JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
Ektar is designed for ISO 100, but when I shoot at that speed I consistently get images with that blue tone indicating undervelopment, at least according to Roger Hicks. I shoot 120 and was wondering if others of you out there shoot at 125 , 150 or 175 with Ektar. What has your experience been? Any suggestions?
Respectfully,
Jeff
Respectfully,
Jeff
DonaldJ.
Established
shoot it at 100, i have shot a few rolls of it all at 100, it dosent tend to work well with over/under exposure.
bensyverson
Well-known
Why would you shoot it faster if you suspected underdevelopment? Wouldn't you overexpose?
I've shot it at 50 and 100, and slightly prefer the 50. At 100, the blacks are pretty punchy.
I've shot it at 50 and 100, and slightly prefer the 50. At 100, the blacks are pretty punchy.
mwooten
light user
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Michael,
Unfortunately it's not worth very much. Metering off an 18% gray card betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of film speeds and quite honestly a test that ignores flesh tones ain't worth much either.
The true ISO is almost certainly VERY close to 100 -- few manufacturers are given to lying about such things -- but that DOESN'T mean that ISO 100 is the best setting for any one individual photographer. Too much depends on metering for a start.
It took me only a couple of rolls to determine that for me, incident light metering or broad-area metering (MP and Voigtländer) at EI 125 or even 160 gave softer, more pastel results, and EI 50 gave significant colour shifts: EI 64 or 80 gave very high saturation, but suited certain effects. Spot metering of the shadows at the box speed (my usual technique with negative films) gave more exposure than I wanted in all but low-contrast scenes.
ISO speed testing is not something I am equipped to do, but (like the 'test' you quote) I can compare the effects I get at different exposures -- which I have done at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html. Here are a couple of quotes from that review
Ektar 100 is an odd film. It's incredibly rewarding if you use it properly, and quite close to a disaster if you don't. Think of it as a negative film with the latitude of slide film, and it's rewarding: depending on exposure, you can choose anything from soft, pastel colours (minimum exposure) to rich, saturated colours. Think of it as the sort of negative film that you can overexpose mercilessly, and it's close enough to a disaster, because those rich and saturated colours turn garish and improbable, with something of a magenta or purple bias.
and
Ektar 100 is not, however, hard to use. Far from it. All it means is that you can't do the old, lazy colour-neg trick of setting half the ISO speed on the meter. Nor, for that matter, can you use a spot meter to read an improbably dark area and rely on the long straight-line portion of the characteristic curve to record the highlights without distortion of the colours at the darker end of the subject. On the other hand, with most multi-point metering systems and anything like an average subject, or with an incident light meter, it could not be easier to use.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
Ektar is nice, but is a very fickle beast. I prefer slide film where what I shoot is what I get.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jeff,
I think you meant to type underexposure, not underdevelopment. See my reply to Michael, above.
Quite honestly, 1/3 stop variations are the least that normally matter, and my own inclination is to set 100 on my meter and then open up 1/2 stop for softer colours or close down 1/2 stop for more saturation (obviously I'm not relying on automation here). Given your experience, I'd be inclined to set 125 on your meter and try the same approach. If it's still blue/purple, go to 160 but I'd be surprised if you need to.
Sudden thought: are you scanning or wet printing? This film is OK for machine wet printing but optimized for scanning; I've not tried it for custom wet printing, because we don't do that any more. And if you're going to a lab for prints, try a different one, or at least, ask them what channel they are using.
Cheers,
R.
Tim Gray
Well-known
venchka
Veteran
80 worked for the few rolls that I have shot. Which is consistent with ALL of the other C-41 film that I have used in the past 5 years. I overexpose C-41 slightly (+1/3 to +1 stop) and meter for open shadows in Zone IV or clear blue sky in Zone V. Just like the text books say.
Soothsayerman
Established
I shoot it at 100 and I think it is a cooler temp film even when exposed properly. If you are used to warmer films, you will notice this no doubt.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
I have used Ektar 35 at its rated speed since its inception and also now in 120. With human subjects I have found the rated speed VERY accurate in terms of what I recall as the original lighting and color balance. (I know that's subjective but how much science is there really). I love chromes for the brighter colors but sometimes that's just not what existed nor what I wanted.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
What do you mean by cooler? The whole image has a bluish/cyan cast, or just portions of it in reference to balanced neutral gray?
