I like Ice Cream Better than Ektar 100 in My Classic

<p>I tried some Ektar 100 color print film on this last trip, and since I needed something to do while eating my ice cream I decided to post a couple images. I had to fool around with this junk for quite a while to get anything that looked even remotely worth looking at. I didn't come up with anything I could like anywhere near as much as this Neopolitan Dryers. I looked at one roll and after attempting to pull down an image decided the whole roll is a bust, worthless. If this were the only film I could get I wouldn't bother with it anymore. Leaves me wondering why they bothered marketing this crap? I hope someone else found a use for it 'cause I'm throwin the rest of the stuff in the trash. <br>

The images below were all shot with a Crown Graphic using a 103mm Trioptar. The Snow Plant is f~16 at 1-secusing a little fwd tilt. The second image, made at a somewhat obscure azalea preserve not on the map was shot at f~32 at 1/10. And the last image, of which I discovered I must have had the color film back along on the hike, was shot at f~32 for 8-sec. <br>

All are Kraptar 100 120 rollfilm which makes use of a special blue enhancement layer so you have to have special rose colored glasses to view any images made with this film. <br>

</p><div></div>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>#3</p><div></div>

<p>Wow, I've never seen 4 snow plants together like that.</p>

<p>And, wow, that's a pretty scathing review of Ektar. I haven't found any reason to try it yet.</p>

<p>Your result with Ektar is far, far away from my own experience:</p>

<p><a title="Beets by Necator, on Flickr" href=" title="Beets by Necator, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3695470956_3748c14a27_b.jpg" alt="Beets" width="700" height="467" /> </a><br>

The picture might be a bit boring, but the colours are spot on. This is 135 film though, but there shouldn't be that much variation. Ektar 100 is by far my favorite colour negative film.</p>

<p>Yikes! My experience with Ektar has been way, <strong>WAY</strong> different!</p>

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

<p><a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00U5Pv">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00U5Pv</a></p>

<p>The second link is a topic I posted recently, where I shot a roll of 120 size Ektar in my Yashica A. I was very happy with how it turned out. </p>

<p>I love it. It's one of my favorite color films for landscape photos now. The only time where I had problems with it was if I tried to guesstimate the exposure with the "Sunny 16 Rule." That does NOT work. I ruined my first couple of rolls with that. You pretty much have to use a light meter, and be careful not to underexpose it. But if you get the exposure right, you will get beautiful colors. At least, that's been my experience.</p>

<p>Hey, if you don't want your other rolls, don't throw them away. Believe me, plenty of other people will want it.</p>

<p>I've heard that Ektar 100 isn't great at longer exposures - I note that two of those three were 1 second and 8 seconds (assuming I read your post correctly). Could this have something to do with it?</p>

<p>I was pleased when it appeared in 120, but I still haven't got round to trying the stuff yet, being in the grip of a transparency addiction.</p>

<p>The OP's problem with the film seems to be with his own technique. Color corrections could be a lot better!</p>

<p>SG, if you're serious about dumping the film, I can use some as I'm getting low on 120 and the next camera show isn't until late September here. It will also give me a chance to put my "new" Moskva through its paces. I'd be glad to buy some off of you.</p>

<p>The only color-problems I've had were due to my own technique: the film seems to dislike underexposure: it will throw mud back at you...</p>

<p>It does give you a noticeably cool cast in the shadows, that's true. It's not what I'd call a neutral film. That said I really like the results I've been getting with it.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3683509144_741ce047a7.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Scanner software problems? Color balance, like pimpin', ain't easy.</p>

<p>No, this stuff is garbage. <br>

I couldn't send it out to have prints made. I can tweek it to get it sort of close to reality but not really. Fine grained though. Really nice edges, sort of. <br>

I have a couple more rolls to send out with all my Reala so and when I have time I will see if I can make some better scans, and I never acutally give up on something without going back and giving it another try but this stuff pissed me off. </p>

That's the spirit! I May have to give it a whirl myself; MF color!

<p>It almost looks like there were some processing problems the way there is a color cast. Did you send them all out for processing at the same time? I generally give a film a few tries before I cross it off the list.</p>

<p>Sad to see it not work out for you. I still intend to try it once I can get it in 120. Hope I have better luck with it. I had seen Chris Tobar's examples a while back and they looked awsome. I was taken by the blue of the sky. Anyway, I too would be happy to take it off your hands, but I have a feeling you are on the other side of the pond from me. Oh well....</p>

<p>What films do you like BTW?</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>I got my first roll in the Kallowflex right now. I'm hoping for a better experience. I'm also interested in how well it converts to B&W as I like having both options.<br>

It may be your scanner settings need adjustment.</p>

<p>I kind of saw this coming as I did read some about this film before giving it a try. It seemed to sort of work for some folks, but not for others. Personally I prefer more realistic color reproduction. I also had a chat with the lab about the film I sent, exposure and development. He was familliar withthis and my Reala, and the film is a very clean sleeved and packed very nicely. Anyway, the jist of the coversation was that he told me before I could tell him I specifically don't want over development, which is what happened to me last time, not to mention aq lot of foriegn matter obvious in the development process. <br>

But I oppinion about the film is mine as it relates to me and don't want anyone to take it that I suggest it wont work for them. But a couple comments seem consistent with what I've read about other's excperience. Strong blue cast and over saturation in blues for almost everyone. Mine rendered mostly everything so far in such a way that it's not useable. I sometimes like a saturated look, but this is garbage. It is however very fine grained, but the color shifts render the look somewhat mute. If I could get it to work it would be a nice way to go rather than slide films that have a narrower latitude. But if the long exposures I use is the cause of much of the blue cast (and I use a pink UVB filter a lot to knock the blue cast down more and warm things up), I can't make use of this film for landscape or any other work I do. If they made an ISO 400 version that might be great for fast work like sailboat photography or other sports in daylight. In the B&W genre I really like TMY 400 but have never enjoyed the slower TMX 100. I sense I ran in to a similar issue here where I found a film that just doesn't fit my style. I think If I ever want a big punch in color saturation I much prefered the results I got when I was using Kodak VC 100 slide film. Big saturation but with a far more realistic color rendition. 100 G was OK too, but My favorite color films for a couple years now has been the less contrasty look of Reala with all its extra latitude that allows me to meter more like I do for B&W. <br>

By the way, I think I only had two or three rolls left so not really worth the postage to mail it to anyone. </p>

<p>Well, Ektar 100 (120) is different than their other films: its more of a 'cool' tone film and i can agree with some of the statements above that it does'nt "like" to be underexposed. I get a slight blue-cast too when underexposed or sometimes when there's deep shadows. (But, BTW, ITS absent on my prints.). Anyhow, i'm only on my 3rd roll and i figure it will take many many rolls to really get a handle on this film... BELOW 3 TEST shots...</p><div></div>

<p>Early CLOUDY morning...</p><div></div>

<p>SG, I've had problems like yours, especially #3, where the colors got really weird and there was a strong blue tint to everything. But that was only because I tried to guess on the exposure, and I underexposed it. How were you rating the film? I've gotten the best results when I use a light meter, and rate it at box speed or even 80 ISO. It will tolerate some overexposure, but not underexposure. It acts really weird if you underexpose it.</p>

<p>#3 looks like what I've typically seen from underexposed Ektar.</p>

<p>Normally, the reds and blues <em>are</em> really poppy and saturated, but I wouldn't say that there is an excessive blue tint or cast...only if you underexpose it. It could also be your photo lab. Maybe they don't have their scanners adjusted for Ektar. It makes a big difference. I sent a roll of Ektar to Dwayne's Photo one time. I've sent film to them before and normally they do a great job. But the prints they made from the Ektar came out really weird...with a strong blue tint to everything. Then later on, I found a local lab where I live (which is where I take all my color film now) and I asked them to do re-prints. The pictures came out fine.</p>

<p>There's a group on Flickr, just for people who like to shoot with Ektar. You can see some more examples there.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodak_ektar/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodak_ektar/</a><br /><br />Look at the pictures in the group pool. The colors look great. Trust me, something went wrong. Your experience is not typical.</p>

<p>A little later around noon with brighter conditions ...</p><div></div>

<p>yup...Richard's examples are a little more like what I've gotten. Really poppy reds and blues. That's like the trademark "Ektar look." Put something red against a clear blue sky, and it will really jump out at ya. I love that :)</p>

<p>Ektar does have a little bit of a "cold" tone to it...but the picture should not have an excessive blue tint or cast. If that happens, that usually means you underexposed it, or the lab probably didn't have their equipment calibrated right.</p>

<p>I've used the film in 35mm and 120 sizes. In bright light its just about good at 100. In lower light or overcast light I would rate it at 50. The film has its quirks but is very sharp and fine grained. If the lighting is odd I would rather use Reala. For general purpose films which look good in just about any light I would choose Fujicolor Superia Xtra 400 or Kodacolor 200. </p>

<p>I also shot some Ektar 100 in my old Zeiss folders. The results agree with most other posters: very little grain; strong tendency to overdo the blues; a distinct need to have a good lab, with employees who understand the instruction to "print with a little less blue"; and an actual ASA of about 64. I still like it, but it is not my favorite, which remains Reala for prints, and Velvia 50 and E100G for trannies. If they ever discontinue E6 films I'll likely use Ektar 100 as a sunstitute. OP, I hope you keep trying.</p>