I like Ice Cream Better than Ektar 100 in My Classic

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by sg_adams, Aug 6, 2009.

  1. 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.
    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.
    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.
    00U9OU-162515584.jpg
     
  2. Wow, I've never seen 4 snow plants together like that.
    And, wow, that's a pretty scathing review of Ektar. I haven't found any reason to try it yet.
     
  3. Your result with Ektar is far, far away from my own experience:
    [​IMG]
    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.
     
  4. Yikes! My experience with Ektar has been way, WAY different!
    http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00ToPV
    http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00U5Pv
    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.
    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.
    Hey, if you don't want your other rolls, don't throw them away. Believe me, plenty of other people will want it.
     
  5. 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?
    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.
     
  6. The OP's problem with the film seems to be with his own technique. Color corrections could be a lot better!
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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...
     
  9. 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.
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Scanner software problems? Color balance, like pimpin', ain't easy.
     
  11. No, this stuff is garbage.
    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.
    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.
     
  12. That's the spirit! I May have to give it a whirl myself; MF color!
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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....
    What films do you like BTW?
    Jason
     
  15. 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.
    It may be your scanner settings need adjustment.
     
  16. 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.
    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.
    By the way, I think I only had two or three rolls left so not really worth the postage to mail it to anyone.
     
  17. 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...
    00U9j0-162781584.jpg
     
  18. Early CLOUDY morning...
    00U9jR-162783684.jpg
     
  19. 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.
    #3 looks like what I've typically seen from underexposed Ektar.
    Normally, the reds and blues are 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.
    There's a group on Flickr, just for people who like to shoot with Ektar. You can see some more examples there.
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodak_ektar/

    Look at the pictures in the group pool. The colors look great. Trust me, something went wrong. Your experience is not typical.
     
  20. A little later around noon with brighter conditions ...
    00U9jb-162785784.jpg
     
  21. 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 :)
    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.
     
  22. 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.
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. I've had problems with Ektar 100 processing. Colours came out funny. Digital ICE did funny things to the more exposed areas. The lab claimed eventually that the problem was inadequate bleaching, affecting Kodak films but not Fuji films, and which they do now seem to have fixed. Maybe your lab has a similar problem.
     
  25. I have had some Ektar problems, so I contacted Kodak. (1-800-242-2424 option 19) and let them know my story. I mailed them some samples and I am waiting to hear. I ended up with some really odd colors coming up.....Anyone that has a problem, PLEASE let Kodak know so that they can try to help us all out.
     
  26. You'll get the same cool shadows with Ektachrome E100G. It's a realistic rendering -- the shadows are lit only by blue sky. But it's obviously a neutral film, when you shoot it by electronic flash in the studio.
    Yes, color saturation is more hyper with Ektar 100.
    Like any new film, if automated scanning is done on a system that doesn't have a "channel" for the film type, the results can be awful.
    I find Ektar 100 scans wonderfully with a Nikon Coolscan, just as well as Ektachrome E100G or E100GX (R.I.P.) does.
     
  27. I love Ektar 120. Once you have the curves set up properly you can get a fairly neutral scan.
    If it is OK with the rules, I would like to link you off site to these pictures:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/23068099@N06/3754880416/in/pool-996705@N24
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoboy14n/3479728714/in/pool-996705@N24
    .
    Ektar 100, 120 format always scans way too blue for my taste. However, as you can see, once you have successfully tackled that issue the film is capable of beautiful colors. It's nearly grainless too. That's nice for landscapes.
     
  28. Sorry for doing such a film oriented post, but it was related to using the Kraptar film with my Junktar lenses.
    I now think about 10% of the blue cast could be remedied with a bit more scanning ability. But probelems arise when there so much blue in an image where shifting things so much changes everything else. I find it common that a lot of my images do like a little warming up and some small adjustments. However, I have exposures shot right after sunset or in the shade that are litterally blue. Everything is blue. Even clouds and alpine glow on mountain peaks that should have hues in the bright orange, purple shades of pink and red, are pretty much lighter shades of blue. The Iris above should tend towards purples on the petals not blue. I couldn't get the film to do that no matter what I tried. I'm not into doing a lot of fixes in photoshop so I just left it to show off my lens and screw the film.
    The rest of my film is going to the lab today, and most of it is Reala.
     
  29. SG, couldn't agree with you more. After using Reala for many many years I recently bought 10 rolls of ektar and was stunned (not in a nice way) by the massively saturated greens and blues that were completely unnatural and awful to look at - I used about 5 rolls at an air show and the other 5 at an abbey in Cumbria (in the North of England) - what a waste. Fortunately, I also used some of Ilford's trusty 125 and 400 so all was not lost. Its back to Reala for me.
     
  30. "You'll get the same cool shadows with Ektachrome E100G. It's a realistic rendering -- the shadows are lit only by blue sky. But it's obviously a neutral film, when you shoot it by electronic flash in the studio."
    John is absolutely correct. That's why people use skylight filters!
    Yes, Ektar is a saturated film. If you don't want saturated colors, then choose a different film. As for distorted colors - that's most likely a post processing issue. It's pretty easy to distort colors during digital editing. That's why I scan negs as positives with gamma = 1. I then invert and color correct with the ColorNeg Photoshop plugin. Give it a try - you may like it!
    http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ
    00UAJt-163209584.jpg
     
  31. SG, I'll just say that I'm sorry you had a bad experience with it. I hope you'll try at least one more roll, in different lighting conditions. I personally just had a totally different experience with Ektar. I have used slow shutter speeds and long exposures with it, and I didn't really have a big problem with color shifts. The only time where I noticed that the colors got weird was if I underexposed it. And that was when I pretty much guessed on the exposure. It can get a tiny bit blue in the shadows sometimes, but I just didn't have the problems you were getting.
    I should scan and post one of the pictures that I messed up, just as an example.
    ok, here we go...
    [​IMG]
    This is from the first roll of Ektar that I used. I just scanned this from the print, and the print looks even weirder. When I first got my pictures back from the photo lab, at first I thought they messed up and something went wrong whey they were developing the film or when they made the prints. But I took the negatives to another lab and got re-prints and it looked the same. Notice how the white house across the street in the background looks blue. The colors look like I painted the picture with tempora paints! It just has kind of a blue and violet cast to everything.
    But this was from the first roll of Ektar that I ever shot. This is typically what happens if you underexpose it. The colors get really weird. I pretty much guessed on the exposure. Since then, I have gotten much, MUCH better results. You might also have better luck if you rate it as 80 ISO.
     
  32. Thanks, and yeah a couple more rolls went over to the lab with the rest of my color films and should be back tomorrowor the next day. decent lab that does all thier own work. We'll see, and I'll work on my scanning. And I'm sure there's stuff shot in different lighting. But one thing's for sure, I doubt it's under exposed as I meter like I do for B&W. The main reason I went back to print film. I've got two exposures left in one of my roll backs so might shoot something in bright daylight and see where that falls. Things is what I already got to look at is a variety of images and I didn't like any of it. The Reala is better though that is a somewhat flat dull film of the less contrasty variety. Good in bright light for sure. At the end of the day I think Fuji Pro 400 worked a bit better last year.
     
  33. Don't know if anyone is still following this thread I started, but I'm going to makea new posting later this evening which should include a couple better Ektar scans. I tried a couple different images and they looked a lot better, but they were exposed much shorter based on the sunny 16, so since I just got a bif batch of film back I'm going to do an assortment from the Sierra and White mountains and see if I can get abetter scan out of a couple longer exposure Ektar images. So I'll be back at the top of the list by tomorrow.
     
  34. yeah, SG I was still following :)
    I'm looking forward to seeing your new pictures.
     
  35. I'm with SG, I don't like the looks of this film.
     

Share This Page