PDA

View Full Version : Ektar 100 review...


Roger Hicks
12-18-2009, 11:59
...is now up on the site at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews%20kodak%20ektar%20100.html

The webmaster has finally moved house and there should a a lot more happening on the site soon.

Cheers,

R.

Mongo Park
12-18-2009, 12:49
Read your article with interest as have been a frustrated Ektar user. Whether with an M2 (& Gossen) M6 or R7; whether over exposed, bang on target or under exposed I always get absolutely awful saturation of greens and blues. I may be a bad workman but I'll not blame the tools, just the film. I remain a happy bunny with Reala and Fuji Pro 400H. May have to give ze Ektar one last shot - just to see if I can conquer the *******.

sevo
12-18-2009, 13:03
Whether with an M2 (& Gossen) M6 or R7; whether over exposed, bang on target or under exposed I always get absolutely awful saturation of greens and blues. I may be a bad workman but I'll not blame the tools, just the film.

The real problem is that Ektar 100 is too new to be profiled on most scanners and minilabs. To make good use of Ektar 100 you need either a lab that has bent over to manually colour match its scanners or printers to Ektar, or you will have to calibrate your own scanner - or enlarge and print to paper the old way.

wlewisiii
12-18-2009, 13:18
Great review, Roger - probably love it since it mirrors my experiances with the film. I like your comment to "Think of it as a negative film with the latitude of slide film". I find myself setting my Gossen at 125 now when shooting Ektar as I find that works best for my eyes.

Also I want to say "thanks" for opening up all your content as I've been gaining quite a bit from it.

William

clachnacuddin
12-18-2009, 16:55
Never tried it before but after reading that I think I'll give it a go!

Trius
12-18-2009, 17:05
Thanks, Roger. I get the sense that this would be a great match to the Konica C35 ... to me there has always been "something" about that little camera and colour neg film. I have not shot one frame of colour with the Hexanon 40 AR, but I'm thinking the outstanding sharpness of that lens combined with Ektar might make a really interesting experience.

jpberger
12-19-2009, 21:34
The real problem is that Ektar 100 is too new to be profiled on most scanners and minilabs. To make good use of Ektar 100 you need either a lab that has bent over to manually colour match its scanners or printers to Ektar, or you will have to calibrate your own scanner - or enlarge and print to paper the old way.
YMMV but I find that scanner profiles are pretty useless at the best of times. Scanning as a positive, grabbing the white point off the rebate between frames and inverting in photoshop usually works great. If the scan comes up with a blue cast it's usually just a matter of bumping the levels a little bit-- easy peasy.

ItsReallyDarren
12-19-2009, 22:19
Great review. I didn't know about the shift in saturation in regards to exposure. I have a few rolls I've been meaning to try out. It'll be interesting to play around with the exposure to get the desired saturation in each frame.

bwcolor
12-20-2009, 08:21
After reading the review, I realize why this film is my favorite low ISO color film. In fact, since using this film I haven't felt the need to unwrap my Canon 1DMKIII, back from CLA at Canon and the combination of fine "grain" and high levels of sharpness have me using less Astia, which is getting darn expensive to shoot/develop. This was one of the last slow films that I tried, because, for some reason, I had the impression that it murdered skin tones and was best used for landscapes. I love my Ektar 100 people shots and per the review, I now suspect that those that hate Ektar skin tones are overexposing. I don't use flash with any frequency, but the latitude, increased saturation/color shift and contrast with exposure mean care when using flash indoors. Keep the contrast down, unless you have a specific look in mind. Thanks Roger..

Damaso
12-20-2009, 15:35
A great film thanks for reviewing!

btgc
12-20-2009, 15:50
I noticed it generally doesn't need to be overexposed. Box speed worked fine for me.

Zonan
12-20-2009, 16:12
Nice review, Roger! I find myself using it more and more- pushing Portra (still nice) to the back of the fridge. Thanks.

ray*j*gun
12-20-2009, 16:21
I just picked up some in 120.....I will shoot the first roll of it with my RZ67 and see how it works in medium format.

TWoK
12-20-2009, 17:15
In a world full of Velvia and Fuji 100 I just don't see room for Ektar. I tried it, it was okay and nothing more.

Roger Hicks
12-21-2009, 00:52
In a world full of Velvia and Fuji 100 I just don't see room for Ektar. I tried it, it was okay and nothing more.

No, what you mean is, you found it OK and nothing more. How many rolls did you try? There are others who actively dislike Velvia for most applications. That doesn't mean we (necessarily) dismiss those who do like it.

