totifoto
Well-known
I have seen a lot of great pics from this film online but I have had problems with it myself until now.
I have shot 2 of them through my M6+50mm ZM planar and not liked it but few weeks ago I put one in my LOMO LCA+ and I love the result.
Maybe it is the way that camera renders the colors ore something I dont know but I think that from now on it will be my Lomo film.
3 from my M6
and a few from my Lomo Lca+
I have shot 2 of them through my M6+50mm ZM planar and not liked it but few weeks ago I put one in my LOMO LCA+ and I love the result.
Maybe it is the way that camera renders the colors ore something I dont know but I think that from now on it will be my Lomo film.
3 from my M6
and a few from my Lomo Lca+
antonandreas
Established
I liked that film a lot, but I just wish it came in a 400 speed!
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
That last shot of the two girls is spectacular. Great color, great expressions.
ethics_gradient
Well-known
I had the same experience, tried one roll and didn't like it, decided to give it another chance and really liked it.
Great photos, by the way!
Great photos, by the way!
photo4ls
Well-known
Whats not to like? You have some nice images.
As stated above I wish they had made some 400
like they did the Royal Gold.
Nelson
As stated above I wish they had made some 400
like they did the Royal Gold.
Nelson
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I agree with ^... I think Ektar is the best color film made since Kodachrome.
It has vibrant color.
It has minimal grain.
It has nice skin tones (Usually intense color films have nasty red/magenta skins...)
It has beautiful blues for sky.
It has very sweet tone for sunset light.
And my favorite: It has amazingly real and clean greens for grass and trees under the sun!
A bit slow of course: as any color negative film it deserves getting twice the light indicated by box speed...
But under direct sun 1/250 f/8 is easy and great!
I think there's no technical way to make it 400... And anyway those colors can only be obtained with direct sun... For getting color out of low/soft light we got Portra400 VC...
Cheers,
Juan
It has vibrant color.
It has minimal grain.
It has nice skin tones (Usually intense color films have nasty red/magenta skins...)
It has beautiful blues for sky.
It has very sweet tone for sunset light.
And my favorite: It has amazingly real and clean greens for grass and trees under the sun!
A bit slow of course: as any color negative film it deserves getting twice the light indicated by box speed...
But under direct sun 1/250 f/8 is easy and great!
I think there's no technical way to make it 400... And anyway those colors can only be obtained with direct sun... For getting color out of low/soft light we got Portra400 VC...
Cheers,
Juan
Thardy
Veteran
I think it's just the difference in the lenses. The ZM Planar may be a little too clinical (dare I say perfect) for your taste.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
I have the same experience with Ektar - sometimes I LOVE the results, and sometimes they're a bit funny - something in the color and tones changes per situation. I think how the photo is exposed makes it change the most.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I like all of these. Yes the Planar is more clinical but lovely in it's way.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
Seconded--I would love Ektar 400 as a replacement for the discontinued 400UC. I guess I should give Portra 400VC a go one of these days.
h_A_Z
Member
I love Ectar to death! It's the only colour film I use at the moment 
maggieo
More Deadly
Ektar is fantastic, but I think it's a bit like Kodachrome, in that it can be fussy about exposure- if you're off, so too will be the colors. I love the way it renders reds- that first shot is WOW! and I love how it handles greens:
The first twoshots were with a Nikkor 105/2.5, then a Jupiter-8 50/2 and the last with a 35/3.5 Summaron LTM.
The first twoshots were with a Nikkor 105/2.5, then a Jupiter-8 50/2 and the last with a 35/3.5 Summaron LTM.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Great shots everyone! Wow, nice stuff.
I love Ektar as well. Nothing more that I can add to the above comments that hasn't already been said. I think it's really one of the best color negative films available -- ever. Such a fine grain and well-balanced tones/hues.
Although I do have to agree that sometimes, the color balance can get skewed unpredictably, and I would also agree that I think it's dependent on exposure. Ektar seems to be a little picky that way, and I haven't yet figured out what the "magic" spot is in order to guarantee decent color accuracy in every shot. I think underexposure is the enemy, but I'm not sure.
I have used it in my Canon 7e 35mm SLR, my Leica M6, a Contax G2, and a handful of vintage Japanese rangefinders and really like the results. Well, 95% of the time, unless I get one of those weird off-color shots.
Another quirk: I've noticed that different lenses will cause different "accents" in the color profiles of my finished shots, probably due to lens construction and coatings. It's subtle, but it's there.
The Zeiss 50mm F2 is a beautiful lens. It's razor sharp and has great build quality. I own one and just love it. Some people I think justifiably say it has a "clinical" look to it, because it's so sharp yet "neutral". Nothing like a Summicron DR or a Nokton 1.1 -- all different beasts, to be sure.
Totifoto -- I don't really see anything wrong with the Zeiss photos you posted. They look great to me. But I suppose we all have our own likes & dislikes, and if you find the Zeiss + Ektar100 isn't working to your tastes, try some Portra or 400VC and have fun experimenting.
I love Ektar as well. Nothing more that I can add to the above comments that hasn't already been said. I think it's really one of the best color negative films available -- ever. Such a fine grain and well-balanced tones/hues.
Although I do have to agree that sometimes, the color balance can get skewed unpredictably, and I would also agree that I think it's dependent on exposure. Ektar seems to be a little picky that way, and I haven't yet figured out what the "magic" spot is in order to guarantee decent color accuracy in every shot. I think underexposure is the enemy, but I'm not sure.
I have used it in my Canon 7e 35mm SLR, my Leica M6, a Contax G2, and a handful of vintage Japanese rangefinders and really like the results. Well, 95% of the time, unless I get one of those weird off-color shots.
Another quirk: I've noticed that different lenses will cause different "accents" in the color profiles of my finished shots, probably due to lens construction and coatings. It's subtle, but it's there.
The Zeiss 50mm F2 is a beautiful lens. It's razor sharp and has great build quality. I own one and just love it. Some people I think justifiably say it has a "clinical" look to it, because it's so sharp yet "neutral". Nothing like a Summicron DR or a Nokton 1.1 -- all different beasts, to be sure.
Totifoto -- I don't really see anything wrong with the Zeiss photos you posted. They look great to me. But I suppose we all have our own likes & dislikes, and if you find the Zeiss + Ektar100 isn't working to your tastes, try some Portra or 400VC and have fun experimenting.
Last edited:
bevels
Member
I think people are generally right in stating the Zeiss lens is a little 'clinical' looking. What I see is that the lomo shots have a slightly warm bias as apposed to the much cooler overall tone of the Zeiss.
They're very detailed though, I shoot a lot of medium format and was well impressed when I saw those first few images, I don't mean in terms of 'sharpness' per se, just the amount of detail that's rendered is superb.
They're very detailed though, I shoot a lot of medium format and was well impressed when I saw those first few images, I don't mean in terms of 'sharpness' per se, just the amount of detail that's rendered is superb.
Vincent.G
Well-known
I usually underexpose ektar by 1/2 a stop to get slightly more punchy colour. This film don't respond well to overexposure by giving weird colours. I get better results with using contrasty lens e.g. nokton 35mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.5
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
+1 on that, I see nothing wrong with the Planar shots apart from them being very sharp while the LC-A shots are softer. Nice capture on the white cat though, you lucked really big there, exposing at just the right moment!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I find the colour very predictable, but VERY dependent on exposure. Even 1/2 stop over gives lots of extra saturation; 1 stop over is far too much. And 1/3 to 2/3 stop under gives a wonderfully soft, vintage look. In much the same spirit as the OP, my review starts with the words, "Kodak Ektar 100 is an odd film": http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Thardy
Veteran
Yeah, the cat picture is pretty nice. I kind of like those soft corners the Lomo produces.
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
IMO it needs loads of light but without overexposing.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
I exposed my first few rolls of Ektar as dictated by my meters, exactly at a 100 ASA. Did not like the muted colors,
Then I read your review and over-exposed the last roll by about 1/2 stop when I went on vacation a few weeks ago. I liked the results much better, thanks!
Elmar 50mm f/3.5: 1/100th @ f/16