Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,935   Posts: 1,585,618   Online: 741
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,086
    Thanks everybody. I'll decide between Ektar 100 and Portra 160VC. I usually don't shoot color negatives, so this will be the first for me.
    My standard has been B&W = film, Color = digi. I just got a Nikkor 16-35 VR, so I'm very tempted to try it at the widest setting using full frame body so I can take the full advantage of the ultra-wide angle view. Wish me luck!
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    107
    I haven't shot Ektar in about 15 years. Has the emulsion changed much? I'll second the 160VC. Easy to print and predictable.

  3. #13
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Casey Kidwell View Post
    I haven't shot Ektar in about 15 years. Has the emulsion changed much?
    Kodak recently (12-18 months?) released a new version of Kodak Ektar in 100 speed.

    I have yet to try it yet either but plan on testing some in 120 soon.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,186
    Images
    2
    I'm sure either film you have chosen will give excellent results. You may want to try a slight warming filter coupled with a polarizing filter for some of the exposures. It is my understanding that can make for a dramatic effect. I use B&W so I can't provide any examples and down here the leaves don't change.

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

  5. #15
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Casey Kidwell View Post
    I haven't shot Ektar in about 15 years. Has the emulsion changed much? I'll second the 160VC. Easy to print and predictable.
    It's a completely new film. See Kodak website for more info.

  6. #16
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,784
    Images
    23
    Best of luck and welcome back to color film I also second the choices of Ektar 100 and Potra 160NC or even the VC. With the great color products Kodak puts out, I find it hard to go wrong.
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  7. #17
    mikecnichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Marion, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    345
    Images
    38
    Can I ask y'all a question...why does it seem that y'all are partial to Kodak films? I understand the reason for films like Potra 160NC as they produce good skin tones and are suited for studio shooting, but why would you want to use such films for nature photography? I have always found that Fuji's products produce more stunning colors without looking fake (mostly).

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    70
    If we are talking c-41, and especially in 35mm, for the OP's application, I'll go out on a limb and say that reala and 160vc are nice, but ektar100 blows the doors off of both of them. If we are talking any colour including chrome, or larger formats then it's a different ball game, but ektar would still be the prime contender imho. The one limitation with ektar for nature photography is that it doesn't have much latitude for a negative film so If you have sky in a scene with a low value foreground you might want an nd grad or some other way to keep the sky from overexposing. I also find it's more contrasty than I would like for optical printing.

    Don't get me wrong I like the 160 films better for most applications, but "horses for courses" as the Brits say.
    Last edited by jpberger; 09-29-2010 at 12:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19
    mikecnichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Marion, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    345
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by jpberger View Post
    If we are talking c-41, and especially in 35mm, for the OP's application, I'll go out on a limb and say that reala and 160vc are nice, but ektar100 blows the doors off of both of them. If we are talking any colour including chrome, or larger formats then it's a different ball game, but ektar would still be the prime contender imho. The one limitation with ektar for nature photography is that it doesn't have much latitude for a negative film so If you have sky in a scene with a low value foreground you might want an nd grad or some other way to keep the sky from overexposing. I also find it's more contrasty than I would like for optical printing.

    Don't get me wrong I like the 160 films better for most applications, but "horses for courses" as the Brits say.
    I haven't used this newer Ektar. I have used the Ultra Color line and was very un happy for the most part. There were a few shots that I am very happy with, but overall I was unimpressed.

    Thanks for the reply.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by mikecnichols View Post
    Can I ask y'all a question...why does it seem that y'all are partial to Kodak films? I understand the reason for films like Potra 160NC as they produce good skin tones and are suited for studio shooting, but why would you want to use such films for nature photography? I have always found that Fuji's products produce more stunning colors without looking fake (mostly).
    Precisely because Portra (the NC variant) produces real colours, and not "stunning colors without looking fake (mostly)".

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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