Metering and Exposing Ektar 100

[peteyj10]

I apologize if this question has been asked before. I used the search function and didn't find anything relevant.

I'm thinking about shooting some Ektar 100. Everything I've read says to shoot it like slide film. I've never shot slide film before, so how should I meter it? Meter for the highlights and set my exposure at 2 stops above the meter reading? How contrasty of a scene can it work well in? Everything I read about slide says a good rule of thumb is that shadows below zone III are blocked out and highlights above zone VII are blown. Is that true for Ektar as well?

[Adrian Pybus]

I'd be interested in hearing answers to this.
I use Ektar 100 a lot and I expose it like a normal negative colour film and have no problems with that.
I like the colours in Ektar 100 more than most other neg colour film. The colours are perhaps more like slide films.

[Regular Rod]

I apologize if this question has been asked before. I used the search function and didn't find anything relevant.

I'm thinking about shooting some Ektar 100. Everything I've read says to shoot it like slide film. I've never shot slide film before, so how should I meter it? Meter for the highlights and set my exposure at 2 stops above the meter reading? How contrasty of a scene can it work well in? Everything I read about slide says a good rule of thumb is that shadows below zone III are blocked out and highlights above zone VII are blown. Is that true for Ektar as well?

No.

EKTAR 100 has a wide range of exposure tolerance. I meter for it in exactly the same way I do for black and white panchromatic film and use the box speed of 100 ISO.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3832/9638885234_bb0a501275_o.jpg

RR

[onnect17]

Ditto. No differences in measuring light to expose one or other film. Of course you should be familiar with the emulsion's latitude and how diffuse is the light hitting the subject.
If the sun is out I use rule 16 otherwise incident. If shooting landscapes from shade then I use the spotmeter.

[StoneNYC]

Ditto. No differences in measuring light to expose one or other film. Of course you should be familiar with the emulsion's latitude and how diffuse is the light hitting the subject.
If the sun is out I use rule 16 otherwise incident. If shooting landscapes from shade then I use the spotmeter.

That's sort of what the OP is asking... WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE LATITUDE RANGE.

I've always had trouble getting what I want from Ektar100, I've always found Velvia50 easier to get the results I want.

That's not to say Velvia is easier to expose, rather that when properly exposed I like the results better.

I never spent enough time with Ektar to really hone in on the exact way to shoot it.

I've heard many shoot it has less latitude than standard C-41 films so that's closer to slide film, and that they shoot it at EI80 often because the shadows tend to go blue in the late daylight.

In the sun I would shoot it at 100 though.

But again, I never spent a lot of time with it.

So I would defer to others.

[BrianShaw]

I've never noticed a lower amount of latitude with Ektar100. Box speed and normal general-coverage or incident metering gives me good results.

[Drew Wiley]

I've posted on this subject many times before on two different forums, and have routinely pissed people off, especially the "I can fix anything afterwards in
Photoshop" crowd. Guess if people have a lot of time and money to waste and aren't after reliable results, than one can revert to that sloppy mentality. But the response always seems to be, "them Kodak people iss sure dumb and made thisssereer really bat product this time, by golly, cuz I cain't make hit look good even
in Fauxtoshop". Garbage in/garbage out. Do it right in camera; get off on the correct foot to begin with, and leave the concept of "latitude" for Kodacolor Gold and disposable cardboard box cameras. If you want reliable results with Ektar, meter it just as carefully as you do chrome film. I use official box speed (100), but religiously filter for serious color temp issues with the appropriate exposure compensation. This is a different animal than other color neg films, including Portra products. You can't get away with the same things, but then the rewards are there too if you do things right. If you are working outdoors I strongly recommend
carrying an 81A filter for bluish overcast skies, an 81C for deep blue shade under open blue skies, and maybe a light pink skylight filter for higher altitude UV issues
or minor corrections. 90% of the complaints I hear about this film would be ended if this simple advice were followed. I had to learn the hard way.

[Drew Wiley]

... Oh, missed one point in your correction. In general, aim for the same midtone exposure as with an ASA 100 chrome film. But expect just about one stop more range into both the shadows and highlights as with typical chrome film, but distinctly less than in color neg films designed for portrait use. This is obviously a higher-contrast, higher saturation film. If you can routinely get good exposures on chromes, this product will present no problems to you other than accommodations to
serious color temp discrepancies in subject lighting. For those who just like to shoot from the hip, or wing it like conventional color neg films, there will be problems. If you do err on the side of caution, it should be toward MODERATE over-exposure, not underexposure.
When the shadow do fall, they fall hard.

[Regular Rod]

... Oh, missed one point in your correction. In general, aim for the same midtone exposure as with an ASA 100 chrome film. But expect just about one stop more range into both the shadows and highlights as with typical chrome film, but distinctly less than in color neg films designed for portrait use. This is obviously a higher-contrast, higher saturation film. If you can routinely get good exposures on chromes, this product will present no problems to you other than accommodations to
serious color temp discrepancies in subject lighting. For those who just like to shoot from the hip, or wing it like conventional color neg films, there will be problems. If you do err on the side of caution, it should be toward MODERATE over-exposure, not underexposure.
When the shadow do fall, they fall hard.

+1 here.

RR

[StoneNYC]

RR and Drew..

The OPD specifically said that they had never used any kind of chrome film before, and so that's why they were inquiring as to any kind of specific things they should know in order to properly expose this film, from my understanding they have only used black-and-white and color negative films that have a large exposure latitude, so they were asking about how to properly meter for the shadows and the highlights etc. and since you don't really follow -n1 +n1 etc techniques with chrome films (to my knowledge) the procedure for proper exposure is different...

[tgtaylor]

While I agree 100% with getting it right the first time in-camera but Ektar is a color negative and while you can color balance is PS you can also color balance in the enlarger with the filter pack.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Not so, whatsoever, Tom. You can adjust overall balance for printing that way... but if you study how different the dye density geometry is, compared to say, Portra films, you will detect that underexposure of a SPECIFIC dye layer relative to the others will render correct hue differentiation relative to that IMPOSSIBLE unless it
is sufficiently exposed in the first place. In other words, if you underexpose only that specific area of the spectrum by not color temp balancing for it in the first place
(when conditions seriously warrant it), then you force parts of the scene down onto where the dye curves overlap and hence cannot be differentiated afterwards.
And I'm not referring to faking something by dithering or painting it in PS, but legitimately recovering it. This is just sensitometric fact, but I've got enough personal hard knocks experience to confirm the fact sufficiently. By correctly filtering for the lighting bias, you selectively raise the exposure of the SPECIFIC dye layer
involved. Of course, you can overexpose the whole damn thing and get an improved result, but not as good a result and doing it the right way. I see all kinds of
Ektar work with this or that idiosyncrasy, many of which are simply half-assed attempts to correct something in PS which can't really be done in an optimal way,
at least by folks shy of Hollywood levels of skill.

[BetterSense]

In other words, if you underexpose only that specific area of the spectrum by not color temp balancing for it in the first place
(when conditions seriously warrant it), then you force parts of the scene down onto where the dye curves overlap and hence cannot be differentiated afterwards.
And I'm not referring to faking something by dithering or painting it in PS, but legitimately recovering it....Of course, you can overexpose...

One man's overexposure is another man's proper exposure.

I would encourage the OP not to get so tied up in exposure details until he finds an actual problem. I've shot Ektar the way I do b&w film, except even sloppier, and the images are great. It's color negative film...you think you are exposing enough, give it another stop for good measure. Just my 2 cents.

[peteyj10]

... Oh, missed one point in your correction. In general, aim for the same midtone exposure as with an ASA 100 chrome film. But expect just about one stop more range into both the shadows and highlights as with typical chrome film, but distinctly less than in color neg films designed for portrait use. This is obviously a higher-contrast, higher saturation film. If you can routinely get good exposures on chromes, this product will present no problems to you other than accommodations to
serious color temp discrepancies in subject lighting. For those who just like to shoot from the hip, or wing it like conventional color neg films, there will be problems. If you do err on the side of caution, it should be toward MODERATE over-exposure, not underexposure.
When the shadow do fall, they fall hard.

Your two posts are exactly what I was looking for. While I have never shot chromes before, I've been reading up on them a lot lately (I plan on trying out some Velvia and Provia as well), so I know a few of the important things to consider, such as staying away from scenes with too much contrast. I've typically reserved high contrast scenes for black and white anyways, so that shouldn't be too big of a problem for me. I'll take the 81A and 81C advice. If nothing else, I just like the look warming filters add to a lot of shots.

[onnect17]

IMHO...
I agree with Drew regarding the correction of exposure using filters. I actually used to carry a color meter with 9 different filters but most of time I exposed in the middle of day so the circular polarizer was enough. That and development at home resolved all the color issues.
I also agree that many rely too much on photoshop to fix things. At the same time it is a most, at least to me, getting a set of curves in PS to fine tune each particular c41 emulsion using a xrite color chart.
I disagree in two points. I think it is very useful to be familiar with the latitude or range of the film, commonly seen as contrast. Some emulsions are really short in range, typically E6, but even within there are differences. For example, E100G and Astia have wider range than Velvia. You can easily find the specs of each film in the manufacturers website. Keep in mind also that the range is relative. The contrast is also increased with the use of polarizers, APO optics, etc.
The other is regarding overexposure. There are no details in the shadows worth burning the highlights.
Again, it is a matter of personal opinion.

[tgtaylor]

Not to disagree with you Drew as you probably know more about this than I do but I do recall printing an image of Horsetail Falls in which I masked off all but the sky portion and made a test strip that had about 10 or so different shades of blue to choose from (a straight print yielded an uninteresting dull grey sky which it was at the time because I was shooting into the same direction as the sun was setting which washed out the sky in that area) and then printed the image alternating between filter packs and masks. I believe that I posted the result somewhere on the forum.

Thomas

[BrianShaw]

One man's overexposure is another man's proper exposure.

I would encourage the OP not to get so tied up in exposure details until he finds an actual problem. I've shot Ektar the way I do b&w film, except even sloppier, and the images are great. It's color negative film...you think you are exposing enough, give it another stop for good measure. Just my 2 cents.

If more people would adopt this philosophy then the number of posts on internet forums of all types would plummet. :o

[Regular Rod]

RR and Drew..

The OPD specifically said that they had never used any kind of chrome film before, and so that's why they were inquiring as to any kind of specific things they should know in order to properly expose this film, from my understanding they have only used black-and-white and color negative films that have a large exposure latitude, so they were asking about how to properly meter for the shadows and the highlights etc. and since you don't really follow -n1 +n1 etc techniques with chrome films (to my knowledge) the procedure for proper exposure is different...

My reply was that I use it as if it was black and white film.

RR

[StoneNYC]

If more people would adopt this philosophy then the number of posts on internet forums of all types would plummet. :o

If they also stopped posting if they had no actual experience with the subject and were only giving hypothetical info, the numbers would exponentially plummet (I'm guilty of this sometimes I admit).

[Stephen Willard]

I did some testing in 2010 to benchmark Portra 160 VC against Ektar 100. What follows is a brief overview of my results.

How to Expose Ektar 100:
Personally, I believe you should expose for the shadows to insure sufficient detail in this region of the negative. If you use the slide film method you may severely underutilize the dynamic range of Ektar 100 film. Typical slide film at most had around a five stop dynamic range while Ektar 100 has a dynamic range of nine stops. However, I recommend you try both methods with two different exposures for a number of scenes and then compare the results.

ISO Setting of Ektar 100:
If you choose to expose for the shadows then you must determine your ISO setting using shadow light. If you choose to meter the highlights then you should use highlight light to determine your ISO setting. Because I used the former method of metering shadows, I determined EKtar 100 to have an ISO of 50. What most people do not realize is that shadow light is light by blue skies, and thus, it is very cool with an average color temperature of 6940K and an EV of 7-9 based on my own measurements using Glossen Color Pro 3F color meter. Because the red layer in cool light is by far the least dense layer, then it is critical that sufficient exposure is applied to insure proper rendering of reds. If you fail to do this then any reds in shadows will be rendered as muddied brown. To determine the ISO in shadows I metered a gray card and gave it a Zone I placement using a series of exposures starting at two stops overexposure and incrementing down by 1/3 stops to two stops underexposure. The exposure that gave me 0.10 density units above fb+f for the red layer is the ISO I used. In the case of both Ektar 100 and Portra 160 VC the ISO was one full stop of overexposure with ISO settings of 50 and 80 respectively to insure proper rendering of reds.

The Dynamic range of Ektar 100 and Portra 160 VC
I have actually built characteristic curves for both of these films using typical shadow light and found the Ektar 100 has a nine stop dynamic range while Portra 160 VC had a 12 stop dynamic range. It is my belief to fully exploit the full dynamic range of these films you really need to meter the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may. If you want I can post the CC graphs and data in a subsequent posting to this string.

The Color Contrast of both Ektar 100 and Portra 160 VC
I metered and photographed the Macbeth color chart using both films in shadow light using the ISO settings noted above. I then did a RGB density comparison of each color patch. The Ektar red density layer was about 15% greater than Portra. The Portra green layer was about 10% greater than Ektar. Both films produced the same blue density layer. If you want I can post the Macbeth color graphs and data in a subsequent posting to this string.

Hope this helps...

[Ari]

Drew is absolutely right; meter as you would any ISO 100 colour neg film, and watch out for overcast/shady conditions.

This is where filtering will come in handy with Ektar, and is the one thing to watch out for with this film.

It produces colour casts in open shade that are not easily fixed in PS, so forewarned is forearmed.

The reason the OP asks about metering it as one would a slide film is perhaps due to the many internet comments comparing the vibrant colours of Ektar with slide film.

FWIW, I use it at ISO 80 and process normally in the Tetenal C-41 Press Kit; always got great results.

[Bert Vliegen]

Hi this is technical but very interesting! Yes I do want subsequent info.

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually there is no such thing as "exposure latitude". There are films with greater or lesser dynamic range and if you have a film with a dynamic range greater than your subject then you have some leeway in your exposure but there is always an optimum exposure.

[onnect17]

Three different texts out of the shelf. I guess I'm reading the wrong books... :(

110225 110226 110227

"The Book of Photography" - Paul Hasluck
"Handbook of Photography" - Henney and Dudley
"Photographic Materials and Process" - Leslie Stroebel

[Kirk Gittings]

"Without much detriment " exactly, there is some detriment. There is always an optimum exposure.

[onnect17]

Stephen,
Thanks for posting the results of your test. I'm not familiar with the VC emulsion but I was under the impression that Ektar 100 was quite saturated. Quick question, did you process the film yourself in the same batch?

[onnect17]

Two more references...

110228 110229

"Beyond Basic Photography" - Henry Horenstein
"Photographic Researches of Hurter and Driffield" - Edited by W.B. Ferguson <-- My favorite photography book.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm reasonably sure that you are not arguing that there is not an optimum exposure? Right?

[Stephen Willard]

Hi this is technical but very interesting! Yes I do want subsequent info.

Hi Bert. Are you referring to me, Stephen Willard?

[StoneNYC]

I'm reasonably sure that you are not arguing that there is not an optimum exposure? Right?

+1

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen,
Thanks for posting the results of your test. I'm not familiar with the VC emulsion but I was under the impression that Ektar 100 was quite saturated. Quick question, did you process the film yourself in the same batch?

Each film was processed in its own batch separate from the other film I was testing using a JOBO ATL 2 Plus processor and the JOBO 2010 Expert drum. To get precise control of the light found in shade I first determined the ISO and built a CC graph in actual shade in my back yard. The light reading I took from that shade replicated the light I found in the field during morning and evening tight. So I had a lot of confidence in my readings and my results. I then was able to reproduce that exact lighting conditions using my enlarger. This allowed me to very precisely replicate shadow light from test batch to test batch. The JOBO processor gave reproducible results with fresh chemistry for each test. This setup allowed me to make apples to apples comparison between films in simulated real world field conditions.

Outdoor Shadow Measurements:
Color temperature of shadow light using Glossen Color-Pro 3F: 6940K
EV reading using the Pentax Digital Spot meter: 7.3
Light Intensity using Glossen Color-Pro 3F: 340 LUX
RGB Density of the Portra 160 VC at a Zone I placement: 0.26R 0.72G 1.16B
Film Format: 4x5
Camera lens: Nikkor-W f5.6 210mm
Camera: Wisner 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back
Reading taken from an 8x10 gray card

Enlarger setting to replicate the outdoor results:
RGB colorhead setting: 08Y 44M 80C
Colorhead hight: 380mm
No enlarger lens was used
The negative carrier contained no format plates or glass
Camera lens: Nikkor-W f5.6 210mm
Camera: Wisner 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back
The same 8x10 gray card noted above placed directly under the enlarger light source.

I adjusted the light by either adjusting the yellow CC or the enlarger hight until I got 6940K and 340 LUX. I then removed the lens and the back of the camera and metered the gray card straight through the camera body with my Pentax meter to validate the configuration. If I got a EV reading of 7.3, then all was well. I also then processed a sheet of Portra 160 VC film that was given a Zone I exposure and got almost exactly an RGB density reading of 0.26R 0.72G 1.16B to further substantiate the enlarger configuration.

This enlarger configuration gives me a repeatable light source for making test comparisons from film to film. I also purchased 100 8x10 boxes of Portra 160 VC film for a life time supply that I store in a chest freezer. Each year I use the above configuration to determine the ISO and CC graph of the film and compare the results to previous years as a means of monitoring its condition. So far the film has has remained very stable giving me the same results since 2009. That is an ISO of 80, a 12 stop dynamic range, and the same CC graph.

This is also the same configuration I used for Ektar 100 to get and ISO of 50, a nine stop dynamic range, and to build its CC graph.

[onnect17]

I'm reasonably sure that you are not arguing that there is not an optimum exposure? Right?

Im saying that your statement ..."there is not such a thing as Exposure Latitude" contradicts what has been written in many photography books.

In a different subject, I think H&D wrote the best definition (IMHO) I ever read about "optimum exposure" or "correct exposure". Paraphrasing...

...There is one and only one point in the curve (exposure vs density) in which half the amount of light decreases the density in the same amount that double the light would increase it...

In other words, after exposing a piece of emulsion following a base 2 geometric sequence, developing and plotting the densities, there is one and only one point in the curve in which you are the closest to intercept three points with a line, typically near the center.

[onnect17]

Thanks again Stephen,
I prefer to use the 2500 tanks for development, specially for testing. I take a shot of a colorchecker at daylight and add a color strip to the same development batch. Then I measure the values using a xrite 890 and compare values. So far no major difference. One emulsion a little more tricky is the kodak 2460 which does not have an orange mask and targets a lower gamma.

Why I prefer to conduct the tests using the same batch?

The densities and contrast in the negatives depends on multiples factors and to get similar results in two batches then you have make sure to use:

-use exactly the same amount of developer.
-the same exposure to the same image.
-same total emulsion surface.

Which is very unlikely. You could however use a control strip in each batch and prorate the results accordingly. I can send a roll of control strips if you are interested.

Im usually afraid of measuring light in the shade with color film. I look at it as "contaminated light" because the light temperature, although cooler than the full light, still can be anywhere. Too many surfaces reflecting and filtering.

[Kirk Gittings]

Hmmm if there is an optimum exposure then how can there be any exposure latitude unless these represent sub-optimum results (but perhaps acceptable). Optimum exposure as I use it and was taught to me has to do with a particular scene and the optimum placement of the tones for a specific interpretation of the tones in that scene-not any mathematical formula and if there is indeed an optimum exposure then there can not be any exposure latitude (for optimum results). I've been teaching this stuff since 1978. Exposure latitude implies some available slop in exposure precision which I think is counter productive to learning proper exposure.

[onnect17]

If you are teaching photography then why not give the students an assignment? Something like "Bibliographic review of the concept of Latitude in photography". Split them in three groups and give them three different ages, before 1900, 1900-1950, 1951 to the present. Then discuss it in class via presentation. For sure I would enjoy it.

[Stephen Willard]

Hmmm if there is an optimum exposure then how can there be any exposure latitude unless these represent sub-optimum results (but perhaps acceptable). Optimum exposure as I use it and was taught to me has to do with a particular scene and the optimum placement of the tones for a specific interpretation of the tones in that scene-not any mathematical formula and if there is indeed an optimum exposure then there can not be any exposure latitude (for optimum results). I've been teaching this stuff since 1978. Exposure latitude implies some available slop in exposure precision which I think is counter productive to learning proper exposure.

I agree. For me determining exposure is more of artistic expression that is constrained by the illumination range of composition and dynamic range of the film.

If the composition's illumination range of the scene exceeds the dynamic range of the film, then I will modify the composition so all areas in the composition that I want detail present will fall within the dynamic range of the film. What areas get edited out in order to reduce the composition's illumination range is an artistic decision.

If the composition's illumination range is less then the dynamic range of the film, then I have some latitude to either shift the exposure toward the shadows or toward the highlights depending on my artistic vision and still maintain significant detail. Again how I shift the exposure with the latitude I have to play with is, in itself, an artistic decision.

[Bert Vliegen]

Hi Bert. Are you referring to me, Stephen Willard?

Hi yes-)

[Drew Wiley]

OK. Yeah, more than one way to skin a cat. But let me explain the basis for my approach. I'm concerned with optimal color reproduction, which is a narrower standard
than just subject range. I'm approaching this subject by learning how to sustain the engineered geometry of the three dye curves in relation to each other. Might be
a little hard to follow this at first, but if you think about it as three separate icebergs popping above the water, and each with a somewhat different shape (none
symmetrical), and the consequences of one of these icebergs sinking significantly, then you'll realize the reproduction of values inherently shifts - and at a certain
point cannot be corrected. So I'm taking the extra step, and the reward is being able to print subtle hue distinctions which were previously impossible in color
neg films, and damn difficult with chromes. I have spend a LOT of time psychoanalyzing this film. The whole concept of latitude starts fading at this point, unless
you are dealing with a low-contrast scene to begin with. But once you're got the cat in the bag, then you can tweak it for contrast etc. Stephen and I are both
among the relatively rare class of individual who do true darkroom masking with color neg materials. It used to be common in chrome printing, prior to PS. But if
the cat isn't in the bag to begin with, all PS will allow you do is fake something by basically painting it in - the true film content can't be retrieved if it isn't there
to begin with. So a lot depends on what you are specifically trying to achieve. And Ektar is a lot less forgiving than Portra if you're shooting from the hip in terms
of counting on "latitude" to forgive gross metering errors.

[Drew Wiley]

Momentarily back to it (just before locking up the office for the day)... What causes those icebergs to fall out of ideal relation is gross color temp error, which are
easily fixed by approximated filtration (minor tweaks can be done later, if everything is reasonably on the film). Since these curve are not symmetrical and are steeper than traditional color neg films, then depressing one versus the others means that the adjacent geometry at "sea level" is no longer as engineered for ideal color
reproduction (which in this case is not for hypothetical skintones, but actually something more accurate, even when warmish neutrals are involved). Once it's below
sea level, the dye curves cross and are impossible to separate. This muddying effect is deliberate in traditional color neg films, but makes it almost impossible to
differentiate subtle related hues from one another. Not that you have to look at the problem like I do... but then don't blame the film is you're having difficulty
reproducing colors it was actually meant to handle! It's not perfect by any means, esp in mixed lighting, but is one of the most accurate outdoor films I've ever
printed from.

[onnect17]

Drew,
Im one of those that think you either are or not an artist. You can not learn how to be an artist in the school. You can learn technics but that's about it.
As any other amateur, I have the freedom to pursue any element in the image that I want. In many cases, color accuracy is what I embrace because that's what I found meaningful in the image. I still think that the user should be familiar with the emulsion so he/she can know when and when not to use it. I do not have to follow this or that school or try to ignore the latitude of the film. Lucky enough I dont have to make a living on it.

In that pursue I ended up processing my own film. I found that even old chemicals can perform better that your known lab if you put attention to the development, specially temperature. Both cpe2 and cpp are ok but not perfect.

Back to the Ektar, it's a great emulsion and would be my default color c41 but I got a good supply of kodak 2460.

[Drew Wiley]

Lots of iconic images, even famous careers, have been forged by exploiting the color flaws in traditional color neg film. Somebody will learn how to do this with Ektar too someday, but it's a completely different animal that, for the time being, seem more appropriate for those kinds of images people typically used chrome film for. Once I saw the handwriting on the wall, and recognized that both Cibachrome and appropriate transparency films were on their final lap, I started trying to figureout how to make color neg film fit a similar niche. Fortunately I already had a lot of experience with specialized tricks, esp advanced masking. Although printing color
neg film at a commercial level of quality is extremely easy, adapting it for new applications like that described above has been no easy task. Meanwhile, both the
RA4 print materials and now products like Ektar have given us some very serious alternatives to chromes. But one does have to realistically assess the limitations
too when this level of color control is contemplated, because the same rules which apply to making it realistically printable in a color darkroom are exactly the
same as limit what you can retrieve with a scanner, even thought he tools and workflow differ. You can't derive something from nothing. So it helps to understand
the basics, because it's far easier to do things right at the time of initial exposure than to futz around attempting to correct serious errors. And given the cost
of color sheet film, who wants to waste any of it anyway?

[Regular Rod]

...<snipped>...given the cost
of color sheet film, who wants to waste any of it anyway?

Exactly! One of the reasons I get vexed with Kodak is they tell us nothing about reciprocity adjustments and instead tell us to do our own tests! I'd do them with pleasure if Kodak would pay for the film and the processing while I did so.

That said I like EKTAR 100 and enjoy the way it renders colour.

RR

[Drew Wiley]

I figure that as far as recip corrections are concerned, Kodak wants to play it safe, because they correctly surmise that long exposures might be made in mixed lighting or any number of artificial light sources that will be prone to unknowns with regard to both effective film speed and hypothetical corrective filtration (though most nite photographers seldom even consider the latter, and either like or dislike the look they happen to bag). Things are getting more complicated than ever,
because so many new wacky spectrum bulbs are appearing on the market, with very little consistency. Under such circumstances I just shoot a roll of 120 Ektar or
whatever, then pay for a mid-level scan just for quick viewing. Once I need to home in, then I'll print a test sample in the darkroom. No different than testing chrome
film at nite, except that there we can simply slap something on a lightbox and immediately evaluate it.

[StoneNYC]

Exactly! One of the reasons I get vexed with Kodak is they tell us nothing about reciprocity adjustments and instead tell us to do our own tests! I'd do them with pleasure if Kodak would pay for the film and the processing while I did so.

That said I like EKTAR 100 and enjoy the way it renders colour.

RR

I'm telling you, reciprocity timer for the iPhone is the ticket, he's done the math on the given failure curves and whatnot... And version 2 is packed with films!

[Drew Wiley]

Stone.. you're not following this quite right... For urban or architectrual nite photography, it is impossible to design a simply generic recip table, because the film
responds differently to significantly different kinds of light sources; and complicated mixed light sources might be encountered. Ektar in engineered for daylight.
And yeah, if this was the good old days where you had a definable Kelvin photoflood and ordinary tungsten bulbs, that could be directly equated too. But these
ain't the good ole days, and lots of the world isn't inside a studio where we control the lighting parameters. You might use someone else's recommendations as a starting point, but it's kinda like that Massive Dev Chart for film developers on the web ... take it with a grain of salt, 'cause there are just too many personal variables.

[StoneNYC]

Stone.. you're not following this quite right... For urban or architectrual nite photography, it is impossible to design a simply generic recip table, because the film
responds differently to significantly different kinds of light sources; and complicated mixed light sources might be encountered. Ektar in engineered for daylight.
And yeah, if this was the good old days where you had a definable Kelvin photoflood and ordinary tungsten bulbs, that could be directly equated too. But these
ain't the good ole days, and lots of the world isn't inside a studio where we control the lighting parameters. You might use someone else's recommendations as a starting point, but it's kinda like that Massive Dev Chart for film developers on the web ... take it with a grain of salt, 'cause there are just too many personal variables.

*robot voice* "I will decide the light! I will control all! photograph! Photograph! PHOTOGRAPH!!!!"

[tgtaylor]

"...but I do recall printing an image of Horsetail Falls in which I masked off all but the sky portion and made a test strip that had about 10 or so different shades of blue to choose from (a straight print yielded an uninteresting dull grey sky which it was at the time because I was shooting into the same direction as the sun was setting which washed out the sky in that area) and then printed the image alternating between filter packs and masks. I believe that I posted the result somewhere on the forum.

Thomas

I found it:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7401/12577030944_8eb9d431c4_c.jpg

Thomas

[Stephen Willard]

Hi yes-)

Hi Bert, below are the CC graphs for both Ektar 100 and Portra 160 VC.

I judged Ektar 100 to have a nine stop dynamic range because the blue layer flattens out after nine stops. I was suspicious of this at first and thought perhaps it was an error on my part. I subsequently processed three sheets at Zone IX and X each and got the same results so I am confident that it has a nine stop dynamic range. Also note that the RGB layers do not progress in parallel with the green layer having the shallower slope. This tells me that the film may not accurately record the actual color of the scene with respect to green. I build all CC graphs using a Zone V gray card and all layers of a film should have the same slope, but Ektar 100 does not.

110663

I judged Portra 160 VC to have a 12 stop dynamic range, but it could also could be 13 stops as well. The upper part of the CC graph is a little shallow, but these values are general found in brilliant blue skies and puff white clouds. To compensate for this I use a polarizing filter to beef up the contrast in this region so indeed I can get more detail and better contrast in Zone XI through Zone XIII. Note the RGB layers for this film run much parallel to each other than Ektar 100, and so it is my opinion Portra 160 VC film does a better job at accurately recording the color of the actual scene. I ended up choosing Portra 160 VC over Ektar 100 because of its greater dynamic range and better color rendition.

