Kodak Ektar vs Gold 100

ChrisPlatt

ChrisPlatt

Thread Killer
Local time
7:09 AM
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
3,404
Alright, enough with the initial hype. At more than double the price, why should
I switch from Kodak Gold 100 film to Ektar as my everyday color negative film?

TIA,
Chris
(putting on asbestos suit ;) )
 
I think that the answer to your question is not to have an "everyday" film. Each film has interesting qualities and you can match these to your subject.

I love Gold 100, it seems to give all my images a really vintage feel. Here's one of my favorites:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=97963

But I see two big reasons to try Ektar

1.) all of the images I've seen show that it's got a really nice tone of colors, and that fine grain is beautiful


2.) Kodak is showing its loyalty to film by continuing to develop new film products, and it would be good to show them that the investment was not misguided.

I don't think the goal should be replacement though, just another film to play around with
 
From what I've seen of it, it's like all other high sat EK films. It's great if you take photos of cartoon characters; not so great if you take pictures of human beings... :eek:

YMMV. I'll stick to Reala.

William
 
depends what your subject matter is and if you want it done with tight grain and with saturated colors. There is no one film good for everything. Many say EK100 is similar to Kodachrome but I disagree. EK has finer grain but the colors render differently.

As far as KG100 vs Ek100 comparative -- hamburger meat (KG100) vs a steak (Ek100).
 
It's another (and newly developed) great film that fits into the arsenal provided by both Fuji and Kodak. All color films, to me, have certain uses, and we are more than lucky to have so many. I use many color films because they give that little difference that digital hasn't provided as yet. This is the lowly Fuji Superia 100, this image would not look good in digital or Ektar100, IMO:

3083874260_18ba0372f0.jpg
 
Last edited:
I haven't used ISO 100 color film in twenty years, mostly because most drugstores don't stock it. I like the ISO 200 Kodak Gold, but I make my readings very much biased toward the shadows with an incident light meter. If I took a refected averaging reading I suppose I'd be setting my meter at 100. Anyway, the Gold series of Kodak's films are really designed for people who don't have a clue about things like color temperature or what "correct" exposure is. It'll handle anywhere from a stop of underexposure to several stops of overexposure, and give "acceptable" color in just about any mixed lighting situation. It handles daylight situations nicely (5,000K to 6,000K), doesn't go completely orange in tungsten room light (average 2,850K), and compared to the earlier Kodacolor films doesn't seem to go really green in flourescent light, but some of this may be due to the improved spectral output of modern flourescent tubes.

I don't know what Kodak's current target is for response to color temerature of Kodacolor (Kodak Gold) but for many years the Kodacolor films were balanced for clear flash bulbs, about 3,800K, which put it smack dab in the middle between tungsten room light and daylight, hence its color lattitude. Pro wedding and portrait films, such as the old Ektacolor CPS, Vericolor VPS, and today's Portra, are balanced for daylight/electronic flash, and are low enough in contrast to hold detail both in the shadows of a tuxedo and the highlights of a wedding gown while giving good flesh tones.

Lastly, I like the idea that I can go into any CVS, K-Mart, Walgreens, Walmart, etc. and find 4 packs of 24 exposure Gold 200. If I check the ads in Sunday's paper I can usually find somebody who has the stuff for $5.99 or $6.99 and I stock up.
 
Boy, that is a great mini essay Al. I use Kodak Gold 200 with my Agfa Optima IIs because the ASA setting only goes to 200, but I have produced some nice pictures with Gold 200, surpisingly so for the price. I've copied, for my own use, your post, thanks. Also, how do you feel about Gold 200 grain? I have used a lot of Costco Fuji Superia Xtra 400 because it is only a couple of miles from my house, but I'm not really happy with the grain.
 
I recently used a roll of Ektar, given to me by Subhash Tiwari (whom I've known since 1962, when RFF did not exist). Fine grain, yes. Some of the prints I got from the lab, though, were far too contrasty. This does not have to be the fault of the film, but it hasn't happened with the other films they've done for me -- mainly Fujicolor 100 but also Fuji and Kodak 400.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom