Ektar 100 - thoughts ? (Tom shoots COLOUR !!)

ChrisLivsey

ChrisLivsey

Veteran
Local time
8:59 PM
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
2,144
View My Gallery
Tom A said:
I uploaded 22 shots from the Heliar 75f1.8. These were done on Ektar 100. Mixed bag of subjects, wine and cars!
Click to expand...

Never mind the lens what about the film. 🙂

Seriously I would be interested in your thoughts, Tom, on the Ektar.

I tried it very soon after release when a few raves had already been posted. Personally I found it sharp, not a surprise, with a wider latitude than others had stated but the colours were not to my taste at all.
Not a root 😀 but I shoot a colour test of a childs crawling tunnel in multi coloured plastic and the purple in particular was way off. I know this is a difficult colour, the M8 (with filter) makes a poor job of it, the only digital that is virtually spot on is a Phase One back, (Capture One for both, for the pedants). Now I know accurate colour in film is a nonsense but this, Ektar, was just a laugh. I now wonder if it was down to the scan, a commercial one, which as I said was done soon after release and it could be the machine was not "set up" for the new film. I am minded to take it for a re-scan but I did shoot another roll yesterday so will see how that goes first.
Anyway on this rare occasion, Tom shoots colour, I, and I suspect some other closet colour shooters would be interested in your feedback.
 
I'm not Tom, but if I may offer my thoughts... never judge a film on a commercial scan (any one scan for that matter). Purple is a difficult colour for scanners as well as cameras.
 
j j said:
I'm not Tom, but if I may offer my thoughts... never judge a film on a commercial scan (any one scan for that matter). Purple is a difficult colour for scanners as well as cameras.
Click to expand...

Your comments, as are anybody else's, very welcome. The purple was just the worst of a poor lot. I have avoided buying into a home scanner being reluctant to have another learning curve and generally have been well served by the labs. The Fuji Proo400H is my usual colour neg. and I have been very happy with the colour and scan qualities from the commercial. Maybe it's a Fuji v Kodak thing ?
 
With the Ektar 100 - I had it processed and scanned as a high res onto a DVD and downloaded from that.
The colors were less "vibrant" than I expected - I had hopes of a Ektar 25 brightness. Nice film otherwise - but I suspect once I have used up the 10-5 rolls - it is back to bl/w anyway.
 
Ektar is good. Really good.

I just don't have any luck with it. Whether the commercial (Costco) scan, or me forgetting a pola filter on a high Sierra trip, or shooting with a RF, which afterwards turns out needs lens calibration (not RF adjustment) or whatever...

For ISO 100 all-purpose film I'm sticking with Reala...
 
MPerson said:
Chris - had you seen this as well. Roger's thoughts are interesting.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link it is interesting. I shoot sunny 16 on the M2s so cannot guarantee accuracy to a third of a stop 🙂 but it appears to be more fussy than I would like. Having said that I shoot my Fuji usually on my F4 and habitually dial in 1/3 stop more.

Thanks to Tom also, does you good to shoot colour now and again to remind you why you use B/W.

The roll is back now from yesterday and I am happier but not ecstatic. Noting above comments these are sunny 16, actually in the Lake District here in the UK overcast f8. The neg roll looks consistent from visual inspection and interestingly the scans look much better on screen than the print set which are over saturated and contrasty.

I think like Tom this colour thing is over rated and B/W is more true to life.
Still another roll or two to play with but unless it comes up trumps its the last for me.

BTW Chris I would seriously put a roll through before committing to a trip.
 
A couple from the roll :- M2, Zeiss ZM 50mm Planar, sunny 16, Ektar 100 commercial scan:

4932887964_d32937ed82_z.jpg


4932293295_5cd6cd7c74_z.jpg
 
I find Ektar 100 to be an interesting film. In fact helped me to get back into shooting film, it is why I bought a Hasselblad, but it's not why I bought the Leica. I even have a box of it in 4x5, but haven't had a chance to shoot any of that. 🙁 I really love the colours in a good Ektar 100 shot.

Getting the really good colours out of it is tricky, I find that I like shooting it best on really bright sunny days. In fact I just got back from two trips, I bought a lot of it for the trips, but hardly shot any because it was cloudy.

I had standardized on Ektar 100 as my main colour film, but the last few months I find I've been shooting a lot of Portra 400NC (it doesn't help the weather this summer has been unusually cloudy, even for here). With the Portra 400NC I get consistent results, with Ektar 100 I don't. Portra is very forgiving!

Of course I've also noticed that I get better results with Ektar 100 shot in the Hasselblad than I do with it shot in the Leica, but I have the 35mm developed by Costco, and the 120 done by a Pro Lab in the City. Still if the weather is good, I've gotten good 35mm Ektar 100 shots developed by Costco. I haven't felt rich enough to have the lab develop any of my 35mm Ektar 100, but am starting to think I should give that a try.
 
I love Ektar. If you can shoot slide film, then you can dial in Ektar and there isn't any luck involved, except with regards to subject matter and lighting.

I find it strange that I see the word "luck" associated with Ektar. I should say that I scan and process the image.. always selecting the whitest item in the frame to establish color. I do this on a frame by frame basis when the lighting changes. I also mostly rate Ektar around EI 80. and many times use incident metering.

Regarding Reala.. I thought that it had been discontinued.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure excellent results are possible for the Ektar, indeed I have seen some just above here 😀 but I must conclude there is too much luck/chance/skill involved for me when other films are more reliable/forgiving.

Similar overcast conditions to my Ektar shots but for me the Fuji Pro 400H comes up trumps.
Nikon F4, 28-70mm f2.8.

4857565545_cdc6c87428_z.jpg
 
Under poor lighting (mixed fluorescents, heavy overcast), Ektar doesn't shine. Pictures seem a bit flat and the colors don't look nice. Plain Fuji Superia 200 works a lot better there.

I do my own scans on a Nikon Coolscan V and I can tell you that with nice sunny weather, Ektar is a thrill and a joy. Colors come to life and no film I have ever used is so free of grain and it permits your sharp lenses to really shine. Recently bought some in 120, I will shoot some in my Yashica Mat 124 when the fall colors start to dominate here.

I tend to be a bit fussy over exposure with this film, mostly due to reports here. I cannot say that I have seen weird things so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

p.giannakis
Colour Film Photography - Colours fading
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
julio1fer
julio1fer
S
Rollei bay 1 UV filter
Replies
13
Views
2K
seany65
S
M
Colour pictures taken with Leica Monochrom
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Freakscene
Freakscene
Jeph
Leica IIIf — Shutter and Reverse Lever Issue
Replies
9
Views
493
chuckroast
C
ped
Lens carrying system
Replies
10
Views
560
ped
ped
Back
Top Bottom