110664

Hope this helps...

[Stephen Willard]

Bert, here is my Mecbeth test results comparing the RGB layers of all the Mecbeth patches for Portra 160 VC, Portra 160 NC, and Ektar 100. I arbitrarily numbered the patches on the Mecbeth card and then grouped them on the three graphs by warm color patches, greenish color patches, and bluish color patches. The Mecbeth patches are shown on the X-axis. I then construct a bar graph of the densities for the red layer, the green layer, and the blue layer. Note the three films are bar graphed for each patch. Ektar is shown and a solid color, Portra 160 VC is shown as a speckled color, and Portra 160 VC NC is shown as a hatched line color.

As you can see Ektar has more red density while Portra 160 VC has more green density. These results are reflect in Ektar's CC graph with the shallow sloped green layer as shown in my previous posting. Both Ektra 100 and Portra 160 VC record about the same blue density.

110665

110667

110668

[Stephen Willard]

Exactly! One of the reasons I get vexed with Kodak is they tell us nothing about reciprocity adjustments and instead tell us to do our own tests! I'd do them with pleasure if Kodak would pay for the film and the processing while I did so.

That said I like EKTAR 100 and enjoy the way it renders colour.

RR

It is my belief the variables that effect reciprocal failure are exposure times and light intensity. I do not believe the color temperature of the light source will alter reciprocal failure properties. When reciprocal failure occurs density is lost and longer exposure times are needed to add and restore density to is intended value. From my initial testing, shadow light experiences reciprocal failure with significantly shorter times than highlights fail. If you increase the exposure time to resort the shadows by two stops to bring it back to say a Zone III placement, then you will also be bumping up the highlights by two stops beyond what they should be naturally. The side effect of this will be to increase the overall contrast of the negative.

I hope to be doing some testing to characterize reciprocal failure. However, from my field experiences I have found the color negative film I am currently using does very well at 16 seconds, and I suspect it will have little failure even at 30 seconds. My gut feeling is that those films that have expansive dynamic ranges will accommodate longer exposures before reciprocal failure occurs. I hope to be running a suite of test this spring to answer some of these questions.

[Drew Wiley]

Keep us posted on that, Stephen. Long exposures (more than a few sec) are not something I have had much chance to experiment with Ektar. And I still have all the
homework to do with Portra 400. I'd be interested in seeing how the latter compares to 160VC.

[alexn]

I find with ektar I expose in much the same way I do with black and white neg films, looking to preserve shadow detail, however I do also watch my highlights a lot, where as with B/W neg I tend to record where the highlights fall, but not actively try to retain them...

Ektar I find to be somewhere between shooting slide film, and shooting something like portra 160, in that its highlights do tend to over-expose quickly like a slide film, but it definitely has a lot more latitude than velvia for a given situation.

If you shoot a lot of velvia, you know that highlights go to about +2, maybe +2.3 if its yellow/green or bright white water in a waterfall scene, and your shadows go to -1.6 if you want detail, -2 if you want texture and -2.3 if you want BLACK.
Ektar I find has quite a bit more latitude, I routinely place highlights at +2.6 and even +3 and retain shadow detail at -3, texture at -3.3 and blacks fall at nearly -4..

I gauge perhaps 6.5 to 7 stops of useful range (when scanning) in Ektar100, as opposed to between 4 and 5 depending on the scene with Velvia.

119281

The posted example has 11 stops between the brightest and darkest areas, this is reduced to 8 stops with a 3 stop hard edge grad filter. I put the sky just off the solar disc at +6.6, the darkest spot at -4.3 and got this result.

Reciprocity calculation was done using a very rough guide I'd been given by a photographer who had done a little testing with this film, he basically said no reciprocity out to about 3 seconds, half a stop out to 5 seconds, and add a stop for exposures longer than 5 seconds...

I now use the Reciprocity Timer 2.0 app for reciprocity calculation with Ektar and find it to give me much better results, although if anything I meter my highlights a little more timidly using the timer app, placing highlights at a strict +2.6

[johnmsanderson]

IF you underexpose this film it will become a grainy muddy mess. I usually meter shadows at zone III.