This whole thread has kind of turned out how I thought it would: Ektar is great; no, it sucks; Ektar is easy to print; no, RA4 can't handle it and it is best scanned; Ektar is wonderful but only if you are really clever (the implication being that I am not). The most I can glean from this is that Ektar is only to be handled by really, really smart people; which is indeed an odd invention for the last gasp of a dying company. You'd think that Kodak might have wanted to turn out something capable of use by mere mortals like me, if profit motive were at all relevant.
Many of the scans posted prove that the film can be used effectively; but then again some of the scans posted are not brilliant, and some are but only with the admission that the scans are manipulated.
Well I brought only two rolls of Ektar with me. The comment that most resonated with me is that it is best used with high gamut, low dynamic range subjects, and I will reserve it for that. When people talk about scientific testing and densitometers and color accuracy (even where accuracy produces sucky results because Ektar does not have the interpretative failings of the mere human brain), I am left cold. For me, that is not what practical photography is about, although in saying that, I am not being condescending; I am merely admitting that there is an aspect to the art to which I do not aspire. There are plenty of good films that even mortals can use effectively.
If I am rambling, blame it on jet lag.