I've now worked with Ektar in a wide variety of lighting and situation (except night photography) -
tropical seashores and rain forests, high mtn scenes in all kinds of weather, direct sunlit earthtones,
subtle dry field and foliage colors here in Calif. As my confidence grows I'm getting more and more
impressed with the product... not that it will bag just anything that a chrome would ... but it some
ways it's even better. It will also differentiate subtle earthtone hues which traditional color neg films
just lump into pumkinish or flesh-tonish homogeneity (fine if you're Misrach, I guess - but that's not
the effect I'm after!). But I would caution any beginner to take with a grain of salt all the rumors
about Ektar going around. I'll bet 90% of the complaints are simply due to something else, like poor
scanner technique. I both scans wonderfully and, even more important, responds well in the dkrm.
And thank you, Flying Camera, for showing examples of just how good this film is with earthtones
and direct light!
I REALLY like this film. It works so well in such a wide range of conditions. I'm really on the fence about whether to take it or Portra 160 with me to Cuba in March.
One more to show how well it can do with blues, and not just earthtones (although it is great with those too):
That was shot in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in February, with a Contax G2, 21mm lens, hand-held, no polarizer, I want to say f2.8 or at most f4, around 1/4000 second? This is the only shot I've ever seen with this lens that looks like it vignettes at full aperture. Regardless, tough lighting conditions between the direct overhead sun at mid-day, and the backlighting. If there's anything wrong with the image, it's certainly not the film's fault.
I'm still trying to work out the first image you posted, very Burtynsky. Yet... it doesn't look like direct sunlight?
Like someone else mentioned about the film (but really, it goes for creative photography in general), I think the fact that you've been very selective with colour in these images helps a great deal. Landscapes at dawn and sunset are a bit of a different story. I'd sooner shoot Portra in those conditions, in which Ektar can be a bit loud and of course, with the more limited range compared with Portra, the purists might find themselves grabbing the grads.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I completely agree with DREW WILEY.
I did scientific tests of exposure latitude: Ektar has slightly less latitude than Portra, but anyway more than Fuji Pro 160, for example.
It requires just a good technique for scanning and for printing to achieve good results. In despite of that, if managed properly it's capable of extraordinary results.
Ektar is more optimized for scanning than Portra, because of its own "special" orange mask.
Portra is very good for both analogue prints and scanning (as everybody knows), but Ektar too, in the hands of an expert printmaker or scanmaker.
batwister- are you referring to the brickwork arches? They're gun emplacements on the fortification of El Morro in Old San Juan. They were taken near noon, in direct sun. But they look very evenly lit because not far away at all was a 100 ft tall wall that was stuccoed, and acted as a giant fill reflector.
FAIL. The cyan cast feels very depressing to me.
Originally Posted by agfarapid
This awful color is precisely ONE of the reasons I won't buy Ektar 100. Not making a personal shot at you, rather of an emulsion that is short of what Kodak is capable of manufacturing.
The current Kodak Ektar 100 film lacks what I will describe as color accuracy AND color contrast.
An experienced darkroom worker understands these when he/she has dialed in the best color correction filtration from a good color film and the colors throughout the image "pop" because of their freedom from color crossover and unfavorable color casts.
Last edited by Andre Noble; 10-05-2012 at 03:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.
This is how a PROFESSIONAL color negative film renders colors:
Shot on Fuji Pro 800Z at Sunset
Last edited by Andre Noble; 10-05-2012 at 03:07 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I am one who prints Ektar optically. I have been printing color negatives for more than 25 years. I have printed Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and Konica films and when exposed properly, processed properly and printed on good paper all these films could produce good prints. Ektar is no different. I never have any of the problems some complain about, and my prints look as good or better than anything I've done in the past. No blue shadows, no cyan skies, no harsh contrast, no crossover, just more vivid colors that look good when they are appropriate.
When one considers the many variables there can be in scanning such as scanner response and settings, profiles, image processing, and monitor characteristics and settings, it amazes me how anyone can think a film can be judged on computer screen from a scan, as we frequently see here.