Kodak Ektar is a strange film

Thanks, Tim. Trying to nail colours so that they'll look good on all monitors is an elusive goal for me. At home it looks great; at work it's too saturated and cyan in cast; etc. I find it maddening.

You're right: the 'strange colours' of Ektar are a post issue that can be corrected on a properly calibrated system.
 
I've been playing around with correcting various color negs recently. I'm coming to the realization that for me, Ektar looks better if I make the mid-grays warmer than I normally would. This gives more neutral shadows in the shots that I've been playing with.

I also have been spending most of my time getting skin tones to look good. Not necessarily accurate, but good :D If they look good, everything else falls in place.
 
Tim Gray said:
I also have been spending most of my time getting skin tones to look good. Not necessarily accurate, but good...
Click to expand...

That's my approach too. Accuracy is impossible to acheive, as it would involve comparing the print (or other output) to the scene, which in most cases cannot be done, and memory is not infallible. So, go with what looks good (and hope your system is calibrated so that the print or web display matches what you see on your screen).
 
Just wanted to say some very nice photos in here.

Ektar for me has been a good film, it got my first exhibition this year, and I have had one since, 3 to come, and I'm now getting some consultancy work via the Open University for a project involving photographic projects, so to me it has been a very good film :)

I don't think I have anything quite as nice as here, but it's the kind of photography that suits my tastes:

















Vicky
​
 
4844898121_ff313b5954_b.jpg
 
Lilserenity, those autumnal shots are absolutely exquisite.

I had some nice shots when I used a roll of 35mm Ektar in my Japanese build-it-yoursefl Gakkenflex TLR.
4824520066_1ce8fcca32_b_d.jpg


4823907387_5e84e974ef_b_d.jpg


I've got five rolls in 120 format sitting in my fridge for when I go out with my Bronica ETRSi. I'm quite looking forward to seeing what I get from those!
 
I thought I'd share some more Ektar, it is really a bonkers good film, this with Portra NC/Fuji 400H and the Elite Chromes has definitely settled me on which colour for what since Kodsachrome's demise. Ektar is no Kodachrome, but, psssst, I think I like it even more!

Some more recent streetscapes: (click to make bigger)













And this one I will paste large as I love the sky.



It is a fickle film but a very good one when the exposure is right, thanks to my Olympus OM2n! (All taken with the 28mm f/3.5 Zuiko with the right hood)

Hope you like, this had to share, I can't believe how good this film is, dramatic and moody when the light is right.

Vicky
 
I'm about to shoot 10 rolls of it in Central Asia. I hope it serves me well. I've tried two rolls in the past without it really impressing me.
 
Really like these. Colours look very good to me. Was this shot as rated or pulled a bit? Just held a second hand Zeiss with the biogon C today. Was very very difficult not to take it with me (can't justify it alongside my medium format rangefinders)..

semilog said:
When it works, I really like it. Two snapshots from Kyoto, both with the ZM 35/2.8 Biogon-C.

947376255_fXFVG-M.jpg


947408445_N2Tqs-XL.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vicky,

Thanks for posting the pictures. It is so easy to be negative and so I say it must be my monitor, because I found your pictures to be dull/flat and colours did not 'pop'.

Is this the 'mood' that you are after and therefore use Ektar? or am I in need of new monitor?

With the best intentions

Thanks

Alistair
 
Blue Rollei said:
Vicky,

Thanks for posting the pictures. It is so easy to be negative and so I say it must be my monitor, because I found your pictures to be dull/flat and colours did not 'pop'.

Is this the 'mood' that you are after and therefore use Ektar? or am I in need of new monitor?

With the best intentions

Thanks

Alistair
Click to expand...

Hi Alistair,

I haven't ramped up the contrast as it's not the look I am looking for, no doubt with increased saturation and contrast they would pop more, but they match what I am expecting and are apart from cropping, shapening and very minor colour balance tweak (just giving reds a bit more presence) I haven't altered them.

To my eyes, they look fine on my calibrated monitor although I note from work with an LCD which is a 6bit depth one (like a good majority of LCD displays) that some of the highlights appear blown where they aren't at home.

The weather that day was very muted, Ektar can pop more, but that is what I have got on the day.

It's quite ok not to like the result/pictures/whatever, our tastes are all different, I just find Ektar seems to work very well for my taste and my rather Everyday landscape interest.

Vicky
 
Hi Vicky,

Thanks for the reply. What I am addressing is not your pictures per se - or the results. What I am addressing is the fact that one can buy a film that produces different and indifferent results within the same roll and from various lenses (though the latter point is not particualr to Kodak Ektar)

It is unusual to say the least. It is so sensitive and fine grained as to be almost classed along with other 'Art' films e.g.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Adox 50 / 100

Thanks
[/FONT]
 
not_in_good_order said:
Here is my favorite Ektar image. I like Ektar, but I do find it a bit finicky with exposure compared to any other c-41 film I've used.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I had read so many amazing reviews, I was a little disappointed when I saw my first roll. It's growing on me. I don't think there's anything wrong with it - it's just that the color balance is different from other C41 films. (Or another thought - the color balance is the same, but the orange mask is different enough to throw off post-processing equipment.)

On the plus side, I believe it's a very good value for what it is. It's around $18 online for five rolls of 120.
 
FWIW, Vicky's photos look fantastic on my 27" iMac with nicely saturated and punchy colors and an appropriate for the light, medium contrast.
 
wgerrard said:
Ditto on my iMac.
Click to expand...

Oh good, I was beginning to wonder if this new screen calibrator was all that.

But I do agree, there are many faces to Ektar but it's like any film, you need to shoot a lot of it to really understand its strengths and how it responds in different situations. It's not much cop as a portrait film to me, but Portra NC/Fuji 400H is that.

It is fickle, but shooting it in my OM2n has been very enjoyable. I have yet to try it in my Autocord though as mentioned, for Sunny 16 it takes a brave person!

I guess it's closest relation is Elitechrome with an 81B filter but even that isn't like Ektar. It's in a class all of its own, one I am extremely grateful to Kodak for, even if they did take my Kodachrome away!
 
You can basically make color negative film look like anything when you scan it and you have nothing to actually compare it with. Of course you all know this already. With slide film at least you can compare your scan to the slide and make adjustments. That's why one Ektar scan never looks like another.
 
Mister E said:
You can basically make color negative film look like anything when you scan it and you have nothing to actually compare it with. Of course you all know this already. With slide film at least you can compare your scan to the slide and make adjustments. That's why one Ektar scan never looks like another.
Click to expand...

That is a very good point, since I have calibrated my screen a week or two ago I have let the scanner do Auto Levels on everything rather than apply any changes to curves at scan stage.

This does however mean I have a lot of rescanning to do as there's a lot of negative material I have scanned that is very much out of whack!

Vicky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom