Were you thinking about Ektar 25? I used that about 25 years ago. Very fine film. No grain. Here's a scan. http://flic.kr/p/921HSF
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
and other Ektar 25 shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/ektar/
Is it me, or is it Ektar?
Alan that's from 25 years ago? Wow that IS a nice film, that's nicer than Ektar 100 I think.
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
Thanks for sharing.
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Ektar 100 truly and thoroughly sucks and Kodak knows it but their best film engineers have since retired and Kodak doesn't care anymore. Color negative film peaked about 12 years ago when Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa were all still fully in the game. A lot of beautiful color emulsions have since departed. The Fuji NPH 400 is probably the best still in existence circa April 2013.
Kodak Ektar 100 is for young kids who and old fools who do not know what quality color silver halide images look like.
My, my, we're bitter about something.
Originally Posted by Andre Noble
That's an fantastic image! And I personally find Ektar 100 to be a film favorite, its always easy to print.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Actually, you can use bleach exposed paper, in a very very dilute bleach, like you do with black and white printing.
Originally Posted by newcan1
Ektar is an excellent film, and records gentle subtleties very nicely. RA-4 papers of whats left are a bit heavy handed in the optical dark room, their contrast and saturation is high, so it's not a good combination with Ektar when you want gentle results, as there are no gentle papers left.
These RA-4 papers work well in lightjets and the such without needing a huge intensity range of the laser or LED etc to reach full black, and also because the printer is calibrate for WYSWIG from a calibrated monitor, so it can print any 'grade' it's fed.
Waterfall by athiril, on Flickr
Sunset #2 on Ektar by athiril, on Flickr
Sunset #1 on Ektar by athiril, on Flickr
My example above is exposed for the coloured area of the sky (reflective metered) for 100. This is a scan and I had to clip out all the sand detail and make it dark, as it was too fully detailed and I didn't like that, as otherwise it was too bland and distracting, even at this level of exposure it can record huge shadow detail.
I expose my Portra at box speed for excellent results in portraits, incident metered towards the key light.
If you want to use Ektar and portraits, I would recommend EI 50, incident metered towards the key light, to give +1 to skin tones.
Otherwise I promote box speed usage with incident metering of the key light, or reflective metering of sunsets, etc.
Underexposure causes blue results, especially with very cold lighting, it just compounds the fact
Cape Woolami #7 by athiril, on Flickr
Cape Woolami #8 by athiril, on Flickr
I exposed as long as I could, the light was just fading fast, and basically night by this point, I had tripod nestled/wedged in the rocks up there, supporting with hands, as I had climbed up those two rocks (it's quite high up) and had to climb down before absolutely pitch black, and tide was coming in beneath me.
I would pick Ektar over Reala. The last time I used Reala, I was kind of bewildered by how it turned out, it turned into a HDR-tonemapped looking image, at long exposure at night. Ektar and Portra are ideal companions for any situation practically speaking. These are the two films I cannot do without.
And lose the masking? No thanks! You might be able to dissolve the mask out though with a solvent anyway.
Originally Posted by wblynch
Last edited by Athiril; 04-02-2013 at 06:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Just the opposite, Athiril - it's easier to get deep blacks printing optically. Lightjet and similar exposure
devices are dependent upon computer tweaks to correct the overall curve, but are not especially strong
light sources, esp the green lasers. With enlarging such adjustments can be done by film masking, if needed at all. Paper grades are somewhat limited nowadays in the RA4 dept, but the quality of the paper is outstanding, and Ektar prints absolutely beautifully on all the Crystal Archive papers for example. Like anything else, you have to know what you are doing. If someone wants "soft" or bland results, they'd be better of with Portra 160, or could purchase some of the Type P paper that's still around. All this jabber that, because these newest paper are "digitially optimized" means they are
somehow less suitable with an ordinary colorhead, is absolute nonsense. They are better than ever
for the analog darkroom. Now maybe not everyone has fancy additive colorheads like I do, but even
with traditional subtractive colorheads these papers should equate to a general improvement in color
reproduction. But I'd be careful to tailor the subject matter to the most reasonable film first. Ektar
ain't Portra, and Portra ain't Ektar!
Andre - guess I'm just an ole fool! And I must be especially stupid to have my freezer stuffed with
4x5 and 8x10 Ektar, and at the moment to be cutting down a thousand dollar roll of paper to print Ektar
images. Thanks for sending me off in the correct direction and informing me that I'm too senile to know how to print. Funny how beautiful those Ektar prints come out, however... must be by sheer chance!
Wow, Athiril. ++
What's not to like there?
“You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt