PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Ektar Film ?????????????



ignatiusjk
9-May-2011, 17:15
Has anybody tried Kodak Ektar 4x5 film? I shoot landscapes so I'm curious to see how it works.I will be in Yosemite in June and will try it out then.If you have used it let me know what you thought of it.

Mark Sampson
9-May-2011, 18:34
The 35mm version is very sharp and fine-grained. Also very contrasty and saturated. For that reason I haven't been tempted to try it in 4x5, although I'm sure some people who have will chime in... and hopefully post pictures.

Kevin Crisp
9-May-2011, 19:00
I've also tried it in 35mm only. My prints from the local lab came back generally too contrasty and most of them look one to two stops overexposed. It is sharp and very fine grained. Frankly, it looks like a bad printing job to me, something that is becoming very common and is going to kill off any consumer demand for 35mm film. I'm going to scan it and see how it looks. If I'm happy with that, I'll try sheet film.

Daniel Stone
9-May-2011, 19:02
its cool stuff, if you like contrast and saturation. I'd compare it to shooting chrome(slides), only you get a negative.

by that I mean:

1. Contrast straight out of the box with normal processing yielded contrastier results than my other comparison shots on 160VC(my normal neg film).
2. Colors are pretty vivid. Some have said its the "velvia of color neg films". I'd say a little more like the E100VS of neg films. Warmer tones are accented more, where as Velvia leaned more to the blues/greens, IMO.
3. Its nice and sharp, but when you shoot contrasty films, sometimes the "sharpness" comes more from contrast in the film.
4. Reciprocity? It stinks IMO. But I don't do long exposures generally, but compared with Portra 160NC or VC, I didn't feel like wasting film to do tests with it. I had a shot rated at 10s, and I added a stop. It came out aboue 2-3 stops too thin :o.
5. Its nice, but I'd rather shoot 160VC. Saturation, but not too overdone.

but this above is purely my opinion.

I shot it in 4x5 btw, didn't feel like trying it in 8x10

-Dan

vinny
9-May-2011, 19:02
No, haven't tried it.

rguinter
9-May-2011, 19:30
This one on Ektar 4x5-inch from last summer.

Bob G.

ki6mf
9-May-2011, 20:20
I shot 20 sheets to test against Kodak 160 VC. I don't have any scanned images to show on the forum. In reading the Kodak reference material Ekatar has slightly more saturation over 160 VC at a lower ISO rating. I decided to stay with the 160 VC as higher ISO was more important for the type of shooting I do over the color saturation. I did see 16X20 enlargements from smaller format film so the finer grain does seem to work.

BrianShaw
9-May-2011, 20:22
I've only shot it in 120 and don't think I'd shoot any 4x5. Not my favorite color film... not at all.

Greg Blank
9-May-2011, 23:19
View Camera review March/ April 2010 author Greg Blank begining on page 62.

edtog
10-May-2011, 00:30
It's really good stuff, I've done some 30"x20" prints for a client recently, had the neg drum scanned and it's virtually grain free with good contrast and vivid colours.
It's not a film for every subject, but used correctly you will either love or hate the results.
As always, make up your own mind and if you can shoot a few tests of the same scene with 2 different films.
I'm currently shooting portra 400 and that looks like becoming my preferred film, although I haven't shot enough of it yet to make a proper decision.

Professional
10-May-2011, 06:18
I've shoot 120 as well, and i bought 4x5 sheets but never used this film in 4x5 yet, the lab i used for color processing told me they don't process C41 of large formats unless i provide them minimum 15-20+ sheets at once, so it sounds i will not use it until the time i can process color film at home or buy more color negs to have many sheets to send, but the results i've got from 120 were very nice and appealing, so 4x5 will be better then i guess.

Larry Gebhardt
10-May-2011, 11:42
I have shot shot some in 4x5, but most of the Fuji 160 Pro S shots turned out better because of the lower contrast. I have had some closeup/macro shots where the higher contrast made the image, but none of those in 4x5. So I now treat it like Velvia in terms of contrast (but exposed for the shadows) - a great film as long as the scene contrast isn't too high. I should add that for landscapes, especially in Yosemite it would not be my first choice.

