New to ektar 100

J

jimmyb

Suspended / Banned
Messages
322
Edit My Images
No
I recently bought a roll of 35mm ektar 100. I've been reading up on some of the threads about it on here and it seems great but very sensitive to needing correct exposure, reading these threads has made me a little nervous about using it now!

I've shot plenty of film, but only ever on mainstream films, never any "professional colour films" for want of a better expression, I once shot a slide film (I believe these are exposure critical) and the results were ok.

I wouldn't be bothered but I'm off to spain for a few days and my 35mm is likely to be the only camera I take. Although it's nothing critical I would like some good results. With reading about horrific colour casts if the exposure is just slightly off would it be wiser to use a more amateur friendly film!?

Also if I do use it would getting it developed at somewhere like boots (always been good for me in the past) be OK or does it benefit more from a specialist lab?
 
Well buy some Fuji superia 200 asa to be safe and when you come back try Ektar.
 
Don't be put off using Ektar, I've used it on several holidays with no problem. Some people over-exaggerate the 'cast' issue with Ektar, I've shot about 6 rolls of it and not had a problem.
You only really start to get a blue colour cast if you underexpose it more than a stop or so and this is correctable just perhaps not with the level of saturation you would get with a 'correctly' exposed image.
Overexposure just increases the saturation even more and has a habit of turning the shadows blue but this is literally because of the natural blue cast from the sky (on a cloudless sunny day with a blue sky look at shadows and you'll see what I mean) being cranked up a bit from the increased saturation, its noticeable on other high saturation films as well like Velvia.

In short, just shoot it, you'll get usable results; the effect of Ektar is like slide film exposure (where the limited latitude requires precise exposure), if you get it right you'll get a lovely saturated image but if not you'll still get a usable image as there is a lot of exposure latitude, its just the 'effect' requires closely correct exposure.
 
Consider Portra 160 - professional results, amateur friendly exposure tolerance and extremely capable of dealing with different lighting.
 
Portra 400. From some of the trials I've seen reported online I'm not even sure it's possible to get the exposure wrong enough to not get a recoverable, usable image from scanning the negative. I've seen good results reported with it rated as everything between ISO100 and ISO1600.
 
I've shot a lot of Ektar recently and as far as I can tell there isn't an issue with colour cast so long as you don't horrifically under expose. FC2 and Alastair are correct about the Portra films but I just prefer Ektar for 35mm shooting.

Andy
 
It wouldn't hurt to use a consumer/holiday-orientated film though, things like Superia and Kodak Gold were designed for these sorts of shooting applications and do very well in them.
 
In harsh light then shadows will always be blue and highlights orange, it;s just the way the film is. Tend either way by over or under exposing and the rest of the image also starts taking on that cast. Overexposure doesn't increase saturation, it decreases it and going to far makes for a mushy image.

Under blue skies Ektar is pretty unbeatable, not so good under any other condition.

Ektar plus polariser makes for really beautiful stuff, and if like me you have a Polariser that throws a green cast you can get some wonderful retro tinted images.
 
Thanks for all the input. I'll just take the ektar and go with that, from what's been said I'll hopefully get some decent images.

I'll post any half decent ones up on here.

I'll also look at the portra for future use.
 
it seems great but very sensitive to needing correct exposure
Click to expand...
I don't know who keeps saying this but it's pure *******s, it has excellent latitude, +/- two stops is the safe range if you are worried about colour shifts, and if your metering is off more than two stops you have more problems than the film.
I've got usable images from a 4 stop underexposure, but i won't deny the blue shift with underexposure, it happens but it's not that bad and if you are scanning film it doesn't really matter these days, correct that in Lightroom or Photoshop; i have to correct every colour film i scan anyway, no big deal.

Here's the 4 (probably closer to 5) stop underexposure, converted to black and white, adjusted in Lightroom, i actually made the image darker for black shadows and contrast, the negative scanned brighter. This was in a Kodak Brownie, f/16, 1/30th on a overcast day under a bridge in shadow.

Under The Bridge by Morinaka., on Flickr

This one was at the same bridge, same settings but with a ND4 filter to make the film ISO25 equivalent, i'd say a 3 stop underexposure as if i was metering for the bridge the sky should be blown out, has a cold feel but it's not bathed in blue.

Suspension by Morinaka., on Flickr
 
jimmyb said:
I recently bought a roll of 35mm ektar 100. I've been reading up on some of the threads about it on here and it seems great but very sensitive to needing correct exposure, reading these threads has made me a little nervous about using it now!

I've shot plenty of film, but only ever on mainstream films, never any "professional colour films" for want of a better expression, I once shot a slide film (I believe these are exposure critical) and the results were ok.

I wouldn't be bothered but I'm off to spain for a few days and my 35mm is likely to be the only camera I take. Although it's nothing critical I would like some good results. With reading about horrific colour casts if the exposure is just slightly off would it be wiser to use a more amateur friendly film!?

Also if I do use it would getting it developed at somewhere like boots (always been good for me in the past) be OK or does it benefit more from a specialist lab?
Click to expand...

It isn't overly sensitive at all, in fact it's pretty good for a low ISO film.

My OH shot a roll of it recently and took two shots side by side. One metered correctly and the other with an intentionally ballsed up exposure - you can't tell the difference, the latitude of the film absorbed the difference.

Be aware Ektar is also very vivid and saturated, this is just the character of the film so be aware if you like bland, "realistic" colours, that you won't get that from Ektar especially in sunlight.

After all the negative press I've seen about Ektar on the internet I was dubious about the 5 pack that I'd just bought but after seeing it with my own eyes I won't hesitate to load a roll.


Alastair said:
Portra 400. From some of the trials I've seen reported online I'm not even sure it's possible to get the exposure wrong enough to not get a recoverable, usable image from scanning the negative. I've seen good results reported with it rated as everything between ISO100 and ISO1600.
Click to expand...

And the rest ;) try 3200 and above. Grainy, yes, but certainly very usable.
 
Last edited:
I'd also like to point out that Ektar is incredibly good for long-exposures at night.
 
Helpful to know as I've been thinking of using it for star trails. Some films seem to just get grainy when used at night though for any length of time.
 
Well I'm off tomorrow with the ektar loaded, thanks for the help, looking forward to seeing the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top