which lab you take it to. (Well, as long as it's a decent lab). I noticed the difference right away...to me, it was like night and day. It's right in your face, that there is a totally different look to it. There's just something about the colors...very poppy and saturated, but without looking too fake or "cartoony." You don't have to imagine it, it's there. And YUP, Ektar looks best in a print, I think. Actually, I get prints from all my film. I only get scans if I know ahead of time that I'll want to post my pictures online or email them to friends, etc.</p>

<p>I do have to agree with Mark though, that in 120 format it seems to be a little different. I can't quite pinpoint exactly what it is, but it does seem to look a little different than in 35mm. The colors sill look really nice and still have the "Ektar look" but maybe a tiny bit subdued. Like Mark said, maybe not quite as vibrant. That seemed really weird to me, since it's the same film. But that's how I would describe it.</p>

<p>Anyway, if anyone hasn't tried Ektar, you really should. There definitely IS an "Ektar look" and it doesn't come from tweaking or Photoshopping. It's just there, something about the film itself.</p>

<p>HA HA! For once, the ads are actually useful! I'm seeing an ad right now on this page for Ektar! :)</p>

<p>The demise of the E-6 labs dooms E-6 flim, not Ektar 100. Ektar 100 is preparing for the reality of the future, E-6 is the next casualty. My local lab still processes E-6 and C-41 very well, but they're on life support.</p>

<p>I am not wondering if it is not the lens on a 35mm camera that makes the difference over the 120 film. that and enlargement.</p>

<p>Guys, let's not wander into speculation about E-6. That's a completely different topic, and has absolutely nothing to do with Ektar as far as I'm concerned. I don't even see how they're related. Can't we just talk about a film without all the "doom and gloom" stuff? I shoot color print film mostly, but I shoot E-6 films sometimes and I even shot a few rolls of Kodachrome recently. I don't see how they have anything at all to do with one another. Right now, we're talking about <strong>Ektar</strong>. Not Kodachrome or E-6.</p>

<p>Larry, you might be right about the lens. Actually it could be anything really. Maybe it's the lens or maybe somehow the emulsion is coated a little differently on 120 rolls. I don't know. And really there's no way to tell for sure. You could try to load a 35mm roll into a 120 camera to see if there is any difference...but then of course you would get some really weird effects that would negate the whole experiment! (Actually, that might look interesting...a panoramic Ektar shot). That's another thing that people seem to like doing lately, putting 35mm film in a medium format camera. You end up with a weird looking panoramic picture with the frame numbers and sprocket holes in the image. </p>