Drew Wiley
10-May-2011, 14:45
It's a bit more idiosyncratic than 160VC. So far I've only had a chance to make contacts from 120 film, and only a few 20X24's from 8x10 negs. So I'm still very much on the learning curve about what this film is actually best for. I did like the wonderful
tropical turquoise waters I got in Maui, but find the overreponse to blue to be a bit
annoying in certain other subjects. Color correction masking, as well as warming filtration for actual shooting, are some of the experiments pending. As others have
already noted, this is the Velvia of color neg films, and I wouldn't recommend it for typical portrait work or other understated applications.

John NYC
15-May-2011, 03:00
It's good. Here's an 8x10 night shot, super large upload (6000x5297 pixels)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1434/5108691397_f0e282bfb3_o.jpg

Tony Evans
15-May-2011, 07:13
Still waiting for some 4x5. Should be very good for older low contrast glass. Here's one with Zeiss Super Ikonta 2.8 Tessar. "Waiting for Golf".

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3581/5714339645_3797d6610f_b.jpg

Miguel Curbelo
15-May-2011, 09:27
It's good. Here's an 8x10 night shot, super large upload (6000x5297 pixels)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1434/5108691397_f0e282bfb3_o.jpg

John, would you mind telling us how long this exposure was? Did you take any reciprocity factor into account?

John NYC
18-May-2011, 11:15
John, would you mind telling us how long this exposure was? Did you take any reciprocity factor into account?

This exposure was probably in the 4-6 minute range. I actually do not take meticulous notes. I usually add one to two stops depending on how long the unadjusted exposure is. For things two minutes and under, I usually add a stop. For things over that, I usually add 1.5 or 2 stops.

Miguel Curbelo
18-May-2011, 16:51
Thank you John.

Ivan J. Eberle
18-May-2011, 18:03
I like Ektar for it's rendition of blue skies.
It likely has more resolution than can be rendered by 4x5 lenses (but then, so does Portra) But what it does have that older formulations of Portra 160VC do not, is extremely fine grain. So it scans better.

These are all much bigger issues in 120 and smaller formats. Grain aliasing while scanning is especially acute from 135, 645, and 2-1/4 formats.

My read was that the release of Ektar in 4x5 was to satisfy the needs of having one neg film that scanned equally well across formats.

Fuji had one in Pro 160S, predating Ektar 100 in 4x5 and other formats. It has a bit less punchy palette but the whites are really clean. It's also extremely fine grained and high resolution.

SeanEsopenko
19-May-2011, 16:40
I find it has fairly similar colour qualities to 400NC but scans a little nicer on my V700 with less grain aliasing. It doesn't have the exaggerated reds I don't enjoy in 160VC. It does blues a little better than 400NC in my opinion and behaves nicer when it's overcast without the large colour shifts I experience with 400NC when the sky is dull.

It's two stops slower than 400NC so if trees and people are moving it's a little troublesome.

PolarBear1973
21-May-2011, 17:47
The only color I have shot with 4x5 has been Ektar 100. I like it alot. Here are some shots I took with it this year:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/PatersonFallsCOLOR.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/BridgeCrownGraphic.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll201/PolarBear1973/VanVleck.jpg

rguinter
23-May-2011, 10:57
PolarBear:

I see you and I think alike in some ways.

These shot many years ago when we had that -20F New Jersey Winter.

I haven't been motivated to go back since because it hasn't been cold enough for deep frost in the gorge.

Shots taken from the top of a step-ladder I carried down to the fence line.

But alas not on Ektar because it didn't exist at the time.

Cheers.

Bob G.

PolarBear1973
23-May-2011, 15:43
PolarBear:

I see you and I think alike in some ways.

These shot many years ago when we had that -20F New Jersey Winter.

I haven't been motivated to go back since because it hasn't been cold enough for deep frost in the gorge.

Shots taken from the top of a step-ladder I carried down to the fence line.

But alas not on Ektar because it didn't exist at the time.

Cheers.

Bob G.

Great images. I tried to go back there when the passaic river flooded a month ago but couldn't even get near it because the streets of Paterson were flooded.