The Kodak Ektar 25 has gone a long time ago, but I hope that here in Apug forums are people who used it.
I didn't use. I shot only color slides and bw films until begun my journey with colour negative films three years ago.
As I remember that Ektar 25 had reputation as grainless and sharp film, it would be nice to know how it really compares with slowest colour negative films that are available today.
Did the technology ran over Ektar 25 and new Ektar 100 is sharper and has smaller grain? Or Reala 100?
The comparisons like that are important to me as I really don't have any image of quality of color negative films during their golden era of 80's and 90's.
The grain structure of the new Ektar100 is the same as the old Ektar 25 according to Kodak http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe....5.14.14&lc=en
I've heard and seen conflicting reports, and in some cases 25 was sharper/better than 100. I have quite a bit of Ektar 25 and Royal Gold 25 in the freezer if you want/need to try some. Also shot a lot back in the day and still have negs. Someday I will do a comparison. Ektar 100 is pretty good overall, I use it and don't really feel bad about not using the 25 much. 2 stops more speed is a nice plus, esp. with slower medium format lenses.
Ektar 25 and Ektar 100 are very close in overall rendering of sharpness and grain. One thing you must remember about Ektar 25 is that it was not noted for its keeping. One ingredient in the color forming coupler dispersions could crystallize and cause increased grain (or the appearance of it).
Don't keep it too long! And, freezing seemed to make this problem worse. Good luck.
Ektar 25 professional was the only colour film in an enlarger, that you could never find grain with a grain focuser.
Instead we used different objects, like lines or a colour change and by focusing on a colour change area, like a red strip of material which had a blue colour abutting it.
It was an incredibly fine grained film.
We enlarged a 35mm film frame that had a full portrait of a person, we then did a straight enlargement to same size on a single sheet of paper. Mounted it onto 15mm foam core and placed it alongside the real person. This was for a Kodak Australasia advertisement.
It was very interesting to see a grainless picture with incredible detail at same size alongside the real life model.
This was used in Kodak seminars around the country, well at least in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
Not knowing this at the time, I threw a couple of 35mm rolls of it in the freezer in 1997 or so. I still have them. Probably not worth trying then, considering how close it is to 100 and how cheaply I can get new 100. Ah well.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
You never can tell.
Give it a try. However, most reports indicate what appears to be high grain.
Point is, Ektar 25 is loooong gone--however good it was reputed to be. Why not shoot the new stuff? Ektar 100 really is a gift from Kodak. Enjoy it while it's around.
Exactly my point. I can get a roll of Ektar 100 for $4.59 (current Freestyle price.) Considering I don't do my own C41 anymore it would still cost me to use the frozen 25, at least the C41 processing, plus if I want to do anything with the results either prints or scans (see my complaints in other threads about wanting to get back to doing RA4 and not doing so yet.) Plus the new stuff will be a very useful two stops faster. I don't see a lot of reason to try it, at least yet. If I do get back to printing RA4 and doing my own C41 again I might, as it would be a very cheap experiment. In the meantime, I'll leave it frozen.
Originally Posted by CGW
IMHO, you are not missing much compared to today's films. It is a fine film, but new films are amazing. (They are too good sometimes.) I still have some Ektar 25 that I shoot from time to time, but I would not bother to track it down, and I would not pay more than 25 cents a roll for it in any condition. FWIW, my Ektar seems to have held up fine in my freezer. But maybe I should move it to the fridge.