Ektar 100 - Dissappointing Results - First Film in Years

[markdeneen]

<p>More good information---thanks.<br>

1. This is 35mm film (Yashica Electro 35 GSN w/45mm f/1.7)<br>

2. It's a bit hard for me to evaluate the negatives as I have no experience in the last 20 years looking at color negatives! However, they look nicely exposed for the most part.<br>

3. I didn't get the scans on disc.<br>

4. As for "editing" digital images, I have two complete systems, Mac and Linux, and I am very good with Adobe ACR, P'Shop, GIMP, UFRaw and a few others. That side of the equation - the digital side - I am comfortable with. (I have a Plustek scanner on the way).</p>

 

[richard_]

<p>Mark D. - I've gotten excellent prints using Ektar 100. But i use a local Pro lab - where al ot of their customers are wedding photographers, etc... and its gotta be done right the first time with consistent results today, or any other day of the week. Of course, things can go wrong - were all human, but a good Pro lab will really work with you when it does (rarely) happens. Anyhow, you might want to seek one out. Regards, richard</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>If you really want the finest lab in the world (well U.S. and Lab in Paris) would be Richards Photo Lab in Hollyweird. L.A.<br>

The personal service from them is unmatched. They listen, read each order carefully, make amazing scans, for example, depending on what "look" you like they have several scanners. I perfer the look from the Fuji SP-2000 and the Dip and Dunk process they use. I over exp my Fuji +1 or more, tell them that and to run it at box speed. I explain how I like my scans. etc.... It's amazing service. Now, they are not cheap but the cheapest is NEVER the least expensive.<br>

This in my opnion. But I strongly advice for them. I use to use A&I, still a fine lab but I don't find the product nor the service anywhere close.<br>

Best and luck,<br>

Tom</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>The description you provide of the results (no image I can see anywhere here though) is a perfec example of Ektar 100 being underexposed. By the sounds of things, you're a good couple of stops under.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>Mark, I wouldn't give up on Ektar. Your camera might be an issue, but your results are also an example of what I have gotten from Costco.<br>

I actually gave up film photography about 5 years ago, and went all digital, because the results from Costco were so abysmal. I came back from vacation with about 20 rolls of film, a mix of Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold, shot on a known-good camera. The processing must have been catastrophic, because the negs are variably thin and extremely grainy, the scans abysmal, and the prints worse. I got a handful of acceptable images from those rolls of film. I was so disgusted.<br>

Since getting serious about photography, I now shoot a lot of film. But if the film matters to me, it goes straight to a lab I trust. I always get reliable processing and beautiful scans.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Deneen....</p>

<p>May I suggest your results may be from a plethora of problems? I have had the same film processed by at least three different machines, getting very different results each time. On the other hand, if I scan the film myself, with any of my well-adjusted home scanners, and print without any further adjustment, I get good middle-of-the-road results, which when tweaked, look fantastic. </p>

<p>Many of us film enthusiasts in years past complained about the pimply-faced, unknowledgeable, and untrained high school dropout who was processing film at the big box stores and drug store chains. These same people are now evidently working at most of the so-called professional camera stores. And...why not? Because most customers either don't know any better or care enough to ask for redos. Although the digital age has caused a lot more pictures to be taken, it has also led to the dumbing down of acceptable picture quality. </p>

<p>I have a number of old cameras that call for the 5.6 volt mercury batteries. I find the voltage difference, stepping up to 6 volts, if anything, is less than a half a stop. Although not a definitive answer, I suspect the battery voltage is not causing any problem with the film that is thought to have a two-stop latitude. </p>

<p>Ninety-nine point nine percent of all color negative film printing is done by in-machine film scanning and digital printing. Outfits that can or will expose through glass are few and far between. </p>

<p>So now the customer has untrained operators, operating under-serviced chemical processors, scanning with maladjusted high speed scanners, then printing with unserviced printers. You were expecting good results? It probably isn't your camera or the film that is at fault. </p>

<p>Even with idiot processing, my results, although different, have been not dull, but colorful, with colors reminiscent of Kodachrome past. People say that shadows tend to blue out on the film. They're right in more ways than one. The actual color temperature of an object in shadow is higher, or bluer, than that same object in sunlight. Color temperature meters bear this out. Fuji claims a fourth layer in some of its film, whose intention is to make the print look more like the perception through human eyes. We often see what we expect to see. Fuji uses that fourth layer to fool the machine, the same way our color perception fools us in natural light. Furthermore, the printing machines made by manufacturers, who also make film, are factory adjust to work best when exposing their film on their paper. Kodak machines, using Kodak chemicals on Kodak paper are getting pretty rare, as are Kodak products and Kodak employees. I'm so old, I remember when Kodak was a real company and a leader in its field. </p>

<p>Ektar 100 is the first time I've thought they've done something right in many years. If you like the look of traditional photography, especially from the Kodachrome days, and are lucky enough to find a knowledgeable printer with good equipment, you may well find yourself liking the results of Ektar 100. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[markdeneen]

<p>I got my replacement scanner today. So, the first thing I am going to try is scanning these negs myself, and see what the devil I have on film. I'll take some of the negs back to Costco later and have them printed with normal correcting turned on - which is what I should have done in the first case. There was nothing crucial on these rolls. It was just for fun and to wring out the camera controls. So, nothing really has been lost aside from a few dollars.<br>

I'm in a small town with not too many choices of processing. We have a "camera shop" I'll try. Beyond that I'll be looking at mail order. I was hoping Costco would be at least mediocre because if nothing else, they are FAST! :-)</p>

[markdeneen]

<p>Ok, here is a scan I just made on the Plustek 7300. Honestly, this is going to be hard. My setup is:<br>

-Mac OS/X<br>

-VueScan Professional Version - scanner software<br>

- Plustek 7300 film scanner<br>

Ok, first problem is that in the VueScan software, under "film type" there are no less than 10 versions (or generations, as they call them) of Ektar! Since I tossed the box out, I have no clue which it is. Be that as it may, I selected the latest version, which I think also yielded the best scan.<br>

There are OODLES, and OODLES of scan adjustments, and I have not learned them yet. It's similar to the adjustments on a raw processors like ACR. Well, anyway, here is one image. It now feels a bit more reddish than I think it ought to be. ha ha.</p>

<div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>Yep still the Ektar blue I see</p>

[markdeneen]

<p>Ok, here's the same thing scanned with all DEFAULT settings for "color negative." No adjustments of any kind. This scan looks quite a bit like the prints I talked about.</p><div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>I am starting to think Ektar needs a warming filter....<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2405/4513007522_b066f7c24b_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="691" /></p>

[greg_peterson3]

<blockquote>

<p>I am starting to think Ektar needs a warming filter....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. It needs about twenty seconds in Photoshop "Curves".</p><div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>Cool can you email me how you did that but I use PS Elements so be nice as I don't have much money. :)</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

[greg_peterson3]

<p>Larry,<br>

I don't know what's available in Elements, but in Photoshop I just went into "Curves", selected the middle eye-dropper (gray) and clicked it on the area under the cherub's arm. I had to try a couple of time before I was happy. It took longer to make the "two-up" to post.<br>

It's important to remember that after you get a picture into the digital domain, the color balance, saturation, hue, etc. is all up to you. See attached.</p><div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>Thanks Greg I have to install the new Elements I just got as I am using 5.whatever no to 8.new to me.</p>

[markdeneen]

<p>Ok, I think I have some conclusions here.<br>

1. The negatives I shot were mostly exposed OK, and processed OK. I think I can say this camera is working ok. Yes, there were many spoiled shots, but I think those were just my errors. There's a couple of nice shots too, so just as in golf, it's that nice 2-wood from 200 yards out on the 13th hole that lands on the green which brings you back the next Saturday! Every shot need not be perfect.<br>

2. The Costco prints because of the "no correction" were too blue in addition to some other odd errors.<br>

3. My new scanner (Yahooo!) allows a whopping amount of control. So much, that I actually don't know how to make a real base line. I have to think about this. The scanner will produce any reality I dial in. I now believe there is more range in the film scanning than there was in digital RAW images! That's a frightening thought!<br>

4, The next challenge is printing large club photos from these scanned negatives, which was my original goal at the git-go.<br>

Thanks to everyone for such neat information and advice.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Hey Mark, about two years I want back, almost 100 pct to Film photography. It blows me away, even today, how nice people on this forum are, always taking the time to try and help a fella.Neat huh? Since then I've still been 100 pct in but I slow now becoming a bit more weak. I even purchased a stunning Jobo large processor, scanning not only my work but other pro's as well. Scanning is always a challange however. For VIP rolls I can't recommend Richards enough.<br>

Did you purchase the Silverfast Pro app yet or are you using a demo. That seems like a heck of a lot of Horse Power for the 7300...<br>

Bottom line. Stay with it. I find (IMO) that there is still not a 65,000$ digital med format back out there that can compete with a well expoxed, nicely developed, well scanned 120 Negative.<br>

Best of luck<br>

Tom</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Looking good! </p>

<p>My only advice about scanning is to scan relatively 'flat' (with a generic negative profile even) and do most of the heavy correction in Photoshop. Especially if you are comfortable with Photoshop.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Tim is really bang on with that. Flat is uber important but I think with the 7300 you have no choice, no?<br /> If you end up returning the 7300, think about the Epson V500 that you'll get even cheaper used, along with some glass ANR plates from betterscanning.com. Again, that's if your unhappy with the scans. This will also allow you to scan up to 120 if you ever want to.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Ektar 100 is a very difficult film to use, in that it is so sensitive to blue light. Yes, it does need a warming filter to correct this on the negative - or Photoshop tweaking to remove it in the scan.<br>

Also, getting correct color balance from a scanned Ektar negative using a consumer film scanner is also a challenge, even under perfect lighting conditions. I know my (once top of the line) Minolta 5400 I scanner has problems with it anyways, and many others have complained of this issue using other scanners. <br>

OTOH, getting good colors using my Kodak f235+ minilab scanner is not an issue. And, I have had good results from Noritsu minilab scans.<br>

I am suprised Kodak didnt make this an easier to scan color negative for home users, such as the 100UC and 400UC were. That is, considering most who are still into film have consumer film scanners, and for this film to be successful long term requires that they (we) be able to easily get good results from it when home scanned.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<blockquote>

<p>Ektar 100 is a very difficult film to use, in that it is so sensitive to blue light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my experience it's a very <strong>easy </strong>film to use. It has great latitude and, if you shoot a gray card, it only takes a few seconds to get the color balance dead center.</p>

<p>I've shot more than 100 rolls of 120 so far, and I scan it with a Nikon CS9000 without any special settings.</p>

<p>I just put in an order for some 4X5 Ektar 100, and I'm really looking forward to having that fine grain in a large format.</p>

[damaso2]

<p>I agree with Greg when I did a test for Kodak before the film was launched I just went out and shot on a fairly sunny day. Using a Nikon Coolscan V I got nearly perfect results. Clearly you want to go to a good lab to have it processed and I would recommend scanning it yourself on a dedicated film scanner...</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3640376832_3c85496cc7_o.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="524" /></p>

[andylynn]

<p>There is no "Ektar blue". (Keep saying that and you'll make it true. No, really, this works.)</p>

<p>The trouble with Ektar is that it's digital. It's a raw file. Digital processing is required. Here's how I do it the fast way - this is more automatic / less tweakable than doing the least processed scan and Photoshopping and works on traditionally exposed negs:</p>

<p>-Make sure everything is color managed - profile the monitor and set up your OS for that, set Vuescan to know that's your monitor profile and set it to AdobeRGB output.<br>

-Set up Vuescan by previewing a piece of blank film leader, locking exposure, previewing again, locking base color. Film type should stay on Generic Negative.<br>

-Scan with Auto Levels. Make a judgment call - save a 16 bit per channel image if you want heavy tweakability or 8 bit if you're okay or almost okay with the scanner's output.<br>

-Tweak color balance in software of choice.<br>

-Add image to your digital workflow/library.</p>

<p>I find this very easy and don't get color casts. Here are some samples.</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

<p>next...</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

<p>One more</p><div></div>