Ektar 100

C

chipgreenberg

Well-known
Local time
10:07 AM
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
448
Just got my first role back. Shot with my little Contax T2. Got a couple real keepers. The film is amazing. The neg is super sharp and grain free with an 8x loupe. Try some! We want Kodak to keep making this stuff!
 
There have been a bunch of threads on Ektar. You're right, it is a great film!

3639566975_e95aa6183f_o.jpg
 
Has anyone processed their own Ektar yet ... I gather it's conventional c41 processing?

If so what were the results like?
 
Now listen...if Kodak finds out we like this film and want them to keep making it. Well it's almost for sure KODAK will KILL it!! I remember begging Kodak to keep making Kodachrome 25, and Tech-Pan. I sent in a petition with over 5 ,000 signatures gathered in 30 days from major photo store customers in the So. Calif. area....Kodak told me..sorry our decisions can not be affected by customers !! I agree this is a great film.
 
Actually Kodak does decide based on what customers buy, not how many sign petitions. So customer voices are important, when connected to their wallets!
 


Taken with a Lecia M6 and a 35 1.4 Summilux @ 1.4 in the morning light shinning through the kitchen window.

So far I really like this film. Im still at the testing phase but Im interested enough to just order 20 more rolls.

Gregory
 
Great film for warm natural light, but skin can easily have a yellow tint that is not close to reality... If I was to receive a gift being color negative, I would prefer some Portra... In slides for portraiture, Astia (Sensia) and Kodachrome are better for a neutral / strong palette.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Here are some shots I took today and processed at home. Its very easy to do color at home; as easy as black and white (and quicker). I'm on a hexanon kick, so I was also trying out a new 28mm lens with some of the shots. I like the film, but it isn't the easiest to scan and you need to be careful with the exposure.

4260600271_29c4b65d48.jpg

4261380754_f0c87ba835.jpg

4260623607_156fa13dc4.jpg
4261374646_347b1f50b5.jpg


40mm lens. Also, I didn't load the film in complete darkness, so some frames got a little washed out by the leak (the reddish hue in the hair).
4261371732_24da26b28e.jpg
 


Lecia M6 50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0

I agree it's not the most forgiving color negative film Iv ever used. But when you nail the exposer and the light is just right the results are pleasing enough.

Gregory
 
I guess that's why there still making Kodachrome.

I guess that's why there still making Kodachrome.

Damaso said:
Actually Kodak does decide based on what customers buy, not how many sign petitions. So customer voices are important, when connected to their wallets!
Click to expand...

I do not know who at Kodak told they listen...but there's a real lie.

when Kodak announced they were stopping making Kodachrome for movie film...there was a large international coordinated effort to delivery customer pleas from both inside the USA and Internationally. I was employed by Pall Corp. the main supplier of advanced filtration equip for Kodak factories world wide. Kodak was constantly making insane demands for sales profit percentages.

While all the time raising prices to consumers, cutting margins to retailers. Losing market share to Fuji and others...Kodak is really more like General Motors...blaming it's problems on those Dam Customers for it's lack of profitability !! So no matter what someone told you but no they really do not care...or they would still be making Kodachrome. In fact there was a investment group that wanted to by just the Kodachrome brand and then spin it off...and Kodak would not sell....why? Oh it was worth 20-50X more than the offer.

Remember that at the time it was openly declared a money loser!
So..if you upside down...how suddenly is it a gold mine?

The worst of all worlds would have been having some "unqualified" investment group to have gone private and then made a profitable business from a Kodak failure! Kodak has historically lost the largest market share of any photo company in history...through nothing but bad management.
 
I have done an increasing amount of Ektar work, expose it right and it can do wonders.

I've posted many a photograph here of what I have gotten from it, here's another example from the ones I have posted:


Netherfield, Milton Keynes
It is easily my favourite colour negative film now (although I still love the Portras and 800Z)

Underexposing though does give a definite blue cast:



Vicky
 
larmarv916 said:
I do not know who at Kodak told they listen...but there's a real lie.
Click to expand...


I don't know who you get your information from, mine comes from a senior VP there. Why did Kodak stop producing Kodachrome and not Tri-X? Because hardly anyone uses the former whereas the latter is very popular. Petitions aside Kodak looks at the bottom line and if a film isn't being supported by the public in terms of sales they get rid of it.

I think Kodak needs to get some credit for introducing not one but two or three excellent new films in the past three years...

And Ektar was so popular and comments from photographers so important they introduced it into 120 format? Do you have anything to say about that?:rolleyes:
 
I hope the fact Kodak is making this in 120 is a good sign. I just out a role in my Bronica rf645.

BTW, I don't shoot people. I can see better films for skin tone. Used to use a lot of Velvia. Very excited about the qualities of Ektar 100
 
Here's a shot with Ektar 100 in some shadow with a range of colors:

4123958748_39105871a2.jpg


High contrast scene, and I probably could get more out of the shadows and/or could have done a better job of exposing it:

4123189679_9a972d8693.jpg


Indoors with a mix of artificial and natural light. I'm not very good at correcting mixed temp color in PS, but it turned out OK:

4123190661_8f7c40f798.jpg


Yes, we have some strange colored fire hydrants in my neighborhood:

4123191929_8bb86279d2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom