Kodak Ektar 100

[Gordon Moat]

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarIndex.jhtml

Just announced in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes.

Shame I currently only use E-6 films, though I might try some of this.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[ImSoNegative]

i read that today, awsome news, i use it in 120 often, its a great film with very good latitude, cant wait to try it in 4x5. wonder how much it will cost?

[Gordon Moat]

I rarely have used C-41 films, and one issue for me is that my main lab does not do C-41 in 4x5 sizes (only 35mm and rollfilm). I would like to try it, since it might be more available than some E-6 in the future, though I don't see it as a good replacement for E100VS.

[MikeH]

Any thoughts that 4x5, and film, are "dead" or "dying" should be gone with this announcement... obviously someone is placing some $$ into developing new film.

Also, I was in Walgreen's today and they were advertising film processing in the paper as a special. These specials are usually set to drive specific traffic into the store, so there must be some market out there for 35mm...

[Sean Galbraith]

Ektar 100 in 4x5 makes me very, very happy.

[Cornelius]

Too bad Walgreen's won't develop this. ;)

[Thalmees]

Thanks Gordon Moat.
You make my day.
As every one knows EKTAR, I’ll try it, could not resist.
Wondering how photography can continue without the triad: Ektar100, Velvia50 & TMX100 ?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Gordon, get with the program! Grain this small on print film will be the death knell for E6. It doesn't grain-alias with desktop CCD scanners as does Portra-- which is significant for the smaller formats with higher levels of enlargement.

You might not need Ektar in LF for the other fine grained films that exist, but the strategy could be "One Film to Rule Them All," perhaps?

Note that the re-introduction of Ektar film was pretty much concurrent with the demise of Kodachrome. Ektar 25 was heralded as Kodachrome's replacement back in the 1990 time frame. Have to say from the dozen or so rolls I've shot of it in 120, Ektar 100 has a really nice Kodak-y pallete.

I've also been hedging my bet with Pro 160S, which is pretty sweet stuff itself. Hybrid workflow means saturation isn't as critical as dynamic range and lattitude.

Contemplating whether to even bother with buying a new set of GNDs and whether center-filters are going to be necessary going forward.

Brave new world, after shooting transparency film for the last 33 years.

[MikeH]

I have a question. 4x5 Landscape photography is a hobby for me, so I don't have the experience that many of you have. I shoot 4 sheets of E-6, 2 normal, and 1 each 1/2 stop over/under, then develop one at a time to get the density where I want it.

Ektar sounds like something I'd really like to try, but how does one get the exposure where you want it? Do I have a contact sheet made each time? I know C41 is more forgiving, and I've heard it does NOT react kindly to pushing (is this correct?).

I only shoot about 100 sheets per year, or 25 shots. I use a light meter and polarizer, and I'm usually within 1/2 stop, but every once in a while (usually when I haven't shot for a while) I need to push 1 1/2 or 2...

Any comments would be greatly appreciated, including referrals to existing threads. I'm drawing a blank when I search, but maybe I don't have the correct search terms...

Thanks!

Mike H

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon, get with the program! Grain this small on print film will be the death knell for E6. It doesn't grain-alias with desktop CCD scanners as does Portra-- which is significant for the smaller formats with higher levels of enlargement.

You might not need Ektar in LF for the other fine grained films that exist, but the strategy could be "One Film to Rule Them All," perhaps?

A big maybe on that. First issue for me is a lab in San Diego or Houston that will do 4x5 C-41 processing. I can get E-6 done as fast as 3 hours in San Diego, or at the very most one business day.

My current 4x5 film choices are Kodak E100VS and Fuji Astia 100F. While I have tried out several other films, these are the only two I use. Would I miss that saturation from E100VS? Would I miss the subtle rendering of Astia 100F? Could Ektar 100 be tricked into emulating either?

I did try Ektar 100 in 35mm size when it came out. The results I found were slightly better than Porta 160NC, and not as saturated as Portra 160VC. However, it seems to me that Ektar 100 is more of a skin tones biased film. Some subject matter benefits from more saturation (like with E100VS), while other subjects are better conveyed with subtle tones (Astia 100F).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Filmnut]

It depends on at least some degree on the workflow that you want to use. If you just shoot the film, than scan to digital, and print digitally, then you have a lot of control over saturation, etc. If you are staying strictly old school, ie., printing from your negs optically through an enlarger, film choice is very critical so that you get the results you want.

The difficulty with contact sheets, is that they are great to judge the image composition from, but will be printed so that the image looks good on paper, so corrections are made to compensate for over/under exposure, as well as lighting.
This is why contacts (or any print from a neg) can be misleading, as it all depends on how it was printed, so, if you don't like the results, it's worth asking for another try, especially if it is a machine done, or other low end print service.

The best way to determine correct exposure is to examine the negs, and if you lack the experience, get the lab to give you their opinion.
Typical neg film has a bit of underexposure latitude(less then a stop), and quite a bit (2-3 stops) of overexposure latitude.
C-41 films don't push/pull well, but it's seldom necessary, and not recommended, unless there is a large error in exposure.
If you have processing facilities nearby, try a box and see how it will work for you.

Personally, I intend to give this film a try, as I'm interested in the degree of latitude that it can give.
Keith

[Gordon Moat]

Just to throw a (mostly) 4x5 commercial shooter into this, here is C-41 (mostly) from Dana Neibert (http://www.dananeibert.com/), who lives not far from where I do in San Diego. A few years ago I found out he was using Kodak Portra 160NC for most of his work. Due to the lack of processing labs, he has been doing his own C-41, then scanning (Imacon) and post-processing in PhotoShop. He recently added a Canon DSLR and Hasselblad digital back to his gear, though he is admittedly not gear centric.

To my eyes, there is a flatness to many C-41 images. That lends itself to compelling renderings of many subjects. However, I have long been preferential to the higher contrast and less range of E-6 films. That might sound like the opposite of many large format photographers, who largely seem to champion exposure latitude over all else. Yes, one can change C-41 scans in post, but how much time do I want to spend post-processing? I agree with the comments about contact sheets and negatives; those are huge issues to someone use to editing and selecting images on a light table.

I could imagine that E-6 films, or labs, might become too few in the near future. Perhaps moving everything to C-41 is one answer, though it would be a fundamental work-flow shift for me. Why does E-6 large format seem like the red-headed stepchild of photography?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Daniel Stone]

Gordon,

just so you're aware, the Samy's Camera in Santa Barbara runs DnD E-6 AND C-41 lines 5 days/week. They're EXTREMELY ECONOMICAL, and if you don't have a super-fast turnaround, well worth a look.

they take mail-in orders, and you can see their pricing online

http://www.samys805.com/film-processing/

right now they're running a $5/roll E-6 special for 35mm/120 OR 220 film.

they use Fuji chems, and run daily(at least, mostly 2x/day) tests to ensure chemistry stability.

I've been using them for the last 6 months, and have been very pleased.

regards,

-Dan

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Glad to know about Samy's doing 4x5 C41 and E6 for cheap.

Is it news to anyone that virtually all commercial lab printing is now hybrid? Saturation with C41 in the darkroom used to also be controlled by choice of printing out papers, not just film selection. Now the same range of results can be achieved with curves and profiles. It's easy to re-profile an image, can even be batched. If you're not doing your own lab work and scanning, then film choice is as much finding what's a good fit with your commercial labs standard profiles and ink choices as anything, nowadays. For instance, last roll of Ektar 100 I shot and handed off to a lab for scanning, they didn't yet have the right profiles so the more magenta-than-orange mask skewed things a bit. Pro 160S looked better out of the canned profile.

I've previously also done my own RA4 wet lab work. Problem nowadays is the paper choices are severely restricted. With color it becomes an issue of finding paper and film combinations that are popular enough to not be discontinued. I found Fuji films with the 4th layer did not look good on Kodak papers (which was all I could source locally) so I was keen on shooting only Kodak neg films. Now, I can be brand-agnostic. If I were still as concerned about this as when doing RA4, I'd be pretty comfortable with Kodak choosing Ektar as their new defacto standard, as there is bound to be at least one easily sourced, middle-of-the-road contrast paper choice that works well with it so long as they continue making color film.

I do enjoy looking at transparencies as much as the next guy or girl (having been shooting them for 30+ years). But the reality is that they're not necessary to the offset printing process anymore, which was why they became the defacto standard for commercial work in the first place. And while it could be seen as a plus to learn something about dead-on exposure by looking at an unforgiving original, that's hardly a plus when you need to deliver bulletproof one-shot results. It's probably not a bad plan to gird ourselves for the day when E6 gives up the ghost. Personally, I'm very glad for seeing Ektar 100 rolled out across all the common formats.

[Greg Blank]

De facto standard? That sounds Quay-zee!

Why would they do that? I can see a fine grain film being popular. however not everyone wants the same degree of saturation. Saturation also means that some tone reproduction will be lost in the opposed colors. From what I've seen the Ektar has a bit more contrast than say 160VC from online posts of comparative images.

Kodak states that the comparative E6 film with regard to grain is E100G, but why not say E100VS? Don't both of these E films use T-grain technology- I thought so but correct me if I am wrong? I also thought Portra was a T grain film, which is why it scans better than Fuji NPS. I understand though; that the Ektar according to Kodak is a newer sort of T technology, so maybe it is better for scanning.

It will be interesting once I complete my test of this film as I have not shot it or 160VC previously- interesting to see how it scans.....and maybe prints optically.



Glad to know about Samy's doing 4x5 C41 and E6 for cheap.
If I were still as concerned about this as when doing RA4, I'd be pretty comfortable with Kodak choosing Ektar as their new defacto standard, as there is bound to be at least one easily sourced, middle-of-the-road contrast paper choice that works well with it so long as they continue making color film.

[Gordon Moat]

E100VS and E100G are T-grain films, though the colour rendering of each is very different. I think the biggest factor is actually the clear base of E-6 films, at least for scanning, though with Ektar 100 Kodak has improved scanning capability. Until they make a clear base C-41 film, it will be tough to really compare with E-6 scanning. Yes, many scanners handle C-41 films quite nicely, but the reality is that a clear film base will pass more light from the scanner.

About the only real clear benefit I can see to C-41 over E-6 is that the C-41 films are more forgiving of exposure. So in a tougher mixed lighting situation, there is potentially better performance with a C-41 film. Under or over exposure of E-6 will produce a noticeable difference in the final results, so sometimes that can be used to advantage.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[SW Rick]

If you're looking for a "ship to" E-6 processor, I highly recommend AgX Imaging (agximaging.com). Prices very reasonable, esp. for the quality. Return shipping very reasonable too- no gouging.

Rick

[krzys]

Ektar 25 was heralded as Kodachrome's replacement back in the 1990 time frame. Ektar 25 was the worst, over-saturated film I've ever shot.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

This is not Ektar 25--and they didn't get exactly get rid of Kodachrome back in 1990, did they? What they did next was introduce a cascade of E6 films, some with strange color crosses in the shadows (Lumiere 100 SW, anyone?). For a time back there, the E6 product line seemed to changed every few mos, just about the the same interval pros would have been getting comfortable with the new emulsion (since eclipsed).

Meanwhile, Fujichrome cleaned Kodak's clock, at least in the pro ranks, during this period.

[Greg Blank]

(Lumiere 100 SW, anyone?)

Was garbage and I shot one free Roll Kodak sent to me.

Meanwhile, Fujichrome cleaned Kodak's clock, at least in the pro ranks, during this period.

Fujichrome was- is good stuff. I have personally liked Sensia versions. I kind of wished Fuji had provided it in large formats. I always seemed to get good results using it, unlike Provia it seems to have better contrast and more natural color saturation than Velvia although the Velvia 100 is a pretty close match.

[B.S.Kumar]

Has anyone tried Ektar in mixed light (fluorescent/tungsten and/or daylight) in interiors? I've used Reala for such lighting ever since Fuji started making it.

Kumar

[Greg Blank]

Actually I have been considering this, I am itching to try it. I have a 4x5 box of Ektar burning a hole in my darkcloth :) hate fluorescent and flash mix but have done it.

You can get Reala in 4x5? Where if; so?



Has anyone tried Ektar in mixed light (fluorescent/tungsten and/or daylight) in interiors? I've used Reala for such lighting ever since Fuji started making it.

Kumar

[B.S.Kumar]

Actually I have been considering this, I am itching to try it. I have a 4x5 box of Ektar burning a hole in my darkcloth :) hate fluorescent and flash mix but have done it.

You can get Reala in 4x5? Where if; so?

No such luck, unfortunately. I've shot Reala in 120 format only.

Kumar

[Greg Blank]

Ever use Fuji 160C?


No such luck, unfortunately. I've shot Reala in 120 format only.

Kumar

[B.S.Kumar]

No. When I was in India, Reala was the only 120 Fuji color negative film regularly available.

Kumar

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Reala was the first Fuji film to have the 4th layer that works like magic with mixed light sources. Since I was standardized on printing with Kodak RA4 papers which did not play well with this Fuji "4th layer", I never much enjoyed the benefits of it. Fuji Superia and others that followed share this technology as well.

But I'm going to take a WAG and suggest that most of the color neg film emulsions that are newer that have a more magenta-than-orange mask incorporate some similar wizardry (Ektar 100 and Fuji Pro 160S being two such films) for better results with mixed color-temperature lighting.

[Sascha Welter]

I know C41 is more forgiving, and I've heard it does NOT react kindly to pushing (is this correct?).

Hi! I don't see that you received a reply to this, so I'll try:

Nobody ever pushes color negative film, except to correct big mistakes ("oh, this was XY 160? I thought I had put the XY 400 into the camera!"). It's not necessary to push the stuff around.


I only shoot about 100 sheets per year, or 25 shots. I use a light meter and polarizer, and I'm usually within 1/2 stop, but every once in a while (usually when I haven't shot for a while) I need to push 1 1/2 or 2...

If you're off by 1/2 stops, you won't even notice on color negative film. If you're off by 1.5 or 2 stops, it depends a bit. You can overexpose color negative film by a big margin. I learned in school that 2-3 stops are without problem (so you can expose a 400ASA film at 100ASA without problem, and at 50ASA marginally). To underexpose is less desirable, but still a stop or so will be "survivable".

So welcome to color negative film: Forget bracketing, forget pushing+pulling, you might even occasionally forget your light meter ("sunny 16" etc.).

Oh, and contact prints won't tell much (as has been mentioned here), they correct the exposure already. Put the negatives on a light table and compare the density to get a feeling for correct exposure. Look for the the shadows and highlights, just as you would for a positive film.

[Jan Pedersen]

Ektar 100 in 4x5 is now shipping from Badger Graphic, i just received my tracking number. Good timing with spring around the corner.

[MikeH]

Sascha & Filmnut -

Thanks for your replies. I think what I need to do is shoot the same image with Ektar 100 and Velvia and look at them on the light table - I've always had a hard time with negs because they're "backwards" but maybe it's time to learn...

[drew.saunders]

Has anyone tried Ektar in mixed light (fluorescent/tungsten and/or daylight) in interiors? I've used Reala for such lighting ever since Fuji started making it.

Kumar

This is the one shot I tried with a mix of natural and artificial (museum, so probably not FL, but I'm not sure exactly what) light:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/4123190661/

A little tweaking in photoshop got it there. Not too bad, overall. The base underneath the glass thing is supposed to be white.

Drew

[B.S.Kumar]

I agree, not too bad, but museum lighting is more likely to be tungsten, or at least "warm", no?
Can you try a shot at home, if you have FLs, that is.

Kumar

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Received my 5 boxes from Badger Graphic yesterday, burned up the Portra VC that was in my Grafmatic this morning, will be loading up with Ektar for the evening shoot.

[Gordon Moat]

Definitely interested in your night shot results Ivan. I hope you post an example or two here when you get a chance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[rguinter]

Greetings everyone: Looks like the Kodak Ektar 100 4x5-inch sheets may now be in stock. I'm seeing it today listed in stock for the first time advertised on some of the major NYC websites. Bob G.

[Diane Maher]

I just received my 8x10 box of Ektar yesterday and saw on B&H that they were out of stock for 8x10 Ektar this morning.

[rguinter]

I just received my 8x10 box of Ektar yesterday and saw on B&H that they were out of stock for 8x10 Ektar this morning.

I ordered 4x5 from Freestyle a couple of hours ago. but yes I saw the others were already out of stock. Gonna be great I'm sure to have this in LF size. Bob G.

[Findingmyway4ever]

There's a number of negative color emulsions I love. Especially on LF, I think it has a great advantage, but even in smaller formats, it looks darn good. I would use any emulsion regardless of what it says it is as long as it does the job and this stuff is very good.

[timparkin]

Here is a comparison I made between Kodak Ektar and Fuji Velvia just to see how the color separation of Ektar worked.. Please note I'm not trying to say you can use Ektar instead of Velvia or that you can make Ektar look like Velvia, just that the colour separation in Ektar is of a type that is more similar to the 'punchy' slide films than, say, portra or Pro160

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100

[Gordon Moat]

Nice comparison there Tim. I do see that some work in post is necessary to match other film responses. It might be an option for me in the future, though my biggest issue is still that C-41 processing of 4x5 films is tough to find in San Diego or Houston.

Thanks!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)