Ektar 100: Consenus Is It's Not 100-Speed?

[arjun_mehra]

Am I to understand that the consensus among those who've used the product is that Kodak's new (released October,

2008) Ektar 100 film is not, indeed, best rated at 100? Most users seem to indicate the film fares rather better

at E.I. 80, or even 64.

 

I'm almost through shooting a roll of the emulsion. I started by rating the film 100, but, upon reading many

posts indicating that this doesn't work too well, I exposed subsequent shots as though the stuff were about 64-speed.

 

Thanks.

[zane1664879013]

Consider a film's rated speed a "strong recommendation." Some like their results better when they vary from the recommended. Only you can tell what's right for you.

[mauro_franic]

Arjun, this film captures at least 14 stops, you can use it at ISO 80, 100 or 125 and it won't make a difference.

[mauro_franic]

I can always overexpose negative film 1 or 1/2 stop intentionally since you probably have 7-9 stops of room on the bright side.

[alexander_ghaffari]

According to the Kodak data sheet, this film should be exposed at EI 64 in Sunny 16 conditions.

 

I always look up a film's data sheet and use the published film recommendations the first time I shoot a film, and then I make any necessary adjustments in subsequent rolls.

[Mike Gammill]

If you search the archives as well as back-issues of numerous photo magazines you will find countless recommendations for rating color negative materials at less than box speed. I would recommend performing your own tests to see what rating works best under the conditions that you take pictures. FWIW, when I use Portra 160VC for my wedding photography, I rate it at E.I. 125 and have it processed and printed by a pro lab. Both the 120/220 versions of the film as well as 35mm produce top notch prints and excellent scans.

[arjun_mehra]

Alexander, I believe that's the information Kodak provides for all its 100-speed color negative films (including 160NC and 160VC). Nonetheless, with, say, 100UC or Gold 100, the traditional "Sunny f/16" rule tends to work just fine; people, it appears, are stating that, with Ektar 100, indeed, one must use something akin to a "Sunny f/11" rule, which is another way of saying, "Treat the film as though it were ASA 50."

 

In any event, through all this, I'll end up with a roll the first perhaps ten exposures of which are made using an E.I. of 100, and the remainders of which treat the film as though it were about 64-speed. It should be interesting to see which treatment produces better results. I'll share me experience upon its completion.

[mesullivan]

I too tend to expose negative film at a bit less than rated speed. I've got a roll out now that I exposed at 80 ISO but I didn't have any problems at 100 ISO with the other rolls.

[larrydressler]

Heck I shoot APX 100 at 80. and that ain't color.

[mauro_franic]

My shots at 100 are perfect (all the ones I posted were shot that way). I really don't understand how someone can see a meaningful difference shooting a negative color at 80 or 100.

[mesullivan]

"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" negative film holds highlights pretty well so you expose for the shadows and then develop/print for the highlights and you retain more shadow detail.

[larrydressler]

Mauro Franic

 

You do do your own processing correct? or at least own printing via darkroom or Scanner?

 

Larry

[frank.schifano]

"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" doesn't work for C-41 - at least not the development part. There isn't any wiggle room in the processing, it's all in the exposure.

[mesullivan]

which is why I wrote develop/print. Maybe I should have put develop/print/scan. Boils down to more highlight information is retained in the negative as the more light the darker the area of the negative and the information is retained, etc. etc.

[steven_clark]

Print for the highlights then.

[mauro_franic]

Larry, yes. I do my own printing and scanning. I develop only B&W myself - color I send out.

[ted_marcus1]

"Expose for the shadows" is a good rule for any color negative film. The highlights will take care of themselves, since these films have considerable tolerance for overexposure. That may explain why Kodak recommends a "sunny-11" rule.

[roger_smith4]

These days "develop for the highlights" refers to scanning and post-processing for C41 film.

[StuartMoxham]

With C41 film you expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves as you don't usually have any control of the film proccesing unless you develop color neg yourself. With the old type of machine printers you had to print for the important tones because you had no controll over the contrast so if one was printing portraits one would print for correct skintones. Some color papers were more contrasty than others so one could choose the type of paper but most highstreet labs just had matt or glossy. If you hand print color neg with an enlarger you get more control because you can dodge and burn. With the modern scaning lab one has much more control over the final print but many labs don't make the most of this.

[mesullivan]

Nowdays I have the C-41 developed, scan it, making my adjustments on the coolscan on in post scan processing and have the digital file printed by a commercial or custom printer. This isn't necessarily what I think is best, but what I feel is the best I can do with what equipment I have.

[silverscape]

Arjun, yeah I would have to say that it seems like you might be better off rating it as ISO 80. Ektar 100 is unlike any

other film I've used. With other films, you can underexpose a little bit and the pictures will still turn out decent. In

fact, sometimes I prefer to underexpose a little. But Ektar 100 seems to be very unforgiving with underexposure.

Not only will you lose details in the shadows, but the colors will turn out weird. A little bit of overexposure doesn't

seem to matter, but it will not handle underexposure well at all. Ektar 100 is a great film with a unique look and great

color saturation. But it's a lot more picky about exposure than other Kodak films.

 

So either rate it as ISO 80, or use a "Sunny 11" rule instead of 16. If you use manual exposure and can't get the

exact shutter speed or aperture you need, then you should definitely error on the side of overexposure. This film will

get some really nice pictures, different from any other film I've used so far, but it wants plenty of light.

[silverscape]

...and yes, you're right that it's different from Ultra Color 100. I have used 100 UC before, and it's a lot more forgiving with exposure.

 

I don't want to discourage anyone from Ektar 100. It gets beautiful colors and the way the sky looks will blow you way. It's perfect for landscape photos with a lot of contrasting colors, and it's probably a great film to use for architectural pictures too. But it's just that it's kind of tricky to use because it seems to be very picky about exposure. That was just my experience with it. Error on the side of a little bit of overexposure and it should be fine.

[helenbach]

Based on the sensitometric tests I've done (though admittedly on only three samples) 100UC could be sold as an ISO 160 film - it is just within tolerance. From what I've seen so far, Ektar 100 is no less forgiving than 100UC, but it is slower - I'm not saying that it is slower than ISO 100, however.

 

Best,

Helen

[arjun_mehra]

Makes sense, and explains why 100UC seems to handle "under-exposure" so well.

[benny_spinoza]

When using a built-in camera reflective meter, isn't it sort of meaningless to say that a 100 speed film is really a 80 speed film, or whatever, considering the inherent inaccuracies when metering. When folks say to expose Ektar 100 at 80 or whatever, I think what they really mean is that by setting ones camera metering to 80, they are more likely to expose correctly....not that Ektar 100 is inherently an 80 speed film. And I think the sunny 11 rule is merely to take into account human error in guessing the exposure, when so often the subject may have some shadow detail. I find that the 3D color matrix metering in the Nikon F6 is more intelligent than a simple reflective metering, but still not as accurate as incident metering, or perhaps careful reflective metering using a grey card. However, I usually find that setting the camera to the box speed usually works on the F6.