Ste_S
Well-known
Ektar 100 is one of my favourite film stocks. It's fine grained and it's contrast and colour saturation work well in the UK when light is often grey and flat.
What doesn't work so well is it's speed. 100ISO today is f5.6 at 1/60 for example.
So, what would be the closest equivalent to an Ektar 400? Portra 400 and adjust in post? (I'll be working with scans). Ultramax 400 and live with the extra grain?
What doesn't work so well is it's speed. 100ISO today is f5.6 at 1/60 for example.
So, what would be the closest equivalent to an Ektar 400? Portra 400 and adjust in post? (I'll be working with scans). Ultramax 400 and live with the extra grain?
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I once did a comparison of the colours from the two in relatively soft light. One was taken with the Planar on the Rolleiflex, the other in 35mm with the Zeiss Biogon C 35mm, a lens renowned for colour. I think it's pretty obvious which is which, but I did do a fair amount of saturating the colours in the Portra 400, whereas the Ektar was left untouched.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
No idea if there is a current-day equivalent, but there used to be Kodak Hawkeye traffic surveillance film available that was nick-named "High Speed Ektar".
littleearth
Well-known
Pushed Portra 160 (when overexposed), has a lot of contrast/saturation and is almost grainless.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
For saturated colours I'd also think seriously about the Lomography 800 shot at 400. It's a super film (almost certainly Kodak), and it's so much nicer (to my tastes) than the consumer Kodak films. With a small amount of playing it saturates very naturally, and is relatively fine grain, but I've never done the comparison with Ektar. There is also Lomography 400 but I have never got results I liked.
Ricoh
Well-known
I’m currently part way through a roll of Ektar that I’m pushing at 400. I have seen some pleasing results from others which caused me to experiment.
AlexBG
Well-known
This would be my ideal film but have tried a few and never got anything that was the same. I switch from portra 400 in the darker times to ektar in the summer. Can always add a bit of contrast in post.
Huss
Veteran
Overexposing colour film loses contrast and saturation in every case I have seen.
It's why wedding photogs like to overexpose their shots for that pastel look.
Huss
Veteran
For saturated colours I'd also think seriously about the Lomography 800 shot at 400. It's a super film (almost certainly Kodak), and it's so much nicer (to my tastes) than the consumer Kodak films. With a small amount of playing it saturates very naturally, and is relatively fine grain, but I've never done the comparison with Ektar. There is also Lomography 400 but I have never got results I liked.
Agreed. I use Lomo 800 @ 400 for a specific project I am working on where I need the intense colour.
I stocked up on Lomo 800 when it was available.
Swift1
Veteran
A few years ago I accidentally exposed a roll of Ektar at iso 640, which I didn't realize until after having it developed normally. I was surprised how well it came out. It has a look that probably doesn't suit everyone, but Ektar handles underexposure quite well, and while I have never really tried push processing, I would think that shooting Ektar at 400 and pushing the developing would work quite well.
Here's one from the roll I shot at 640,
Here's one from the roll I shot at 640,
littleearth
Well-known
Pushing increases contrast, and slight overexposure will get you more shadow detail (and less grain like Ektar).
But I know what you mean, since my job is scanning film in a lab, mostly for wedding photogs. A lot of overexposure will result in a flat scan with pastel colors.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Rate Ektar at 400, push 1 stop. You can push 2 stops, but I don’t find it necessary.
Ste_S
Well-known
Many thanks everyone for all the responses
@CharlesDAMorgan Thanks for the comparison images, that's pretty much my experience when comparing Portra and Extar, even after some work in post.
Also thanks for the Lomo 800 suggestion. I like Lomo 800, and it's the only colour film I shoot in winter. I don't find it to be similar to Ektar though, even when over exposed. It's probably more similar to Colorplus (I suspect the Lomo stuff and Colorplus are all Kodacolor VR)
Thanks @swift1 and @faintandfuzzy for the suggestion to push/underexpose Ektar. I've not had much luck with underexposing Ektar so far. Whilst the shadows don't go muddy like some consumer films do, they certainly block out.
My local lab used to offer push processing for C41 until it's dip and dunk machine broke. I'll certainly give that a try when they've sorted that.
In the meantime I've ordered a few rolls of Ultramax to remind myself of what that's like. I've run it through Mamiya glass in the past and the tones have been quite smooth. I'll try it through Nikon glass this time which normally has much harsher contrast.
@CharlesDAMorgan Thanks for the comparison images, that's pretty much my experience when comparing Portra and Extar, even after some work in post.
Also thanks for the Lomo 800 suggestion. I like Lomo 800, and it's the only colour film I shoot in winter. I don't find it to be similar to Ektar though, even when over exposed. It's probably more similar to Colorplus (I suspect the Lomo stuff and Colorplus are all Kodacolor VR)
Thanks @swift1 and @faintandfuzzy for the suggestion to push/underexpose Ektar. I've not had much luck with underexposing Ektar so far. Whilst the shadows don't go muddy like some consumer films do, they certainly block out.
My local lab used to offer push processing for C41 until it's dip and dunk machine broke. I'll certainly give that a try when they've sorted that.
In the meantime I've ordered a few rolls of Ultramax to remind myself of what that's like. I've run it through Mamiya glass in the past and the tones have been quite smooth. I'll try it through Nikon glass this time which normally has much harsher contrast.
maigo
Well-known
For saturated colours I'd also think seriously about the Lomography 800 shot at 400. It's a super film (almost certainly Kodak), and it's so much nicer (to my tastes) than the consumer Kodak films. With a small amount of playing it saturates very naturally, and is relatively fine grain, but I've never done the comparison with Ektar. There is also Lomography 400 but I have never got results I liked.
Nice photo.
Is this beside the HMS Victory in Portsmouth?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Thanks - yes it's HMS M33 at the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, right by Victory. It was a nice breezy day with the right blend of blue sky and fluffy clouds, so everything was photogenic!
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Just as a matter of interest, which do you think is the Ektar?
Jamie123
Veteran
Maybe one of Vision3 cine films?
