tom_uk
Established
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; 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?
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; 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?
Last edited:
TWoK
Well-known
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
Veteran
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.
Incidentally I apologize for the somewhat testy tone of my last response.
Cheers,
R.
TWoK
Well-known
I'll try to find out more next time I am down there.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
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...
William
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
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.
Gregory
. Gregory
Robin P
Well-known
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
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
Well-known
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.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
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
Well-known
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
Fokutorendaburando
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
Well-known
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
Veteran
Genuine chemicals for C-41 sounds like tainted kernel.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks for the investigation.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Renzsu
Well-known
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
Veteran
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
Veteran
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
"The trick is to round exposures up slightly for more saturated colours and down slightly for less saturated colours." Roger Hicks