Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,707   Posts: 1,548,542   Online: 1005
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Kodak Ektar 125

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    826

    Kodak Ektar 125

    I just picked up a box of this in 35mm format and wonder if anyone knows where I can pick up a spec sheet? With all the info on the more recent Kodak Ektar 100, I am not coming up with anything on this older version. I see a lot of mention on the siblings - Ektar 25 and Ektar 1000, but not much on this.


    As you can see, these expired back in 4/92 and I am wondering if this is a treasure chest or box of trash now?




  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    670
    No matter what was has been said about Ektar 125 you will have to test your stock of old film yourself. There is not way to tell how it compares to when it was fresh by just looking at the box. It may be OK for your needs but there is no way it will be as good as fresh Ektar 100.

  3. #3
    dehk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    W Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    885
    Can't help you there, but, you need to share your treasure!
    - Derek
    [ Insert meaningless camera listing here ]

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1
    From memory even when fresh it looked underexposed when shot at 125 ISO. So when you test it try 80 ISO maybe.
    I reckon it will be trash rather than treasure!

  5. #5
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    It has nothing to do with the current Ektar 100 but a name and a fact that it's a color negative film.

    Overexpose expired film because of
    a) speed loss of silver halide
    b) increased fog level (you have to place your exposure on the top of the fog)

    In addition, color neg films sustain overexposure quite well.

    So, I would overexpose it as much as two stops. Test different exposures such as ISO 80, 50, 32. Process normally, but you can try also pull processing if the fog is problem.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    776
    Nice score! Now if that was ektar 25... that might be even more interesting.

  7. #7
    Domin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Warszawa, Poland
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by aussiecameras View Post
    I reckon it will be trash rather than treasure!
    Even if you'd consider it trash there are certainly people who would gladly buy it.

    One man's trash is another treasure.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    826
    hrst nailed it - 2 stops slower then original rated speed. After the first two test rolls - first shot at ISO125, and the second at 64 with + or - underexposure range, third times a charm at ISO32 . . . bingo!

    It has excellent saturation/vibrance, great latitude, grain that rivals even today's fresh Kodak Ektar 100 with excellent sharpness . Yeah I would say it's treasure!


    Link for full res 1Meg file - http://www.fototime.com/36997315C6B5E61/orig.jpg



    Link for full res 500K file - http://www.fototime.com/AD5F7BE01FBFF9E/orig.jpg

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    I loved that film back in the 80's, that is quite the score and I see that it looks every bit as good as I remember it looking, well, once you get the exposure right. So, will you be sharing, or using it all yourself?
    "Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
    "Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"

    Me

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Les, C41 film of this era probably needs a formalin based stabiliser. The switch to non formalin based "final rinse" was done in 2000. Your film expired in 1992. Long term stability of your negatives will be compromised. This thread has a formula that will work.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin