JoJo - yes indeed, use whatever film and printing technique works best for you personally. But if someone does want to optimize Ektar there are some "relatively" simple ways to do it, but perhaps
tricky to those not previously skilled in advanced color darkroom techniques. Unfortunatley, there's
not much contemporary info out there. Masking color negs is very different from doing chromes, and
there are a few distinct tricks to it. For one thing, you've got to null out that orange mask first or
the results will be severely skewed. But I won't go into the numerous details here - and I am getting
superb results. In fact, I'm just about to order a forty-inch roll of Fuji Supergloss, which cost nearly
a thousand bucks, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. But for the sake of the learning curve, I used CAII glossy, which gave excellent results. Fuji "P" or "C" paper should work fine too,
with an obvious distinction in contrast level. But the newer CAII renders the colors a little cleaner.
Drew, I'm sure that with good negatives and a good scanner and someone who knows what they are doing, good scans can be achieved with Ektar, in spite of its so-called problems. But I would imagine that many of the users who scan probably don't fit that scenario.
Joachim, I use Kodak Endura paper and develop with Kodak RA-RT replenisher at room temperature. I have used Fuji CA paper and gotten good results. The differences I observed were slightly higher saturation with the Fuji, but better shadow detail with the Kodak.
Masking allows one not only to efficiently increase or decrease contrast to fit the range of paper and
magnification, but also to place the effective cotrast on some preferred part of the dye curve, in
effect reconfiguring its geometry for actual color and saturation control. Might sound complicated,
but if approached a step at a time is not so daunting, for those who might welcome the challenge.
But I really do not believe Portra is any different than Ektar in terms of sub-par scans. It's just that
people overlook the color errors in traditional color negs films as long as the skintones come out OK;
and most such films do so by artificially warming or "neutraling" certain hue categories, the problem
being, that they can't resolve analogous hue in nature, thing which Ektar can in fact do if you
understand the film. Don't try to turn it into Porta, or expect it to be exactly like chrome film either.
It's it's own animal.
Put your money where YOUR mouth is and post YOUR wonderful Kodak Ektar 100 darkroom print.
Originally Posted by RPC
The colors from my Fuji Pro 800Z scan looks a hellauv a lot better than any Kodak Ektar 100 posted so far on this thread, IMHO.
Perhaps the winner is in your possession, though.
Let's see it.
Here's another Fuji Pro 800Z, also sunset:
Last edited by Andre Noble; 10-05-2012 at 03:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Andre - I really don't have time for this nonsense or for butchering real nuances of prints on something like the web. You want to see one of my color prints? Cough up four grand and you can actually own one!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Andre- sounds like you've decided you're right no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. Good luck with that.
Your request isn't logical. I said that I thought the poor quality of your image was the scan, not the film. After what I have said about the unreliability of scanning in judging the quality of films, does it make any sense that I would scan a print and post it to show the quality of EKtar? Besides, my scanner is a modest, eight year old flatbed scanner; I would no more trust that than the monitors it would be seen on. As I said the best way for you to judge the film is through well made optical prints.
Originally Posted by Andre Noble
FWIW Andre, the examples you have posted all seem to have strong colour casts on my manually calibrated, low cost monitor.
They all look to me like they came from Fuji materials!
(before you react, understand that I have a life-long, pro-Kodak bias)
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Matt, and I was born not far from EK, and even today plopped $400 down on Kodak TXP 320 sheets.
Hey baby, I am almost 50, so I can tell you your gig: Your gig is "I am entitled to be correct because I am ______". Yup, I said it.
Originally Posted by RPC
RPC, you remind me of a dude who just today is selling ancient Maco IR 820c 4x5 sheet on Ebay, but steadfastly refuses to tell me how old they are, despite two separate emails specifically requesting this vital information. Why does he sand bag like you? He feels entitled. In his case, to my money. In your case, to being "right".
Here, read how he goes on and on about these Infrared sheets without coughing up the vital information:
I truly don't remember the exact year. I was using Maco IR film and had stockpiled it in my freezers. At that time I was the US import agent for Maco, the idea of "Aura" was mine and I intended to develop their business until they decided to release a batch of film with known emulsion coating irregularities. One of my contacts at the offices of Maco, after hearing my disappointment, told me that EFKE was their film manufacturer and gave me their contact info and plant managers name.
I took a second mortgage on my home to buy an entire run of 11x14, 8x10 and 4x5 films for my use only..I am a photographer, not a dealer..I am selling my film only to raise money..my sales have dropped, my house is in foreclosure as is my gallery. I have worked with Kodak on the use and continuance of their high speed IR and had ordered complete runs from them also in 8x10 during which I spoke with their chemistry dept several times due to my concerns about film aging and was told that if the film storage temperature is maintained at 10 degrees Fthe film will not age or degrade. I purchased several large (6') deep chest freezers in which the film has been kept since I received it. The standards I employ are those of a photographer, not a dealer..I too feared degradation in image quality, so, was sure to keep all my films frozen. I still have some frozen Kodak IR which, though older, is still perfect in use.
I have mostly 11x14 IR now, maybe 45 boxes of 4x5 and another 50 boxes of Maco 4x5 (25 sheets) which though past date, is also perfect. I can't tell you anything more specific to insure your confidence, but be aware that I cannot offer drastic reductions in quantity pricing, this price is currently far below market and my original cost. gary
Maybe you two are close relatives or born in same town?
PS: Drew, aren't you the same guy who just days ago was trying to tell me that the Nikon 90 SW f4.5 large format lens is just as sharp, if not sharper than it's renowned little brother, the Nikon SW 90 f8? Well, Just to let u know, you're on my ignore list.
Last edited by Andre Noble; 10-05-2012 at 11:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Link to an example of what I think shows off the impressive qualities of Kodak Ektar 100. Password is "lily". If you hover over the image, you will have the option of viewing the full res file.
Properly executed - capture to display, I believe that most any film can deliver.