I love Ektar.
I also love Portra 400.
And Portra 160.
And Fuji Pro 160S.
And Velvia 50.
I loved them every one...I think there is a song in there somewhere
Originally Posted by Tony-S
If you're scanning a negative and the result has a cyan cast, then that's a scanning issue, just as a cyan cast when printing conventionally is a filtration issue. There is no such thing as a neutral setting for printing a color negative. Conventional printing always requires a filter pack, and scanning always requires evaluation and adjustment.
All photographic scanner should be calibrated, it is a very simple procedure - it requires spending some $40 to buy the calibrated "targets" - but it makes a lot of difference. If you don't calibrate your scanner you might end up never finding a proper filtration.
More than that, to extract the most from a new colour negative film the best would be to take some pictures of a colour chart and create a profile for your scanner/film couple.
The resulting profiles (scanner profile and film profile) should allow you to correctly filter all images taken in the same light condition and not to become mad if you need to filter images taken in different light conditions.
I never practiced colour printing but I suppose it is the same: a new film should require some shots of a colour chart in the light conditions for which the film is calibrated (normally 5500 °K) and finding the filtration which gives a print which closely matches the colour chart. That would give you a filtration which should be valid in most situations.
I've also read that Ektar doesn't tolerate underexposure without punishing you with unbalanced colours.
The joke apparently is that some people expect automatically perfect color/contrast interpretation from C41color film.
Originally Posted by Andre Noble
Googling may turn out lots of captures but not all of them may have been interpreted correctly - or for that matter shot correctly, as well as their results may be just fine for themselves.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Btw, what scan software and settings do you use?
Originally Posted by Andre Noble
1) Kodak Ektar 100 is, by purpose, non-realistic. If you expect realistic color rendition and have accidentally bought this film, it is your problem of not doing your homework.
It is good to have choices; it is even better to have freedom to not choose them if you don't want to. However, you should not ridicule other's right to make these choices.
It is so funny to see people complaining of too many choices of film today!
2) There is no universal definition what is "good" or "bad". Multitude of people, me included, like the color rendition of Ektar. It is not about being wrong or right. Of course, there can be a certain reference of being NEUTRAL, but Ektar does not even try to be neutral, and it doesn't have to, because Kodak already has two other neutral color neg film products.
3) APUG is not for discussing scanning. (99% of scanners sold are broken and 99% of scanning software sold are nearly useless, due to idiots designing them. I have built my own scanner from scratch and written the software for it, and it was one of the easiest tasks in my electronics/programming field of hobby ever.) This is a typical scanning-related problem and due to the difficulty of solving it, discussing scanning has been forbidden in APUG. You can try DPUG.org instead, but don't expect to get an easy answer when it comes to film scanning with broken equipment.
I print my Ektar optically (that's what we discuss here at APUG), and it prints without cyan cast with the standard filtration like any color negative film. It has SOMEWHAT increased saturation and a MINOR shift towards cyan in certain colors that ACTUALLY look somewhat cyan in real life to begin with.
99.999% of images shot on Ektar you find on the Internet, are indeed shot on Ektar, but then scanned with a broken scanner, autoadjusted for colors behind the users back on the scanning software, and then further modified by the user using some piece of broken software such as Adobe Photoshop, which automatically creates color crossover errors when trying to color correct due to an amateurish bug or design error in handling of gamma-corrected values. Then the users hassle with all the knobs this piece of software allows until they have something they are satisfied enough with, and upload it to the 'net. It has NOTHING to do with how Ektar performs or what you or me can do with it anymore.
In reality, the color of the sky is a VERY complex system, like many things in the nature are!
It varies hugely depending on time of day and quality of light. The amount of scattering is dependent on the amount of water droplets, smoke and other particles. The higher the scattering, the more light is mixed to the "background" color of the sky. Now, near the sunrise or sunset time, this mixed light is yellow in color, so that the combination can vary wildly from yellowish-green to green, cyan and blue.
If you try to use sky as any sort of color standard, you are severely off. It is surprising how ignorant people can be about our very surrounding nature -- how blind can we be even for something we look at all the time? "The sky is blue" -- is it really? What is blue, anyway? If "blue" is the color of sky, then there are quite a bit of different blues.
If we look at the art of painting, there are many ways of expressing sky color or reflecting sky in water. Sometimes it is depicted as having a deep, almost violet, ultramarine shade. Sometimes it is painted cyan, sometimes even cyan-green. This all is based on reality, but typically exaggerated. Ektar is a film with exactly this purpose; it exaggerates colors to create painting-like depiction of the reality, with a certain palette that indeed leans a bit toward green-cyan. This is great because there are already products leaning towards ultramarine-violet thing, such as Fuji chrome films (especially Velvias), but AFAIK, Ektar is really the only one that has this particular green-cyanish palette. If you don't like it, it is your problem then. You don't have to use it.
You can vary the palette quite a bit with filters (pre or post) or adjusting exposure, but for more realistic products, try Portra 160 or Portra 400. It is best to have them all so you can choose according to your needs.
Last edited by hrst; 07-15-2012 at 07:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.
If you're googling for Ektar or looking on flickr, you will see, on average, very very poor results with bad saturation, bad colour casts, etc. C41 requires some skill to scan and Ektar in particular can be difficult to get right because the "black" point is not the film mask colour and this confuses most inversion programs and scanning operators. People also tend to include too much dynamic range, which results in flat pastel results.
I can report though that Ektar has very saturated colours with accurate hues; it looks a lot like a chrome when printed. For example (all are RZ67, Ektar and Nikon 8000): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Ektar is not a bad joke; most photographers are a bad joke.
All this only reinforces the knowledge that it is ridiculous to try to judge a film based on what you see on a computer screen!
It is often even difficult to judge a film printed optically. If two films are printed on a given paper and well color balanced, each will likely give different results if those same two films are printed on a different paper. This is due to the different spectral characteristics of the dyes of the two films and spectral responses of the different papers having different match-ups. With severe enough mismatch, crossover can occur.
I can see scanners having the same response differences and would require some type of careful adjustment for each of the different dyesets in all the films out there. Do you think such critical match-ups occur? Is the software and profiles making the proper corrections? Is your monitor calibrated? Can you trust what you see?
Last edited by RPC; 07-15-2012 at 12:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.
And this is precisely why all of the various APUG traveling portfolios and print (and at one point, transparency) exchanges exist. They're real things. Created by someone's own hands. Held in your own hands. Beheld with your own eyes. No abstractions. No indirection. No algorithms. No calibrations. Just the thing itself. The real deal.
Originally Posted by RPC
Everyone should give one of the exchanges a try. Experiencing real materials, techniques and approaches becomes so much more meaningful than simply staring at a computer screen.
"There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."
— Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014