Since it's a negative film, any overall color cast can easily be dialed out in photoshop or in the darkroom. A cast in the shadows or highlights relative to a neutral mid gray is different.
As far as overexposure, many negative films have slower emulsion components which are finer grained. Overexposing by a 1/3 or 2/3s of a stop not only gives you a bit of buffer for misexposure, but it also puts more of the exposure on these slower, fine-grained parts of the film, reducing grain. I don't really feel the second part (achieving finer grain) is really merited with Ektar 100 since it's so fine grained already. Sure it helps a lot on 400 or 800 speed films if you have the extra light.
Giving you a bit of wiggle room for a missed exposure is still a reason to overexpose slightly with Ektar, but if you are careful with your metering, either incident or some sort of spot, then I think rating it at 100 is quite fine. Then again, if you like the look of it when shot at EI 25, then that's cool too.
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
Thanks Roger! I appreciate your experience in these matters. I did mean underexposure and not underdevelopment! I have been ill for the past few months and not firing on all cylinders. Thanks again!
wgerrard
Veteran
FWIW, I shoot Ektar at 100 and have found visible differences in results on film shot under very similar circumstances processed at the same lab. (By "lab" I don't mean drug store. My local drug store won't process anything with the word "professional' on it unless I absolve them of responsibility for bad results.)
That may happen because two different people do the work, or because the chemicals were different, or whatever. But it does happen. Accurate tests of film really need to constrain all but one variable at a time. That's difficult for most of us to do.
That said, I find Ektar to be a very rewarding film to use in the conditions that often prevail here: Few clouds, bright or even harsh sun, big blue sky. I find it less rewarding when grayer weather prevails.
Roger, next time out with it I'll try shifting the exposure half a stop either way depending on what I'm after. If I can get off my duff, I'm contemplating a few days on the Outer Banks: Bright sun, blue sky, big ocean, white sand, little buildings and little boats. The occasional lighthouse. Ought to be a good place to experiment a bit.
That may happen because two different people do the work, or because the chemicals were different, or whatever. But it does happen. Accurate tests of film really need to constrain all but one variable at a time. That's difficult for most of us to do.
That said, I find Ektar to be a very rewarding film to use in the conditions that often prevail here: Few clouds, bright or even harsh sun, big blue sky. I find it less rewarding when grayer weather prevails.
Roger, next time out with it I'll try shifting the exposure half a stop either way depending on what I'm after. If I can get off my duff, I'm contemplating a few days on the Outer Banks: Bright sun, blue sky, big ocean, white sand, little buildings and little boats. The occasional lighthouse. Ought to be a good place to experiment a bit.
venchka
Veteran
Totally jealous! Good light. Calm breeze. Enjoy!
jan normandale
Film is the other way
@ Jeff, I haven't used Ektar for the reason you are discussing. I find most of the images I see from this film to have a decidedly 'retro colour scheme' perhaps it's due to the light I'm not sure. However have seen one set of Ektar images that made me think I'm missing something because the colour rendition was excellent.
I may try some in due course once I've depleted some of my existing C41 Kodak UC
I may try some in due course once I've depleted some of my existing C41 Kodak UC
Tim Gray
Well-known
Jan - I've decided to basically ignore most pictures I see online when it comes time to weigh in on color film attributes. Scanning is all over the place, photoshop skills are all over the place, etc. The best thing to do is to get a roll or two of the film in question and put it through it's paces.
wgerrard
Veteran
Early next week looks promising. Clear skies, highs in the 60's. Few tourists make the trip in November, which is nice.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
My first two rolls of Ektar were a disaster, horrible blue cast that looked like I put a blue gel over the lens. Then I tried sending out the film to a better lab vs the local drugstore and that cured all the color cast problems.
mwooten
light user
I had the same experience with Ektar. The rolls developed at a more professional lab came out much better.
I do want to add to the OP that I metered my film at the box speed of 100. Most shots were done with the meter in incident mode.
--michael