niccoury Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>Especially on an F100.</p> <p>How's it expose?</p> <p>~ nic</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdunker Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p><a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00RMDV">link</a><br> <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00RQjo">link</a><br> <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00RMBw">link</a></p> <p>There's been a bit of talk about it of late, particularly when it first came out. The above were from a quick search but may yield something of interest. Some of the original posters from the other threads may jump in with further results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>After shooting off my mouth about exposing it at box speed, I now agree with others to at least make sure you don't under-expose it. Set your lightmeter (if in-camera or relfective) to overexpose by 1/3 stop, just to make sure you don't under-expose it. I've only shot 3 rolls of it, but when I give it enough light, the images look excellent. I think the skin tones are also excellent. The colors are bold. I don't have enough experience to decide if they are too bold. Time will tell. Please give it a try. But it is best if you do the scanning yourself. I got pictures back from Dwaynes, and they don't come close to what I can do with my scanner at home. If you sent it out, try to at least get Kodak picture perfect. That process does a good job. But home scanning is better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niccoury Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>I'll be printing it at a local lab in Monterey that does a bang up job with usual color neg film of Portra VC, both 160 and 400.</p> <p>Benny, any flash usage with it? I may bring it into my wedding arsenal...</p> <p>Sounds like Kodak color film in general underexposes a bit. I know for Ektachrome, it's best to overexpose it a tad.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_o1 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>I'm not crazy about the reds. But this film is very fun to use. I'm glad I have this and Portra.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>Nic....Not much flash usage, except some fill-flash. I'm not sure I would say Kodak color film underexposes. The Portra family does well even if accidently underexposed a bit, particularly 800 speed. I think the Portra family is the most forgiving color film there is.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john clark Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>How does it compare to the old Ektar 25 print film which was discontinued in the mid nineties? That was a great film if I recall correctly and I miss it. Slow, but then the best things come to those who wait (and use a tripod)...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>I've used about 3 or so rolls all of which I've had put through a 1hr minilab. So far impressions are good, saturated red/magentas without skin tones going too red (like Velvia) and very sharp for a 100 speed film. Grain I'd say is very fine probably finer than any other 100 print film, I can't see any grain on prints I've had done- but I've only done 8x12 as I'm in the middle of my evaluation.<br> It's winter here in the UK and the weather is dull and cold, here is a shot made on a winter walk with the wife and kids which shows how it can record magenta/red without going over the top, in fact the minilab print scanned here is a little cyan/green if anything.<br> <img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/107653065.jpg" alt="" /><br> <img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/107611186.jpg" alt="" /><br> A very promising film, sharp, vibrant colour with nice skin tones and fine grain not unlike the old 25 ASA version.<br> Mark</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall_pukalo Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>It is a great film overall. My only gripe is that it is VERY blue sensitive. Reference the sensitivity spike in the blue region of the spectral response curve on Kodaks spec sheet. This may have been done to give polarized blue skies and great water scenic shots, but has caused me problems on two occasions.</p> <p>Once was shooting outdoors on a heavily overcast day. It gave a very heavy cast to the scene, unlike I have ever encountered in negative or slide (have not tried Provia, which supposedly has this issue too) film before. This showed up in my scans on my Minolta 5400 scanner, using the default software. It was difficult to correct all the shots so that they looked consistent (but I'm not a PS expert by any means). However, the prints and minilab scans looked great. The second time was last month when I shot the Chicago skyline from the top of the hancock building as the sun set. It picked up all the blue haze and blue shadows in the scene (which my eye didnt detect at the time). This time, it was in the minilab scans too. My Kodachrome 200 which I shot at the same time had no such issue.</p> <p>Overall, it is a fantastic film - great skin tones, bold colors, no grain, hi resolution. Just be aware of its blue sesitivity. (Hope Kodak can tune this out of the film in the future)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randrew1 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>In the comparison I ran <br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00RPQz">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00RPQz</a><br> Ektar 100 was finer grain than Ektar 25. It wasn't quite as sharp. It has brighter colors. It's got me shooting more film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim gray Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>I liked the couple rolls I've shot of it. I exposed at EI 50 and 80 and it worked out quite nicely. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_o1 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>Randall,<br> It is funny how opinions can be different. I love the rendition of the blue subjects I have photographed. I also love the yellows. I have a few shots where shade went blue so I will keep that in mind for future stuff.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
25asa Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>"How does it compare to the old Ektar 25 print film which was discontinued in the mid nineties? "<br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00RWjZ">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00RWjZ</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
25asa Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>Here are a couple shots I took this Christmas that just passed on Ektar 100. Its definately a darker toned film.<br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8505193">http://www.photo.net/photo/8505193</a><br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8505216">http://www.photo.net/photo/8505216</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdrose Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>I really like the film. With film scanners now available for home users I doubt that I will be shooting much slide film in 35mm anymore. My only gripe is that it isn't available in 120.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john clark Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 <p>Scott - thanks for the link, I'll go and check it out now :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_valvo Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>I'm primarily a slide shooter, but picked up a few rolls to try. Its a sharp film and I really like the skin tones. I shot it in an F6 at 80iso. See attached.<br> Thanks,<br> Anthony</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cec_humphreys Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 <p>Hello there. I'm jolly keen to try this film but our local lab (which is very good) is affiliated to Fuji and I'm sure I read somewhere that this film is at its best when developed and printed with Kodak chemicals and paper.<br />Any truth in that and, if so, can anyone recommend somewhere good to have the film sent (preferably in the UK)?<br />Many thanks for any suggestions,<br />Cec</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_marcus1 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 <p>What Vuescan profile works best? I'd imagine Kodak would make Ektar 100 similar to one of the Portra films, but there's no way to tell without some trial and error.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now