On using Ektar 100...

ChrisR

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,730
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I keep hearing this film is difficult to use, and may even have promulgated those rumours myself. Just in the past few days someone has commented on an alleged blue tinge in one of @RaglanSurf 's intrepid nick test shots. I was fairly confident I'd never used it myself, but looking through the back catalogue for some new old film entries, I noticed some shots of a band in the local park, and thought the red of their uniforms looked really special. It turned out to be Ektar; AFAIK the only roll I've shot.

Now later in the summer we are going on a walking holiday based in St Ives, lots of cliff walking etc. I was wondering if Ektar would be a good film for that, just lift the saturation a bit? OTOH the missus is trying to organise a week on the Amalfi coast; I suspect I wouldn't need any extra contrast for that, and Portra 160 or even expired Reala 100 would do just fine.

So, any suggestions on what Ektar might be best for, and how to get the best out of it?

(BTW, I have considered Provia or perhaps Precisa for St Ives, but I worry about getting good results from slide film. Wonderful when it works, though!)
 
If you put Nick's Ektar shot in Photoshop and just auto correct the casts goes and it loooks sharp and ok, but then the 2nd shot looks too green......oh well it is what each person prefers as they both look nice now.
 
I really like Ektar and have never done anything particularly different when shooting it. I shot at box speed and have used it in good light and early morning. It's always given really nice colours.

Mamiya M645J/80

ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1462978988.436854.jpg

ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1462978995.721035.jpg

Yashica 124G

ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1462979003.890147.jpg

It also converts to B&W nicely too

ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1462979023.953466.jpg

Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
I also love Ektar and don't find it difficult to use. As Steve said above, shoot at box speed. It's my go to film now for thinks that aren't people/portrait related, although I have a couple of portraits shot on it that I really like. :)
 
ChrisR said:
So, any suggestions on what Ektar might be best for, and how to get the best out of it?
Click to expand...

My suggestion is to just buy a couple of boxes and see how you like it. Between metering, development, scanning, printing, etc., there are too many variables involved to justify buying or not buying a film based on someone else's experiences.

As far as I'm concerned, none of the major companies (i.e., Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford) make a poor film nowadays, so any problems with Ektar—if one does ever arise—will have resulted from an issue after it left the plant (i.e. it's not Kodak's fault, but the photographer's).
 
It's not difficult to use ...................simply shoot several rolls and see how differing scenes, cameras, situations, developing , scans etc compare., pretty much what RJ has suggested.
When you find a "set up " that pleases you, stick with it.
If you can't get the results you want from it after experimenting then ditch it and use a different film.
Simples!
 
Like Mr Snap, I have no idea what colours should look like so most of the time I just guess or shoot Acros :D
 
My understanding is that Ektar is meant to resemble Kodachrome so that's what you aim for colour wise. It certainly has punchy blues but is a fine all purpose film and scans nicely.
Here's a shot from a roll i got back from the developers this week scanned on their Noritsu machine and lightly edited by me in Lightroom. Shot with a polarizer, bronica zenzanon-s 50mm.
RKdRYJVh.jpg
 
My experience with ektar is that I found it difficult to reproduce accurate colours when scanning. I fully appreciate that this is almost certainly my scanning technique, but then again, using the same technique (what ever that is), I find portra 160 a breeze to scan. The colours are saturated enough and so I find little draw towards ektar. That being said, Alex Burke scans ektar like a hero using the same scanner as myself and it looks stunning, so that kind of says it all and that I should perhaps learn to scan properly!.
 
Last edited:
Well can you guys agree on something i.e. is Ektar more difficult to home scan compared to Portra or the Fuji equivalent?
 
excalibur2 said:
Well can you guys agree on something i.e. is Ektar more difficult to home scan compared to Portra or the Fuji equivalent?
Click to expand...

From what I've experienced i wouldn't say so Brian .......Occasionally I've had a p*g of a time reproducing accurate colours from other films.....some have been developed by myself, others from labs.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, if you can't get on with a film then ditch it .......t'is why I don't shoot HP5 film anymore as for whatever the reason was ( my developing probably), I consistently obtained results that I was dissapointed with.

It wasn't a hard decission ...several films tried and tested, numerous potential "good" shots lost. Good enough reason to let it go !
 
Well Asha I not going to pay for expensive 120 scanning when a V750 should be good enough....so think I'll give Ektar a miss as I don't want any problems....erm now the confusing part Portra 160 or Fuji for scenery.
 
I've literally had no trouble scanning Ektar on my V500, flat beds usually require you to create flat scans and fix in post to get the most from them but other than that no issues, i found it easier to scan than Portra.
That image i posted before is a best case from a pro lab scan, this is all my Ektar shots on flickr both 35mm and 120 shot on everything from a 1920's box camera to a Bronica SQ-Ai, done with V500 and stock holders if you want to compare, https://www.flickr.com/photos/10456228@N00/tags/kodakektar100/
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone. Some nice shots here, and in another recent thread in Photos from Film. I've just had another look at the Ektar roll, and it was shot using the Pentax ME, but attempting to practice the Sunny 16 rule, using the exposure compensation (the ME only does aperture priority... I don't use it now, but it was all I had then). Most of the shots were on +1 stop compensation to get what I thought the compensation should be, and have come out fine. A couple I have as metered and also my sunny 16 estimate (+1 stop), and there's noticeable additional warmness in the latter. Incidentally these were processed and scanned by The Darkroom, Cheltenham, which I haven't used much since, but still seems to be going.

Scanning shouldn't be a problem, as I gave up scanning C41 some time ago, now get process and scan from Photo Express or Filmdev.

So, I guess I should take your collective advice and get a few rolls, and give them a go!
 
