Kodak ektar 100 vs kodak portra nc

[johnmsanderson]

I'm a big fan of both Ektar and Portra. I've gotten some serious dynamic range out of both using pull processing, at the expense of color accuracy when exceeding 1 stop. I scan though so I usually make global color corrections anyway.

Portra's color accuracy does feel more akin to reality. I still reach for the slide film If i'm shooting in high sun with a lot of micro contrast. Ektar turns blue skies into some weird cyanish mess which is annoying to correct for, so I prefer Fuji slides for this type of stuff.

[Drew Wiley]

I think I'm beginning to understand how the blue works, and it is contrast related; and in
general, I can tame it with basic masking procedures in pure analog printing. But sometimes
I had the opposite problem with chromes - trying to reproduce real turquoises. I learned to
do it in Cibachrome (no sense outlining that at this point in history), but on film itself, the
Ektar will gravitate there instinctively. Therefore my first choice of film on the Islands where water and sky often really contain that kind of hue. But I'm bagging deeper more
magenta-inflected blues in the same scenes, where this is present too, and very subtle
distinctions of blue at high altitude in the mtns. - so something is truly right about this film,
and I'm beginning to wonder if the bad rap is really due to a different kind of problem, namely exposure error resulting in wrong placement on one dye curve relative to another.
Can't explain it in detail here - but in my own work, I seem to have cured it.

[timparkin]

I'm beginning to wonder if the bad rap is really due to a different kind of problem, namely exposure error resulting in wrong placement on one dye curve relative to another.

Yes I think you are right - there are these sorts of colour crossovers in Ektar (is crossover the right work? that's how I understand it).

In particular highlights can be way off any other film if you look at the third film comparison in On Landscape.

Tim