For a negative projector you need a very bright room and a black screen.
It's one of the ugliest films I have ever used. Completely unsuitable for my own general purposes. It is kind of neat to have it there for the occasional subject, but I sure as hell hope that it is not the new king. If it were the only color neg film, I'd surely switch almost entirely to digital or color.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
On a serious note, I have a very high opinion of this film. I've spent some time learning how to properly expose and print it, and have tried in it every format from 35mm to 8x10. By next Spring I
hope to be making 30x40 Fuji CA Supergloss prints from it, since all my 30x40 Cibachromes are now
sold out. It's certainly not the most forgiving of color neg films, and perhaps not the best choice
for general portraiture; but it can deliver. The first thing one needs to do is learn proper color balancing filtration outdoors. I always take along an 81A and 81C for overcast days or deep shade
under blue skies, respectively. You CANNOT correct for a serious lighting imbalance afterwards, no
matter what the Photoshop geeks tell you. You might be able to shoot at a lower ASA and get sufficient exp to all three dye layers; but it's better to filter correctly in the first place.
I found the same thing, after shooting a roll on a rather overcast day in the mountains. Fuji 200 shot under similar conditions can be reasonably corrected in the darkroom, Ektar 100, not so much.
It's certainly trickier to shoot, but when it works it really works!
I still love slide but I cannot get it developed in Tasmania any more whereas I can get Ektar done in half an hour in town.
It's also cheaper which makes a difference in these tight financial times when the amount of film I shoot is limited by what I can afford to spend on a hobby...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yeah, I agree.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
And a black light bulb in the projector.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
No, more the other way round, returning to slide film because of better detail rendition and better colors (of course color is also very subjective and an individual thing).
Originally Posted by rolleiman
We've tested intensively all ISO 100 slide films and CN films of the market.
Our test results are very clear about the comparison of Ektar 100 to the ISO 100 competition:
Resolution and sharpness of all slide films are superior to Ektar 100:
Resolution with object contrast of 1:4 (system resolution Nikkor 1,8/50 and Zeiss ZF 50 at f5,6 with the following films):
E100G and Elitechrome 100: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Sensia 100, Provia 100F, Astia 100F: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Velvia 100 and 100F: 125 - 140 lp/mm
Elitechrome 100 ExtraColor and E100VS: 115 - 125 lp/mm
Ektar 100: 90 - 105 Lp/mm
Gold 100/Farbwelt 100: 105 - 115 lp/mm
Reala: 110 - 115 lp/mm
Pro 160C: 105 - 115 lp/mm
Grain is a little bit finer with E100G, Elitechrome 100, Astia, Sensia, Provia compared to Ektar (but the difference not so big).
E100VS / ExtraColor is a bit coarser in grain than Ektar.
Ektar has a bit finer grain than Reala and Pro 160, and is significantly finer grained than Gold 100.
All these differences are clearly visible under the microscope, with optical enlarging (with APO enlarging lenses) and less visible, but still significant with 8000 ppi drum scanners.
With low(er) resolution 4000 ppi scanners the differences are quite small. The 4000 ppi scan with its low resolution is the bottleneck here and the limiting factor in image quality.
Kodak introduced Ektar 100 first only as 35mm film, and in its amateur line. And said it is optmised for scanning. It was adressed for a certain market segment.
I talked at Photokina 2008, when Ektar 100 was introduced, to the Kodak people and they told me that. Also they said there will be no Ektar 100 120 or sheet film (well, they later changed their mind).
And that is indeed what they really did: A film optimised for the most widespread amateur scanners with max. resolution of 4000 ppi.
Most of these scanners get real 3600 ppi (Nikon Coolscan 5000 e.g.), that is about 70 Lp/mm resolution.
Kodak sacrificed a bit resolution (Gold 100 has indeed higher resolution, but significantly coarser grain compared to Ektar) to get finer grain, because with these 4000 ppi scanners grain is the most visible problem (often enhanced by scanner noise).
Ektar 100 is a product specifically designed for this certain market segment, and it fits very well in this application.
But from a technological point of view and the test results, E100G, Elitechrome 100 and all ISO 100 Fuji slide films deliver better detail rendition. Visible directly on the film (see my postings above) and with drum scanners.
And when you compare a projected slide to a Ektar print of the same size.
E6 developing is not at all a problem here in Germany: Dozens of labs, excellent quality and very fast service available, low prices.
Thank you, Henning, for such an impressive study of color film resolution. While I don't have any quantitative data for comparison of Ektar to slide films, I have been shooting both Ektar and Velvia 100 and find them to be fairly similar in color rendition and color intensity (not a very precise term, I am afraid).
I have been enjoying the autumn colors here in Seattle and have taken a number of photos of the local trees using a Hasselblad with two backs: one containing Velvia and the other containing Ektar. I take identical photos using both backs and develop them myself (the E6 using the Kodak 5L kit and the C41 using the Tetenal blix-based kit). I print the C41 using a dichroic enlarger and make 12"x12" enlargements on Fuji CA type II paper (developed at room temperature using Kodak chemicals).
I am very pleased with the results. Both films give fairly saturated colors, which are not everybody's cup of tea. The Ektar contrast seems to be increased when printed on the Fuji paper and the combination has similar contrast to Velvia (viewed on a light table).
Resolution notwithstanding, Ektar is ISO 100, so shoot it at 100. Don't shoot it 125, or 66. I did some testing, some others have as well. The thing is you can over expose it fairly well, but it will rapidly start losing saturation in a number of colors. They start turning greyish. This can lead to the impression of more detail, as you can "see" details on grey better than you can on a navy blue peacoat (in one online example, this was used). Just 1 stop and you can notice a bit. 2 stops and you start losing color. That may be why some people are unhappy with the colors.
You shoot it at the proper lighting and it performs well. The photo won't be ruined if you're over or under. It actually has a wide range. It's just that the "sweet spot" is rather narrow.
I'm an amateur and I can even spot this in my own test rolls.
Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD