Kodak Ektar

[rashed_s]

I used Kodak Ektar 100ASA on my hasselblad xpan camera during my second visit to Sri Lanka, I noticed this

film is given blue cast on the shaded areas, would a 81A color corrections filter if used on the lens will help to

minimize this color cost, please?

 

Thank you and all of the best.

[larrydressler]

<p>http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=006577976762569540560%3A1n8vmghdzjw&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=+Ektar+Blues&filter=0&sa.x=0&sa.y=0</p>

[User_502260]

<p>This issue has come up many times. The profiles used when scanning the film will have the most immediate effect. I have tried to work around the problem by changing exposure. In very bright light I rate the film at 80 and in lower light at 64 or 50. </p>

[rashed_s]

I am sorry but I was after correcting the cast with the camera, that why I wanted to know if there is

a color correction filter which can solve this problem, please?

 

Thank you a lot.

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Rashed, the 81A filter would be my first choice to give it a bit of warming, followed by the 81B (maybe a little too much correction). Ektar 100 is a really nice film, fairly clean in the shadows but I tested it late June 2011 (longest days of the year). I've noticed that the blue shadows are more prevalent earlier and later in the year, probably due to sun position and incidence angles (i.e., more blue sky). Suspiciously, I borrowed a Minolta Color Meter some years ago to test that phenomena on Vericolor II (VPS). Result: a very noticeable spectrum shift depending on celestial factors as well as latitude/longitude.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>If you have to go to too many extremes to get the film to do what you want it too, why wouldn't you just use a different film? From what I've seen the blue tint is a product of the film being scanned improperly. That's not to say that it's an easy film to scan, Kodak hasn't released any profiles for Ektar and most "generic" settings don't give good results. Are you scanning yourself or is this a lab?</p>

[mva]

<p>I like Ektar because of the colour casts. If I photograph red things, the blueish shadows look very nice. :-) If not, I easily correct inphotoshop. I think that if you don't like these casts, you should try Portra 160.<br>

Ciao,<br>

Marco</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Ektar is a color negative film, so you can use it essentially in one of two ways:</p>

<ul>

<li>print it - in which case any filtration can easily be corrected in printing, usually by dialing in color just as you would in digital post-processing (there's a reason it's called "Photoshop")</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>scan it - in which case the color cast can be corrected in post-processing. Sometimes it can get complicated, but is usually fairly easy. </li>

</ul>

<p>You can filter it on the camera, of course. But I suspect that might be more complicated than just adding an 81A. I'd guess a 'skylight' filter might often be enough.</p>

<p>The left is the original out of the scanner, and the right is the same image with a little adjustment in Photoshop. As any artist will tell you, and all color photographers should know, skylit shadow IS blue, just not so blue as Ektar makes it.</p><div></div>

[rashed_s]

T5hank you all.

 

Dear Dan I do my own scanning using the Epson V750 Pro. flat bed Scanner and the

BetterScanning tools.

 

Dear Tom, I have the Minolta Color Meter, the Ektar film was recommended by some of my

friends, and I like the film also but just thought I might over come the bluish cast of the shadow

using on lens filters to avoid a lot of digital work on my images, specially the film ones, it looks

more practical to deal with the film and the contents of the image on the field.

 

Thank you again and wishing you all of the best.

[andylynn]

<p>What's going on here is that Ektar film is basically movie film, designed for scanning. It uses less of the color cast correction tricks that other films designed for printing use, because Kodak expects you to do color correction in post. So the blue cast stays in, because it's there in real life. That's not an error, it's a design choice.</p>

[photo5]

<p>JDM, the right one is still blue on my screen. </p>

<p>I shot a lot of Ektar 125 when it was sold. I also shot Ektar 25 a couple times, but it was so slow as to be usable only with a tripod, or hand-held on a sunny day. Gorgeous film. Created in response to Fuji Sensia, which had the 4th layer, and was very fine grained. </p>

<p>When I shoot 35mm film, I usually either shoot slide film, or black and white. I rarely ever shoot C-41 color film anymore. It doesn't scan well, comes out grainier than slide film. I also enjoy projecting slides very much.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>Since you do your own scanning you may look at a plug-in that would cut down on your post processing and standardize things. This plug-in basically recreates what you can do with curves and other things that Photoshop does, but it's a couple of clicks rather than trudging through. http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html The plug-in is free to try.<br>

And you may take a look at a condensed version of a workflow. http://benneh.net/blog/2010/09/25/vuescan-colorperfect-a-guide/ He uses Vuescan, but if you do a little digging you can find tutorials for Silverfast and Epson's software (as well as others).</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Remember that any color correction filter will change the entire color balance, not just the shadows, so you will have to determine if that is acceptable or not. But shadows are generally, especially in the landscape, going to be bluish. The more saturated the sky (skylight) the bluer they will be and this will also show up more at altitude. A good friend often used an 85b filter when shooting chrome film in the High Sierras where the subject was in complete shade.</p>

<p>The 81a will certainly help the shadows but will affect the overall color balance.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>SilverFast now has specific profiles for Ektar 100, and they do make it easier to deal with the color balance.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>JDM, the right one is still blue on my screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is, so was the shadow in the real world; lit --as it was--by the blue sky on the other side of the 'gazebo'.</p>

<p>That's why I put in the bit about trained artists knowing what color shadows really are.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Trained artist or not, I never liked Ektar. Unless I'm shooting something red that is. Then I absolutely love it. Two bright red thumbs up!</p>

<p>(please don't read too deeply into that one.)</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>If I wanted deep I would not listen to all the BS that is on the internet.... Some like it some don't I drive A GMC and use Nikon and Kiev.... You now know...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Ektar aims to be a replacement for slide film, so it has some of the characteristics of Ektachrome.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>That does explain the inconsistent colours and the relatively shallow exposure range.</p>

<p>It seems like producing a negative version of a slide film is like making a product with all the disadvantages of its predecessor and without the inherent advantage. Now that very few systems - professional or otherwise - are truly optical without any digital processing, I'm not sure I see the advantage of making something <em>like</em> slide film. After scanning and processing, Portra produces (to my eyes, at least) a better 'raw capture', and you don't even get the fun of working with something that is a little offbeat in today's market, which is the actual slide.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>All the above are fine comments & suggestions. Adding the 81a filter on the camera is worth exploring, imho. I add such a filter on some films depending on lighting and conditions; whether I am scanning or not. In the 'old' days, that is what many did to compensate or change the anticipated result. We all see things a bit differently and this is your choice as the photographer.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>This is the achilles foot of Ektar. It is a huge design flaw IMO. Everyone scans at home now, so why produce a neg film that will not scan well on most existing consumer scanners? Did Kodak try field testing this with the range of common scanners out there now? It is consumers, not pros shooting 35mm now, so it should scan easily and with good colors on home scanners. Ektar has a huge flaw in this respect - it consistently scans with a terrible blue cast, requiring every image be laboriously tweaked in photoshop to make it look decent. I dont want to spend lots of time just getting my images to look as good as they would have straight out of the scanner with slide film, or Gold 200, or Porta for that matter.<br /> It does however, give great results "out of the box" with sunsets. Fantastic, spectacular results in fact. No Photoshop required, just the way I like it.</p>

[fred_mackintosh]

<p>Blue cast, I can handle. I agree with those who have pointed out that it is easy to deal with, and is also a natural consequence of shade. But, as for Ektar, I just don’t get it. I was very excited when it came out, but Ektar keeps disappointing me, specifically with respect to color. I have no complaints about Ektar’s grain, but its colors are just not predictable, or maybe even reproducible, at least for me. Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but I have even tried it in my nearly perfectly metering F6 with bracketing for both 2/3 over and underexposure. It just does not work for me, while Portra 160VC (for instance) is almost always perfect. I also suspect Ektar may have lower resolution (acutance?) than Provia 160VC. I am pretty sure a number of E6 films (e.g., Provia, Velvia) outperform Ektar in this regard, obviously with lower exposure latitude.</p>

<p>Sometimes, Ektar is fine. It seems to perform well in low contrast situations. But, with a blue sky, sometimes I get a nice blue, and sometimes it is more turquoise! This can happen on the same roll, so I don’t think this has to do with development. I made the mistake the first time I used Ektar to intentionally overexpose it by ~1/2 stop, as I had seen suggested. This seemed to aggravate the coloration problems. I find no advantages of Ektar over the Portra 160s, which are far more predictable for color. I recently started hording my current favorite, 160VC, while it is still available. As far as I can tell, that is Kodak’s “slide-like” C-41 film. I have very consistent and good results from that, even for someone like me who used to be an E6-only guy (hence, the initial excitement over Ektar’s introduction!). So far, the new 160 also seems excellent, with possibly even better color balance than the VC, without much if any loss of contrast, saturation. At least, the new 160 seems to need NO tweaking of color balance in scans from my coolscan V. The prior Portras needed minor magenta suppression. But, I just can’t figure out a way to get good scans from ~30-40% of my Ektar frames.</p>

<p> </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I think part of the problem some find with Ektar 100 is that it was derived from the movie film line of Vision films and was designed with ENC processing in mind. That meaning the origional emulsion was for CD3 not CD4. I have always wondered if running it through ECN-2 processing/</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Ektar is promoted as the 'finest grain' film on the market. I don't doubt that this is true. I do question whether or not design flaws were purposely ignored for the sake of achieving this claim.</p>

<p>As to the "35mm film is just for hobbyists" argument, that is mostly true. Some art photographers still use it (I use it for handheld work at night), but it's not a 'pro' format. I've been told by reputable sources that Ektar is excellent in 4x5 ... but if you don't like the taste of Diet Coke from a 12 ounce can, I have a hard time believing you'll like it any more out of a 2 liter bottle.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I just loaded a roll of it in 120 in a Rolleicord... We shall see what happens. I shot a roll onetime in an old box camera for fun but that can't count. I do find it interesting that Kodak wanted to make it in 35mm only but after MF people bitched enough it sells well in 120. Many times it is sold out. I was not aware it was made in LF.</p>