Kodak Ektar = WOW in B/W!

the_jim

the_jim

human
Local time
1:32 AM
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
391
I recently had the fun task of shooting my niece's senior photos. Having no real experience with taking pictures of people that aren't my girlfriend/close friends and she having no experience with modeling put us in a bit of an interesting situation. I'm not super-stoked with the results and we'll probably have to reshoot, but that's not the point of this thread...

Half-way through shooting, I switched from Ilford Pan F+ to Kodak Ektar 100. On a wild hair, I did a conversion in PS3 to black and white (desaturate, plus some curves tweeking). Comparing the Ilford to the Ektar was very illuminating - the latitude and gradation to the Kodak film was, to my eye, absolutely stunning.

I can see why some modern b/w movies shoot with Kodak Vision (supposedly very similar to Ektar) and convert in post ('Control' comes to mind).

Anyway, here are two shots. First is the Ilford shot with a Rolleiflex T

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/6094399827/] hannah by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

Here is the Ektar

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfischer/6102646906/] hannah by jamesfischer, on Flickr[/URL]

Which do you think looks better?
 
LOVE the Ektar. :D maybe i'll have to try this myself.... just bought 10 rolls of Ektar 100 35mm & 120 film. :)
 
nighstar said:
LOVE the Ektar. :D maybe i'll have to try this myself.... just bought 10 rolls of Ektar 100 35mm & 120 film. :)
Click to expand...

Totally!!! I was never too blown away by ektar, or rather I never gave it a proper chance...now I see the error in my ways.
 
I don't think the ilford shot is lacking any detail. in fact I think it has a little more. It does seem less contrasty but that difference is IMO likely to be the result of the curves tweaking of the ektar scan. For comparison you should try tweaking the ilford curves and adjusting the slider on the histogram to get that look which seems to please you. You might find a very similar result with the ilford.
 
Paolo Bonello said:
I don't think the ilford shot is lacking any detail. in fact I think it has a little more. It does seem less contrasty but that difference is IMO likely to be the result of the curves tweaking of the ektar scan. For comparison you should try tweaking the ilford curves and adjusting the slider on the histogram to get that look which seems to please you. You might find a very similar result with the ilford.
Click to expand...

I see your point and totally agree. But, slight curves adjustment aside (and it was very slight), I think the ektar just 'pops' more. The ilford definitely has more grain and texture, but the skin tones seem lacking. This whole process was very unscientific, but it was interesting to see how nicely the ektar turned out.
 
JSU said:
And when scanning the Ektar (or any other C-41 film) compared to Pan F+ (or any other conventional B&W film) there is the option of digital ICE with many scanners to easily repair scratches and dust.
Click to expand...

Digital ICE can make life easier, but I usually scan with it off. I'd rather 'clean' my scans myself rather than leaving it to a machine.
 
I definitely like the look of the Ektar shot. Ektar is one of my favorite films, in fact, I shot a roll of it today, but I've never attempted what you've done.

BTW, I think I know exactly where you took that shot. If it's where I think it is, I've even stood on that same platform and taken shots myself. Not of any young ladies, though :)

Thanks for posting this.

Ellen
 
Ellen, it's a platform/boat launch along the east side esplanade of the willamette river. it's a great place to take photos.
 
the_jim said:
Ellen, it's a platform/boat launch along the east side esplanade of the willamette river. it's a great place to take photos.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's exactly where I thought it was. I've taken photos from that platform numerous times in the past. I agree with you that it's a great place to take photos, particularly with the great summer weather we're now having.

Ellen
 
On the curve difference -

It looks like the photo with the Ektar is brighter in general - both her face and the background look brighter in a more pleasing way. The dress however in the Ektar shot looks black, almost as if the film was pushed.

I bet curve adjustments with the Ilford film could just about match the Ektar shot, with even more detail potentially given the difference in detail in the darker parts of the photo.

That said, the ability to mix color contributions - effectively change color correction filters after shooting - is certainly powerful.
 
What you see seems mainly the result from curves tweaking. The XP2 shot actually has more latitude (which is what makes it appear flat to you on screen). You can use those latitude reserves for a lot of curve and look adjustments, assuming that you have a good scan, preferably at more than 8 bit grayscale depth.

If you want to use colour film for BW digital pictures, you can also use the channel mixer for the BW conversion (instead of plain desaturation). This will allow you much more control over the image look. It will also allow you to emulate the effect of colour filters. For portraits it might be a good idea.
 
I used Ektar as well for B&W conversion and I was satisfied. But I think each B&W photo needs an accurate post processing (in this case imitation of the wet darkroom) and this can make difficult to compare different shots from different films. IMO the main advantage to use Ektar compared to XP2 is that you can choice later if keep the colors or switch to B&W. It is somehow similar to a digital workflow.
m7 ; heliar 50mm F2 anniversary edition; kodak ektar 100 ; CS3 + LR

U3692I1275503294.SEQ.0.jpg


Even if personally I prefer to shoot B&W with B&W silver film I went to south Italy a couple of month age and shoot 6 rolls of Ektar: I think some of the frame I'll post process in B&W.
 
I have to say I prefer the look of the Ilford sorry ... which is just my personal preference based on what I expect from a black and white image.

Interesting comparison none the less.
 
James - most of my mono work is actually colour converted in LR too, but I think I prefer the look of the first shot of Hannah. May be it's the more classic look, with a touch more grain? somehow seems suited to the rollei. the second image somehow seems too modern or clean. but that's just me. on my own conversions I usually end up applying more contrast with a yellow filter plugin, so I'm not being too consistent in my comment eh?!
 
I always found the Ektar to have a very "digital" look -- whatever that means. That's just how it looks to me, and I find this particularly true for your second picture. And I mean this in a positive way.
 
I much prefer the Ilford. there seems to be much more realistic tones to the Ilford. the white and the blacks are just too severe with the kodak, but I don’t know if thats from the film or the adjustments. just like with colour, its common in todays photographic world to have everything over saturated and pushed to the extremes, and the ektar shot falls in line with this, though not as severe as some I’ve seen. the Ilford seems to have far more shadow detail and more realistic skin tone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom