View Full Version : Your thoughts on Kodak Ektar 100 4x5?

31-Jul-2010, 13:10
I am considering trying this film. I have been using Fuji 160 Pro-S as my color neg film.

Since the Ektar has been available for a while, and Pro-S QL's are pretty expensive, I'm considering a switch. I shoot mainly landscapes, and details within the landscape.


1. How does the color pallet compare to Velvia 100? Astia 100F? 160 Pro-S?
2. What can I expect in terms of its dynamic range?
3. Grain?
4. How well does it scan (I use a Microtek 1800F)?

Many thanks, as always,


31-Jul-2010, 13:22

5. Where will I get it processed? :D

The reason I don't shoot C-41 in LF is that processing is limited, even in a big place like Los Angeles. I'd expect Ektar 100 to perform just as well in 4x5 as I've experienced it performing in 120. I generally don't like oversaturated colors, but found Ektar to be saturated without being offensive to my eyes. I couldn't see grain but didn't use a loupe to look for it. Mostly guesses on my part, though. If getting it processed was easier I'd be shooting it.

31-Jul-2010, 13:36
Ektar has a totally different look than any other color film I have used. It has a nice dynamic range as expected in a color negative film. I like it quite a lot but know many who feel the opposite about it. It is the only color negative film that I really like. It is, IMO worth a try.

31-Jul-2010, 18:57
Ditto what Memorris says re dynamic range. Slightly more vivid colors compare to Porta 160 film. As to finer grain this may be an advantage for 35 mm or 2 1/4 but for 4X5 there is so much negative area grain is not an issue! I shot some test sheets and decided I would rather have the higher ISO so went back to Portia. Both are excellent. From what I gather Landscapes and portraits are the strong suit for Ektar.

1-Aug-2010, 00:34
I just came back from Europe, where I tried Ektar 100 as my "holiday" film in both 120 & 4x5", and so I'm currently in the middle of scanning it all. It was very sunny most of the time in Europe throughout July, and so it really tested dynamic range, but for all the sheet film exposures (where I actually used a spot meter), I can't find a sheet that I've lost shadows or highlights in. Insofar as colour goes, well, the heat haze tends to make the views from mountains kind of flat anyway, but for closeup subjects, the colours seem on the "cheery" side without being overpowering. It's a very sharp film with minimal grain. Overall, and after only 5 boxes (and 15 rolls), I'm quite pleased with it, and will use it again I think...


1-Aug-2010, 02:10
I have used Ektar 8x10 during my last trip to Hong Kong.
- it is certainly the print film with the finest grain I ever tried
- scans very well
- dynamic range is 2-3 Stops better than my usual E100G, lot's of Highlight Detail!
- The colour it comes with after scanning is something I don't like.

It seems yellowish, I have to work on Photoshot to get rid of that - The colour of 160NC is much better balanced to start with digital postprocessing - but the grain is worse, so I wood choose the Ektar again next time. I haven't made any contact prints yet.

For examples of what you get out of the film after postprocessing, check: http://www.flickr.com/search/?&w=40386447@N00&m=&q=ektar

Drew Wiley
3-Aug-2010, 09:40
Hi Preston - hope to try some 8x10 up around Sonora Pass in a week or two. Let me
know if you're up for a run there sometime. Haven't shot any 4x5 yet, but have shot
some 8x10 here on the coast as well as in the Mother Lode, a fair amount of 35mm
around here, and a couple of rolls of 120 in Maui, for which I made both contact sheets and a scan for easy viewing. Haven't had time to do any real printing with it yet, however. It's a more contrasy and saturated film than Provia, so you have to expose it carefully, just like a chrome. Blues per se tend to drift toward cyan - nice for turquoise tropical oceans, but might be a bit of a problem with high Sierra skies. So part of the palette is still a little off, but otherwise renders even better greens than Provia did. I'd put it one notch down the contrast scale from Astia, with a slightly longer range, but not anywhere near as forgiving in latitude as traditional negative films. I look forward to working with it quite a bit, but not as an outright substitute for either chrome film or Provia. Due to seemingly endless remodeling, however, I probably won't have a chance to punch any 30x40's till next Spring.

3-Aug-2010, 09:52
It's a more contrasy and saturated film than Provia

I look forward to working with it quite a bit, but not as an outright substitute for either chrome film or Provia

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Provia IS a chrome (positive transparency) film.

Drew Wiley
3-Aug-2010, 11:00
Thank you for catching the error (the hazards of multitasking!). I obviously meant
Portra film, not Provia (which I don't even use any more). Ektar seems to fall about
halfway between Porta 160VC and Astia in terms of practical contrast (I haven't actually read it on a densitometer yet).