Also, one of the big reasons for Ektar's existence is that it's a lot easier to find someone to process C41 than E6. That's one reason why there's room for it. Another is that it isn't a 'me-too' film: it actually does have unique characteristics. That's another reason there's room for it. To find it indifferent is one thing, and a matter of taste. To say that there is no room for it suggests that you have not thought very hard about it, or at least, about others' needs and tastes rather than your own.

Cheers,

R.

jmilkins
12-21-2009, 02:02
Very informative Roger and Frances - thank you. Is the emulsion the same in 120? I've not used the 35mm yet, but like the 120 very much.

TWoK
12-21-2009, 02:57
I tried a few rolls. Compared with cheaper C-41 films Ektar at it's best isn't twice or three times as good, but it is that much more expensive. Another issue is that none of the C-41 minilabs here can develop Ektar so it's even harder than E-6 for me to develop. While Velvia isn't for everyone Provia is similarly priced and I prefer it. I do like that Kodak is still creating new films despite the lower demand for film from many shooters.

elshaneo
12-21-2009, 03:03
Thanks a lot Roger and Frances for the review + photo samples. So far I've shot only 3 rolls of Ektar 100, and my results concur with yours, and I like very much this new 35mm film :)

The big problem is that Kodak is not selling this 35mm film in Australia. I have to buy it from Ebay and unfortunately the postage cost makes the film on the expensive side...

mabelsound
12-21-2009, 03:39
I like it pretty well, but I think I actually prefer Reala, which I find easier to get decent color-balanced scans out of, especially in the shadows or on cloudy days. This could be my color-poor vision though. At the moment I'm trying to burn through all my C41 and get going on a better E6 regimen...we'll see how that goes...

Good review, Roger, I really appreciate it. After maybe 20 rolls, I think Ektar is definitely the sunny-day C41 film of choice.

Trius
12-21-2009, 04:09
Twok: C41 is C41, so I don't understand your statement about labs not being able to develop it. Perhaps they don't have a profile for it in their printer, but that's different. They should be able to get the profile, but I normally get develop only and scan myself.

tom_uk
12-21-2009, 08:32
Thank you for the review, Roger. Your conclusions fit with the little experience I've got with it.

I took a few rolls on a cruise into the E Med in late September/October, along with an M6TTL and three lenses (35 + 50mm Summarit f2.5s, 90mm Elmarit). I took several rolls of Ektar, and had them developed and scanned at Peak Imaging. I've posted some of the images here (http://picasaweb.google.com/home); the Santorini 2009, Capri/Naples & Kusadasi albums would be examples. I think I got the exposure wrong on some of the Capri images (and these are the 'good' ones...).

There's an interesting comparison on that site between the two Santorini albums. The 2007 set was, I think, wholly digital - probably a Nikon D80. When I got the recent images back I was very stuck by the differences between the two sets of images. Admittedly there were considerable real differences: different time of year (end of June in 2007, end of September 2009), different time of day (middle of the day in 2007, afternoon in 2009), and even a different (though similar...) place on the island. Even so, I'm struck by the different between the two sets look. Could the medium be a factor? Or are the differences objective?

TWoK
12-21-2009, 12:24
Twok: C41 is C41, so I don't understand your statement about labs not being able to develop it. Perhaps they don't have a profile for it in their printer, but that's different. They should be able to get the profile, but I normally get develop only and scan myself.

I don't understand it either, but it's more than a scam by Fuji (all but one of the local labs are Fuji labs). Each Fuji machine has a warning that Ektar 100 cannot be developed in the Fuji minilab. Then our Kodak developer sells Ektar, but cannot develop it according to them. He said it requires a newer machine and it's not worth the investment. The Kodak developer does E-6 and C-41, which is rare to find locally anymore. I'll take a picture next time I see the warning not to process Ektar through a C-41 machine.

Roger Hicks
12-21-2009, 12:31
This is indeed seriously weird. You've no need to contact Kodak, of course, seeing you don't like the stuff, but I hope someone else in Japan will do so.

Incidentally I apologize for the somewhat testy tone of my last response.

Cheers,

R.

TWoK
12-21-2009, 12:34
This is indeed seriously weird. You've no need to contact Kodak, of course, seeing you don't like the stuff, but I hope someone else in Japan will do so.

Incidentally I apologize for the somewhat testy tone of my last response.

Cheers,

R.

