Thanks. Now I think I will be considering Slides, but I will think it through carefully. I'll just compare first the new Portra and the Ektar, and study lighting.
Ektar has the punch alright, but I do spend a lot of time scanning or Photoshop'ing to tame the red. I prefer Portra, scan at 48 bit dng and put all the punch in you could possible want at post.
I think a lot of the bad rap Ektar gets is due to either improper exposure or less than ideal scanning,
particularly with small formats. I won't get into the technical details, but this film can be tamed and
achieve superb results. I print directly from it onto Crystal Archive paper and think I understand it fairly
well at this point. The gradation and saturation are superb. If you think there is anything wrong with the
film itself and are scanning it, try this: shoot the same scene with 35mm and then with sheet film, then
scan and print them the same. The smaller sampling of the subtle gradations in the film curve in smaller
film means a lot of important hue transitions get missed. I did this experiment myself, even though I have
no interest in either digital printing or web usage. The smaller the film, the better the scan you need.
The closest thing to Ektar is the now discontinued Portra 160VC. Ektar takes that kind of color negative
improvement one step further, and one step closer to what one might expect from a transparency film,
yet with better latitude. The problem with color casts people are experiencing are due to the lack of
color balance filtration when it is needed. You need to handle it in the field just like you would in a studio
setup, and be cognizant of color temperature.
Ektar is my new favourite neg film.
It's not the same as slide and for me won't replace it but I love the look of it especially when shot through vintage lenses.
Scans really easily too and although I haven't tried printing it yet I soon will as yesterday I bought a nice colour enlarger and several rolls of paper...I can't wait to get started!
Anybody know of any plans for Ektar 400 in the works? Or what is going to replace the now-discontinued 400QC?
I don't know if I can get behind Portra... it's nice for people and faces and stuff, but I find it a little lacking for the great outdoors. Nice for occasional use, but I'm still waiting to see if Kodak puts out a different film in ISO 400.
The easiest way is to do what Johnny Martyr on flickr does. Call yourself a pro, shoot Ektar, develop and scan at your local Target store, then pretend that the scan is a print.
However, I wouldn't count on an automated scan at Target to give me a consistent, accurate interpretation of an Ektar negative.
I think Ektar can be used very sucsessfully for portraits. I got the attached photo judged as "Photo of the day" with Italian Vouge this weekend. So when the very small eye of the needle with the photo editors of Vouge find Ektar good enough to pass trough, ill guess most of us will do the same. And it prints extreme nice with enlarger on Supra Endura F.
The Portra line and Ektar is at the moment the only colourfilms i use.
The easiest way is to do what Johnny Martyr on flickr does. Call yourself a pro, shoot Ektar, develop and scan at your local Target store, then pretend that the scan is a print.
However, I wouldn't count on an automated scan at Target to give me a consistent, accurate interpretation of an Ektar negative.
Lee
Just to clear things up, I don't call myself a pro. I do paid work but I am not equipped to shoot all situations or provide various services. I make this clear to anyone I work with. Photography is not my main source of income. And I like it that way. It offers me the freedom to do things the way I believe they should be done as oppose to what necessarily sells.
What is wrong with processing at Target? They use the same machine and chemistry that professional labs use and maintain their equipment just as well. My techs do an excellent job with my work and help me in many ways I have not gotten from professional labs. The low cost and quick turnaround allows me to view and share my photos rapidly. I also find that I shoot more than I used to because the processing is so affordable. This results, hopefully, in more practice and improved shooting ability and understanding. Not to mention that I spend more money on the film itself which hopefully is helping companies like Kodak stay affloat.
How does one "pretend the scan is a print?" What does that even mean? I rescan my work where necessary either at home or at a pro lab for higher resolution and professional print sizes. I do not have a local lab to do optical prints anymore and enjoy digital editing with 20mb Tiff files of my negatives. They print very well. The low res Target scans are more like a contact sheet and a way for me to share online without worrying about theft of my high res images.
Please feel free to issue complaints directly to me (JohnnyMartyr@Hotmail.com) or at least offer constructive feedback and suggestions to the topic at hand.
Last edited by JohnnyMartyr; 05-11-2012 at 08:09 AM.
I've tried Portra (but not the 160, I have used only the 400). I ended up adjusting the colors on my shot using Portra. I am looking for colors like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnym...in/photostream (not mine). Nice deep colors.
Thanks very much for enjoying and sharing my photo. My best advice on shooting with Ektar is to shoot in cloudy/overcast or indoor lighting. The film's rich saturation just bleeds in sunny, direct light but excells with very natural skintones and punchy primary colours in subdued light. I also recommend having it processed in Kodak chemistry. My local pro labs all use Fuji chemistry and this is how I first began using Ektar, not really getting the fineness of grain or saturation it is known for. Having it processed at the local Target in their Kodak chemicals made all the difference. C41 is not really as universal as it should be unfortunately. Good luck with your work and feel free to email me at JohnnyMartyr@Hotmail.com if I can provide any more information/experiences.
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by ColdEye