Morinaka said:
I've literally had no trouble scanning Ektar on my V500, flat beds usually require you to create flat scans and fix in post to get the most from them but other than that no issues, i found it easier to scan than Portra.
That image i posted before is a best case from a pro lab scan, this is all my Ektar shots on flickr both 35mm and 120 shot on everything from a 1920's box camera to a Bronica SQ-Ai, done with V500 and stock holders if you want to compare, https://www.flickr.com/photos/10456228@N00/tags/kodakektar100/
Click to expand...

H'mm so two against one for (for problems or not)......that leaves me to find out for myself :D
 
I scanned my examples above on a V500 and don't remember having any particular issues getting results from it?
 
Morinaka said:
Here's a shot from a roll i got back from the developers this week scanned on their Noritsu machine and lightly edited by me in Lightroom. Shot with a polarizer, bronica zenzanon-s 50mm.
RKdRYJVh.jpg
Click to expand...

Looking at this picture illustrates what I do and don't like about the film - the water and sky are gorgeous, then then fence is too colourful - which really distracts (me at least) from the other elements in the photo.

Maybe it's not blues that bother me so much but the teals.
 
LonerMatt said:
Looking at this picture illustrates what I do and don't like about the film - the water and sky are gorgeous, then then fence is too colourful - which really distracts (me at least) from the other elements in the photo.

Maybe it's not blues that bother me so much but the teals.
Click to expand...

Ah we are getting somewhere so it's Ektar for blue scenes with water and similar and something else for scenery with greens o_O I had all this sorted when using 35mm Reala, but the big corps have decided this is what we are making for 120 now, so deal with it.
 
Well, the grass looks gorgeous, and maybe for most the fence wouldn't be a concern - for me I can see the saturation in the fence and I feel it's a bit distracting. Pulling a slider in LR would presumably fix things and leave the really deep and distinct colours, so it might not be a bad thing. I usually just drop down a slider or two when shooting ektar.
 
The fence is actually that colour in the flesh, i did very little editing to the scan in LR as it was very good to begin with. Tint: -10 towards green to remove slight magenta cast from the CPL i used, contrast +15, clarity +10, saturation +10 and some general purpose sharpening preset i made.

I'm not claiming it's a great composition or anything, i tried to include the fence as a leading line foreground element type thing as without something in the foreground all the other stuff is in the distance and tiny and the image is a little boring based on older shots i've taken without that element.
 
This thread made me re look at a load of my stuff using Ektar 100. It is my go to film when it is bright enough, especially on a sunny day. I really do love it. As a few folk have said, get a few rolls and shoot it. The colours and contrast are ace, IMO.

In fact, here are a couple of newly uploaded examples.........one from last year, one from last week. :)



 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought I should put up one of the band shots that I mentioned!



Pentax ME, 50mm f/1.7, Ektar 100
 
ChrisR said:
I thought I should put up one of the band shots that I mentioned!



Pentax ME, 50mm f/1.7, Ektar 100
Click to expand...
Ektar is sometimes accused of not producing very nice skin tones....people say they are too red, though your subjects here might just be red in the face from blowing into tubes of course!

My example below, which is a pic I love otherwise, does arguably have the same reddish skin tones:

8696448050_a5338d9c89_b.jpg
 
I think, from my limited experience shooting people with Ektar, that if you have someone who has a pink/red complexion to begin with, it is somewhat accentuated. I have seen portraits or people with fair skin on Ektar that are just beautiful and even taken a couple myself which I am farily happy with (as happy as I am usually with my own work - not very)



 
One of the great things about this section of the forum is that even if we have many different opinions they are always expressed civilly and generally at the end of the discussion a consensus, or at least a statement that covers all the bases, can be drawn. Excellent work folks. (y)

In my opinion (and bearing in mind I am red/green colour-blind), I like Ektar for landscapes, especially where there is a lot of what the rest of the World insists on calling green. :D
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Ektar is sometimes accused of not producing very nice skin tones....people say they are too red, though your subjects here might just be red in the face from blowing into tubes of course!

My example below, which is a pic I love otherwise, does arguably have the same reddish skin tones:

8696448050_a5338d9c89_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Lovely shot Francesco. I checked the other shots on my Ektar roll, and even those not blowing into metal tubes were a bit red in the face. Not that that's unusual on a sunny day in Britain!

Fabulous shots as usual, Gareth. I wonder whether UK Film Lab processing helps; it always seems a little less saturated...
 
ChrisR said:
Lovely shot Francesco. I checked the other shots on my Ektar roll, and even those not blowing into metal tubes were a bit red in the face. Not that that's unusual on a sunny day in Britain!

Fabulous shots as usual, Gareth. I wonder whether UK Film Lab processing helps; it always seems a little less saturated...
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris - like most of my decent shots it's more about the stars aligning through good fortune than a lot of planning I think...right spot, great light, right camera and lens, kids sitting still for a change!! Even the grass they were sitting on had been nicely nibbled by the nearby cows :D. It's by the shore of Lough Erne in Ireland, in case anyone's interested...a beautiful, peaceful place.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Thanks Chris - like most of my decent shots it's more about the stars aligning through good fortune than a lot of planning I think...right spot, great light, right camera and lens, kids sitting still for a change!! Even the grass they were sitting on had been nicely nibbled by the nearby cows :D. It's by the shore of Lough Erne in Ireland, in case anyone's interested...a beautiful, peaceful place.
Click to expand...

Well a shot taken in Ireland about 40 years ago on Agfacolor slide and unfortunately the colours have faded a bit...now if Ektar or Portra etc can get all those lovely shades of green then I'd be happy.

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