Just Bought My First Color 8x10 Film

[Pseudonomic16]

Hey all! I just purchased my first 8x10 color film, Kodak Ektar 100. Obviously, due to the expense of the film and processing I don't want to waste it. I got 10 sheets for ~$90 and a local lab will develop it for $8/sheet. I do all of my own B&W at home but I have not stepped up to C-41 yet. Any tips or tricks for exposing this film? I have only ever used it in 120 and I shot it at box speed. What are your recommendations or moments of "I wish I had known what I know now...?"

Thanks!

[polyglot]

Well it's the same emulsion as in 120 - if your exposures there are working well, then keep on doing that.

My only comment is that Ektar is very sensitive to underexposure, so be cognizant of your bellows factor. Treat it like you would chromes.

[Daniel Stone]

One box of ektar was more than enough to turn me off, I went back to shooting chrome because even if underexposed a 1/2 or so, IMO, it looks better than the Ektar did...

Not to be a wet blanket to the OP, but I'll mirror what Polyglot said:

Don't underexpose it!

Have fun!

Dan

[cosmicexplosion]

i read that you are better off over exposing by at least a stop, AND that ektar is designed to lose its saturation when over exposed so you get a more natural look if that what you want.

so try exposing at asa 64 and give it a stop extra.

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry to be OT but each print is going to cost you $17? We supposedly learn from our mistakes. At that price you don't have much room for mistakes.

[vinny]

[QUOTE AND that ektar is designed to lose its saturation when over exposed so you get a more natural look if that what you want.

so try exposing at asa 64 and give it a stop extra.[/QUOTE]
what?
you've read this on kodak's site?

[timparkin]

so try exposing at asa 64 and give it a stop extra.
what?
you've read this on kodak's site?

Here's a question for you though. If you consider Velvia 100 and Ektar 100 - would you treat these two films in exactly the same way? Seriously, I'd love to know how you would handle these two films that have exactly the same film speed?

Tim

p.s. Kodak give an exposure reading for a typical average scene which ranges from -2 to +2 ... if you expose the film at box speed with that scene then everything will be OK. However, Many scenes have deeper shadows than this and it is quite common to have shadows at -3. In this case the shadows will block up.

The answer is not to use the actual box speed but to understand the exposure range of the film - which is probably about -2 to +5 for general use. This +5 gives scope for over exposure and so if you are using an averaging meter then you can get away with many more situations by rating the film at 50 (or overexposing by a stop - whatever).

The ideal situation is you rate the film at 100 and then use your knowledge that shadows block up at -2 and highlights start to get 'scratty' at +5 (scratty is a technical term used in specialist photographic press in the UK - it means slightly 'mingy' with a dose of 'meh'). It's also worth knowing how the film behaves in the shadows (generally goes very blue just before clipping - when scanned that is).

[Pseudonomic16]

Sorry to be OT but each print is going to cost you $17? We supposedly learn from our mistakes. At that price you don't have much room for mistakes.


I agree wholeheartedly, Brian! I sure hope to not make many mistakes at this price!! Although, given that I haven't been able to find chromes at less than $15-20 per sheet Before developing...maybe this is the cheap way to learn!

___________

I had heard that Ektar goes blue in shadows before clipping black but had never seen it. Good point, Tim!

___________

Ektar is normally pretty saturated and contrasty but how does it handle being overexposed? Does it shift towards more pastel colors?

[E. von Hoegh]

Sorry to be OT but each print is going to cost you $17? We supposedly learn from our mistakes. At that price you don't have much room for mistakes.

Each processed negative will cost $17. I like Ektar, I've never had a problem exposing it at rated speed. Open up a bit if there are lots of shadows in which detail is important, expose at say 50 or 64 as has been suggested.

[polyglot]

No offense, but that's the sort of experimentation you need to do on a smaller format. If you don't know exactly how your film is going to render a scene before pushing the button, it behooves you not to be burning $17 sheets to find out.

You could answer all of the above questions to your satisfaction with a single roll of 120, let alone a 135/36.



I agree wholeheartedly, Brian! I sure hope to not make many mistakes at this price!! Although, given that I haven't been able to find chromes at less than $15-20 per sheet Before developing...maybe this is the cheap way to learn!

___________

I had heard that Ektar goes blue in shadows before clipping black but had never seen it. Good point, Tim!

___________

Ektar is normally pretty saturated and contrasty but how does it handle being overexposed? Does it shift towards more pastel colors?

[Drew Wiley]

I frequently shoot Ektar in several formats, esp 8x10, and consider it a marvelous product
once you understand it. Don't mistake it for either a chrome or something like a traditional
color neg film. I've posted numerous times about it on a couple of forums. You need to
filter for significant color balance errors, esp cold overcast or blue shadows. And except for
filter factor corrections per se, I shoot at box speed. If you can routinely expose tranny
film correctly, Ektar is easy. But don't expect a whole lot of spare latitude like with a neg
portrait film. Maybe one extra stop each side compared to general chrome films, and way
more than Velvia, which is a bad comparison anyway. For general experimentation I like to
shoot 120 film because it scans way better than 35mm (at least at an economical level for
general previewing), or gives a little bigger contact print. Of course, there's nothing like
printing from actual 8X10's (I do it optically on Crystal Archive II), but you can only select
a limited number of images for big print work.

[cosmicexplosion]

It's fascinating how one film can have many correct ways of using it.

In the end it's all compensation.
More this less that.

But I a agree you should test out on 120 film

Being on a budget.

Every one seems to say err on over exposure.

So a spot meter is probly advisable to determine which areas you want detail

Etc

Any way it seems like a good film in that you have get saturated colours or push it and get more natural.

That would be my first experiment.

Five exposures of same scene

I am going to use portra as it has more natural tones.

[Drew Wiley]

Wholly incorrect. Portra does not have more "natural" tones. It has less contrast and saturation, so is more fogiving in terms of fleshtones and exposure error. "Pushing" the film will not necssarily improve things. Overexposure might, but only if you don't properly color balance in the first place, esp in the case of Ektar. In certain cases Ektar tends to have more accurate color. It just depends on the specifics of the subject matter. A spot meter
is helpful. Ektar is more forgiving than chrome film; but anything in 8x10 is too expensive to
be guessing.

[Ari]

I've been shooting Ektar for a year, and I think it's brilliant.
I, too, shoot it at 100 ISO; whatever colour corrections are needed can easily be done in PS.