Ektar 100 review...

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 *******.
 
Mongo Park said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
sevo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
Last edited:
TWoK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom