Would you recommend Ektar 100 for a beginner?

When I say "beginner," I don't mean some emo kid whose first ever camera was a cell phone that they use to take

pictures for MySpace. I mean someone who has taken pictures before, has used film, but maybe never really used

manual exposure before.

 

 

I have kind of a dilemma. I really want people to see what the new Kodak Ektar 100 film looks like. It has a unique

look to it, and the colors are absolutely amazing. I've been seeing a lot of questions lately, especially on Flickr, from

people asking which film they should use. But the problem is I think a lot of those people might be new to using

manual exposure. Ektar 100 is an awesome film. But let's face it...it's also extremely unforgiving with exposure. If

you've used Ektar, you know what I'm talking about. If you expose it right, it looks awesome. But if you underexpose

it, it gets really weird and everything has kind of a bluish tint.

 

 

So I'm a little on the fence. Would you recommend Ektar for a beginner? I try to recommend it whenever I can, but

sometimes I'm afraid that people might get frustrated or confused if they expose it wrong and the pictures don't turn

out like they could. I keep thinking about where I was back in 2007, when I first learned how to use manual

exposure. I learned on an Argus C3 with the "Sunny 16 Rule" and consumer films that were really forgiving with

exposure, like Kodak Gold 200. I think that if Ektar had been around back then, I probably would have exposed it

wrong and I wouldn't have been happy with my pictures.

So to me, it's kind of a dilemma. I think that if someone sees what properly exposed Ektar looks like, they would be

amazed and get an idea of what film can REALLY do. But at the same time, I'm just remembering where I was a

couple of years ago.

Should I recommend Ektar, but with the warning that they need to be more careful about the exposure...or would you

recommend that they get more experience with manual exposure first, before they even try Ektar?

<p>not quite sure what you are talking about. all color negative films are extremely forgiving of overexposure. underexposure...less so. Ektar is no different.</p>

Aaron, I've used a lot of color negative films and trust me, Ektar IS less forgiving. I noticed the difference right away. Even if I've underexposed, I've been able to get decent results from other films like Kodak Gold 200, Ultra Color 100, Fuji 200, etc. But Ektar was much less forgiving and I noticed some weird shifts with colors that I never got with other films. You pretty much HAVE to use a light meter with it, whereas with other films I've been able to get away with Sunny 16.

 

 

I really like Ektar, but I also have to say that it's very unforgiving.

<p>Sometimes the bluish tint with Ektar is really the Truth, with a capital T. Shadowy areas lit only by sky really are blue, but the "automatic white balance" in our eyes and brain ignores it. Neutral E-6 films like Kodak E100G will do the same thing.<br>

It's almost as fussy about exposure as slide film, except that the tolerance direction is opposite. Slide flim blows out highlights if you overexpose. Ektar 100 gets grainy off-color shadows if you underexpose.<br>

If you want something tame, tolerant, and really quite respectable, try Kodak's plain old Gold 100. (Getting rather hard to find, the Gold 200 is just about as good.) Or any of the Kodak Portra films offer great latitude, with a more natural look than the Gold films.<br>

You will learn about exposure fairly quickly shooting Ektar 100, although corrections in automated printing may hide your errors. (Slide film is totally in your face about exposure errors, since there is no post-processing in printing stage.0</p>

 

<p>Mr. Tobar....</p>

<p>Of course the answer would have to be qualified, but I'd give it a qualified "yes."</p>

<p>First, the "no." If the person is a casual and new, and perhaps indifferent, photographer, who for whatever reason is not inclined to go digital, then a higher speed print film for a full-auto point and shoot might be the best recommendation. Yes, there are a few other "no" situations not worth dredging up.</p>

<p>As to the "yes," the question is more "why not?" Mr. Murdock points out that negative films are generally more forgiving than positive films and that's true. Ektar 100 is probably on the lower end of negative film forgiveness, but still has a fairly good latitude. Of course if the person is doing indoor sports with limited lighting, or astro photography, he's going to need a faster film.</p>

<p>I would say "especially yes" if the person was a photography student or wanted to learn photography for whatever reason. In that case, Ektar could enthuse that person with some of the beauty of film and the slightly limited exposure latitude would tend to keep them on the ball, learning the principles of exposure. Five to ten years ago, I would have suggested having an earnest learner use positive (slide) film to better learn exposure under close tolerances, but the ability to get E6 processing today could discourage anybody from getting any further into photography. Furthermore, manual cameras, the type students should be using, generally have a slower top shutter speed, which would be more conducive to a slower film. As a side comment, I am, and hopefully you are not, so old that one can remember when 100 speed film was damn fast for black and white and only a dream for color.</p>

<p>Ektar 100's "exposure" difficulties might also be attributed to poor development and misadjusted machine mass printing. It might be a film whose development and printing latitude is actually tighter than its exposure latitude. I've had the same batch of Ektar 100 developed and printed almost back to back by three different processors in San Diego, CA. Only one of the set of prints would have been considered acceptable by a knowledgeable amateur ten years ago. Looking at the negatives, one roll had received poor processing if I was to judge from the edge markings. Creative printing helped bring them back to barely acceptable. The other poor prints had properly developed negatives, but was printed by either a misadjusted machine or an indifferent idiot. Had I judged the film on the results of two out of three, I would have misjudged it to have peculiar colors and perhaps low exposure tolerances.</p>

<p>Ektar 100 is certainly a premium film and in my humble opinion (previous posts will surely indicate that all my opinions are humble....wanna buy a bridge?), the only real premium film that Kodak makes anymore. I say this, understanding that although they are packaging some Kodachrome, they are no longer making it. Speaking of age, are you old enough to remember when Kodak made most of the best films? They made Ektar 25, Ektar 125 (later to become Ektar and Royal Gold 100), Kodachromes, especially ISO25 and Techpan, the sharpest of the sharp. They were thought of as the General Motors of film, as they made a full line of films and some of the best in the world. Mr. Andrews, our fellow photonet member, was one of their employees who added to their good reputation. Now Mr. Andrews is gone and some might feel that their good reputation is also. Today I would again consider them the General Motors of film. I suppose there are those who might not consider that the highest of compliments.</p>

<p>Tom Burke...y'know, the guy with the humble opinions</p>

<p>While I was typing my above post, Mr. Shriver posted a comment on the truth in blues. I second that. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>Hi Chris:Recommend away. Any color neg film will fit the bill. Give them some tips from your experience to help them get a leg up. People learn by doing. I think beginners should be less concerned about a films' "look" and focus on learning basics. There are so many important things for novices to learn like holding the camera steady, seeing light creatively, composition, timing, use of focal length and depth of focus, etc. Proper metering techniques are one of these basic fundamental skills that a newbie has to get their heads around. There are reams of information on metering techniques in upteem books and on the web. I would point to those sources to get them rolling in the right direction. </p>

<p>No matter how you slice it, learning photography means learning skills. When you learn a new skill, you are bound to screw up. Hopefully you learn from your mistakes. Relying on a wide exposure latitude film to cover for lack of study and practice, I think is the wrong approach. If a person does not want to learn the fundamentals, along with the investment in time, study and material costs it entails, then perhaps it's best if they leave the camera on AUTO and proceed that way...or pick a new hobby. </p>

<p>I have got a couple of very good freinds to give film a try and so far they have shot and process Tri-X with me and they loved it. This weekend we went out shooting and one of them shot Elite Chrome 100, Ekar 100, and Portra 160NC to try a couple of films. My freind Val is immidatly hooked on film and shoots tons of photos so she sould help me on my mission to keep film alive.</p>

<p>The issue is: where will the "beginner" get the film developed and the prints printed? I do not have experience with printers working with Ektar. My only experience is what I've done on my own with SilverFast and Vuescan....and it has been frustrating. Does your typical Costco/Walmart do a decent job, at least as well as with Portra or Gold? If not, then better just recommend a film with some history, such as Gold or Portra. As for me, I decided not to bother with Ektar until SilverFast comes out with a film profile for it.</p>

<p>I would recommend Fuji Superia 200 print film. Usually available as a 4-pack of 24 exposure rolls. Good color, not too much grain, and scans well.</p><div></div>

<p>Not necessarily. It's great stuff but it's more expensive than consumer films and probably not necessary for a beginner who is unlikely to get high end scanning, and as has been pointed out it doesn't have as much underexposure latitude as some films. There are consumer films from both Kodak and Fuji in 100/200/400 that are pretty easy to use and minilabs do a fantastic job on, that you can get from Adorama/B&H/Freestyle for about $2 per roll.</p>

<p>That said, I've got photos where I shot a subject with Fuji consumer film and took it to the drugstore, then thought better of it and shot a roll of Ektar and brought it to the local "semi-pro" lab, and the Ektar/better service combination beat the cap out of the first roll in color quality and ungraininess.</p>

Ok, great answers so far. It looks like opinions are kind of split down the middle, and I guess that's what I expected. You'd have to judge based on how eager you think they are to learn, and how patient they are. I think what I'm going to do is recommend Ektar, but with the understanding that it's not as forgiving with exposure and so you need to be a little more careful. Maybe I'll suggest that they start with a consumer film like Kodak Gold 200 or Fuji 200 for a couple of rolls, and then try Ektar.

 

I love Ektar, but I'm just glad I didn't try to learn manual exposure with it. I think I would have gotten discouraged.

 

A Thomas, no I'm too young to remember the "first generation" of Ektar. I'm 31. From what I understand, the old Ektar came out sometime in the early 90's, right? I would have been a kid then, around 13 years old. I took a lot of pictures when I was a kid, but I didn't understand the technical aspects of it. I used a lot of film, but I just used whatever was cheapest and sometimes my parents just bought it for me. In the 90's, I was mostly just using simple point and shoot 110 cameras. I sometimes wish I was more seriously into photography back then. The pictures I've seen from the old Ektar looked amazing. I only learned about the unique characteristics of different films recently.

<p>I'd recommend whatever the beginner in question can get their hands on and feels comfortable buying, budget-wise.</p>

<p>I think that when beginning, shoot quantity is more important than which film to use. Shoot a roll, take it to Rite Aid, Walgreen's, whatever, check the results, then repeat.</p>

<p>This will teach a bit about holding the camera still, exposure control, focus, composition, etc., without breaking the bank.</p>

<p>In fact, a great tool for learning composition is the ubiquitous single-use camera, when you get right down to it.</p>

<p>If this beginner's interest survives the initial thrill, then he/she will start looking at color and thinking about fine-tuning, etc.</p>

 

<p>Ektar and Reala are films I highly recommend for scanning. Tight grain, sharp output, good (albeit different) color....and very decent enlargability</p>

<p>Give it a go. It's a great film. I rate it around EI 64 or 80 and use sunny 16.</p>

<p>This is how it looks on an overcast day:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/1/2/2/2/9/plough1_37653.jpg" alt="" width="850" height="563" /></p>

<p>I don't see the color on Ektar as being that strange. It does get a bluish cast in some circumstance, but as has been pointed out that's actually accurate. I see the color as real but amplified a bit compared to a lot of other films. I used it for flower photos and it really popped.</p>

<p>Reala seems to me to be a bit more amplified than Ektar. Too much so sometimes - I've had it go beyond believability.</p>

<p>For an absolute first time film user...no, I would not recommend using Ektar 100.<br>

I would have a hard time recommending Ektar 100 to a professional who wants to use a color negative film.<br>

I find the film too contrasty.<br />Too saturated for skin tones.<br>

And like you said Chris, underexposure is a killer.<br>

I would recommend a mild mannered film like E100G or E100GX.<br>

(Yes, there is plenty of E100GX still out there)</p>

<p>Underexposure is certainly a killer. So is heat. When introduced to heat Ektar does not do well at all from what I understand.</p>

<p>If anyone has an earnest interest in learning about correct exposure, I'd probably suggest that they start off with some Tri-X, a decent book, a lightmeter and a notepad, and just move straight onto a slide film like Provia 100F for the discipline factor.</p>

<p>If someone is a complete beginner and their technique is a bit wobbly they <em>might</em> want to start with a colour film giving an extra stop or so of speed above Ektar, so Superia 200 as recommended above.</p>

hey guys, don't get me wrong...I love Ektar. It's one of my favorite color films now. I'm just wondering if it might be a little too much for someone who is new to using manual exposure. (Not new to film, just new to manual exposure).

 

 

It kinda seems like if someone has just learned to drive a car, and you hand them the keys to a Porsche.

<p>Well, quite. I think the risk is always that you'll tell someone to shoot film, that they'll pick a particularly unforgiving or challenging product, and will be discouraged by their first results. It can be a bit galling, after the anticipation of waiting for the film to be developed, to come up with lacklustre or poorly exposed shots - or blurry shots due to handholding at slower shutter speeds. </p>

<p>I don't think Ektar would be massively difficult for anyone long as they understand basic concepts of exposure, but like I said the extra stop of speed and forgiving characteristics of Superia 200 might help. Perhaps it's one of these things that's best decided by lighting conditions on the day?</p>

<p>Actually I reccomend something hard to expose to someone learning manual exposure. It helps them learn better. Kodachrome was king for learning how to work with exposure.</p>

<p>NO.<br>

I would recommend Kodak High Definition 400 for beginners.<br>

You can buy it at CVS.<br>

The film is very under-rated. It's very forgiving on the exposure also.<br>

Take a look at some samples: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/clarksphotos/tags/kodakhighdefinition/show/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/clarksphotos/tags/kodakhighdefinition/show/</a></p>

<p>NO.<br>

I would recommend Kodak High Definition 400 for beginners.<br>

You can buy it at CVS.<br>

The film is very under-rated. It's very forgiving on the exposure also.<br>

Take a look at some samples: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/clarksphotos/tags/kodakhighdefinition/show/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/clarksphotos/tags/kodakhighdefinition/show/</a></p>

<p>Yes, I would you recommend Ektar 100 for a beginner.</p>

<p>All color negative films have pretty good exposure latitude. It's precisely because Ektar is a little less forgiving that I'd recommend it. A student will learn more quickly using a film that gives them better feedback about their errors.</p>