I'll try to find out more next time I am down there.

wlewisiii
12-21-2009, 12:56
Each Fuji machine has a warning that Ektar 100 cannot be developed in the Fuji minilab.

That just seems seriously weird to me. All the local one hour shops use Fuji mini-labs & have no trouble with it. My neighborhood drugstore mini-lab is Fuji. C-41 is C-41. I don't doubt you but I wonder what the confusion is.

I used to shoot a whole lot of Fuji Reala & still shoot a lot of Superia 200, 400 & 800 for snapshots. Ektar 100 is the first time I've found any Kodak film that I like better.

OTOH the dollar/yen rate is ... unpleasant... right now so at least a part of it is simply making a virtue of necessity... :eek:

William

Nikkor AIS
12-21-2009, 13:44
I only shoot a bout a half a dozen rolls of Ektar 100 and so far I like it. I got mine for $5.00 a roll so it's was actually cheaper than Tri-X/XP2 at least around these parts. The color is punchy and since I use my D3 to check exposer I haven't intentional tested it under/overexposed. I get the film souped and a disk burned for $3.99. Cheap good eats:D.

Gregory

Robin P
12-21-2009, 13:46
Some very nice photos in the review Roger, and thanks for the confession about straightening verticals in software - I'll feel much less guilty next time I do that!
I shoot & scan C41 B&W when I want black & white prints and, in theory, I have nice DSLR for colour prints but somehow images made from colour neg seem to have more "soul". Must give Ektar a try as my stock of Konica VX colour neg is nearly exhausted.

Cheers, Robin

TWoK
12-21-2009, 14:20
I will snap a picture of the sign the next time I'm at a local lab. Then maybe jonmanjiro can translate it as my Japanese isn't the best.

mabelsound
12-21-2009, 14:27
I develop all my own C41 and Ektar comes out just like everything else. I even develop it with other brands of film in the same tank, and it doesn't do anything bad to the chemistry.

TWoK
12-21-2009, 14:29
I develop all my own C41 and Ektar comes out just like everything else. I even develop it with other brands of film in the same tank, and it doesn't do anything bad to the chemistry.
Again, I don't know what it is but NO local C-41 developers will touch Ektar 100 where I live in Japan. They all send it off for development. It takes 3-7 days to get it back.

sevo
12-21-2009, 22:37
Again, I don't know what it is but NO local C-41 developers will touch Ektar 100 where I live in Japan. They all send it off for development. It takes 3-7 days to get it back.

For development or for printing? That is, have you ever tried to develop a film only without getting prints at the same time?

Fujifilm Europe and US have not published any warnings or recommendations regarding processing of Ektar in CN-16 or in their minilabs, and their Europe support does not know of an issue either - which does not sound as if there was a technical development problem.

Maybe Fujifilm has a "free support and warranty for exclusively Fuji labs" marketing scheme in Japan which the minilab owners don't want to violate.

As far as printing goes, I would not be surprised either if lab owners avoided buying new film profiles for some exotic Kodak pro film whose volumes in a consumer lab in deep Fuji territory probably won't pay for the profile upgrade within a decade or two.

TWoK
12-22-2009, 03:23
So I stopped by the minilab tonight to have a roll of Superia 400 developed that I just shot with the Nikkor-S 8.5cm f/1.5. They said that now Ektar is no problem. I couldn't get a picture of the sign because they took it down. They said Kitamura's corporate headquarters said that they couldn't develop Ektar without genuine chemicals. They now have them and can develop it. Seems screwy to me, but they said they could not develop Ektar 100 no matter what before. It sounds more like a conspiracy from Fuji/Kitamura. Kitamura is a large camera chain in Japan.

btgc
12-22-2009, 03:30
Genuine chemicals for C-41 sounds like tainted kernel.

Roger Hicks
12-22-2009, 03:39
Thanks for the investigation.

Cheers,

R.

Renzsu
12-23-2009, 12:03
Ektar's like a temperamental supercar haha, one mistake and you end up upside down in a ditch, but get it right and it's sooo nice.

bwcolor
03-21-2010, 08:17
I found a lab that I like. Sending many rolls at one time is most economical. Any issue with keeping exposed Ektar for a month or two prior to sending to the lab? Of course, keeping temperature and humidity under control.

Steve Bellayr
03-21-2010, 08:51
From Roger Hick's article which I believe is worth repeating.

"The trick is to round exposures up slightly for more saturated colours and down slightly for less saturated colours." Roger Hicks