color film for 4x5 advice

[newt]

I have not shot color film in about 20 years. When I did I proofed everything with Polaroid 55. Obviously that is no longer an option. I am interested in shooting some color along side the black and white I am also shooting. Not a factor in my question, but I am shooting 30 year expired tech pan, and developing in pmk. My prospects are to work very slowly, first shooting black and white, developing one sheet at a time as I go, and then shooting the color once I have that right. If that is not maddening enough, I am limited by the available lighting, which is 3000k. I can supplement this with a few mini maglites! I realize this sounds utterly ridiculous. Worse is that I really like the color as I see it on the glas. B&H offers only 3 kodak films in 4x5, Ektar seems to be the better choice. I assume it is daylight balance since there is no "T" and the reviews all talk about landscape. Do I need to use a warming filter, or can this be balanced later in printing or in photoshop? Is it true about the wide latitude in this color neg film, and if so just how does that work? Is it that it doesn't matter so much if it is over exposed, or do I need to be mindful, and adjust the processing if it is overexposed. If the latter then I would need to know that ahead of time, which begs the question why I couldnt expose it spot on in the first place, which I likely will since I am essentially proofing with bw film first.

[xkaes]

Hello,
While 4x5 color film is not cheap, it's easy to run a few tests with whatever lighting setup you will be using. Perhaps yu have a Kodak or other color test chart. I've used Ektar 25 -- 35mm for decades -- and 100 4x5" as well. I shoot at 1/2 the recommended ISO, based in my tests and tastes. It is daylight balanced, but you can easily get a correcting filter for 3000K -- or whatever -- or you can correct under the enlarger or in a computer -- or all three. I'd do it up front, but that assumes all your lighting will be the same. Ektar is way easier to use than Tech Pan.

[Drew Wiley]

No - DO NOT try to correct that amount of color imbalance in PS. Everything will be out of whack. Even the best mortician in town won't be able to make Ektar after that kind of disaster look worthy of open-coffin viewing. Can't you just use blue light balancing gels over your studio lamps? Those are relatively inexpensive. Then, if you achieve the correct rated daylight color temperature of 5500K that way, or even more easily via an equivalent blue conversion filter over the camera lens instead (but not both), rate the film at its BOX SPEED of 100. Very important. Ektar needs to be rather precisely exposed, just like a slide film. If your lamps are actually 3000K, as measured with a good color temp meter, then you would need an 80A bluish conversion filter over the lens.

[Kiwi7475]

I second Drew’s recommendation above. If you tried anyway without correcting during the exposure, you will find it a nightmare to correct in post — it won’t be a simple temp adjustment. Using correcting gels/filters is the way to go.

Also maybe you want to try in 35 or 120 format before committing to 4x5 sheets. You can run plenty of combinations (color corrections and exposure) on one roll.

[BrianShaw]

May I make just one more suggestion? Please download and read the film data sheets. They address many issues that could facilitate your success. It might also somewhat reduce your need for using test shots as a crutch.

Perhaps you’d also be better served, latitude-wise, by considering Portra. Different color (less saturated) and different latitude (wider) than Ektar.

[agregov]

I also would recommend starting with Portra and shoot it at 1/2 box speed (eg. shoot Portra 400 at 200asa). Portra is difficult to blow out your highlights and you'll ensure you capture your shadow detail at 1/2 box speed. If you are going into the color darkroom to print color negs, I'd stay away from Ektar. It's a difficult film to color correct--it has a tricky magenta cast. If scanning negatives, it probably doesn't matter which film you use. I'd start with Portra 400 personally--you'll get faster exposures that way and stay away from reciprocity failure in sub 1 sec exposures while getting up to speed.

[Drew Wiley]

Ektar is just as easy to print in the darkroom as any other color neg film. Same starter settings. If there's a problem, don't blame the film, but failure to expose it correctly to begin with. And there is no magenta cast - that's probably an odd colorhead or mismatch paper issue, certainly not any characteristic of the film itself. Gosh knows I've sure enlarged a lot of it in every format up to 8x10 using three different kinds of enlargers. But Ektar if a fussier less forgiving bird to shoot than Portra films - that just comes with the territory of greater contrast and cleaner saturation.

[xkaes]

I have not found anything unusual about Ektar. I started with Ektar 25 in 35mm -- and ran the usual tests for my ISO and gear. In 4x5 I started with Agfacolor 100, 125, and 400 -- but have ADDED Ektar 100 -- I still have some Agfacolor 4x5. I have not noticed any difference. Maybe my temperature control method has something to do with this.

[agregov]

Yeah, my color heads are fine. I've seen color issues with Ektar on many color heads (Saunders and Omegas). Also, no issues with processing my film (Jobo CPP3). I have zero issues with Portra with the exact same workflow. Note, this is color darkroom printing. Scanning and color correcting there is likely not an issue, though I don't have experience there. "Cast" is probably not the right word to use regarding Ektar magenta behavior but its color makeup certainly leans heavier in the magenta direction, far more than with Portra films. I just taught a color darkroom workshop a few weeks ago and one of the students had some Ektar negs, same issue. He had a tough time color correcting it and it was all magenta he was fighting with. Anyway, that just my experience. The easiest way to know which film to shoot, is to buy both and make some prints from each.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know what planet you're having this alleged issue on agregov. Never heard of a "magenta cast" issue with Ektar before. I have two pulsed halogen large format RGB additive colorheads, one 8x10, the other 5x7, as well as a more traditonal 8x10 Durst CMY colorhead - never a so-called magenta issue with any of them. And these are very serious enlargers in a completely different league from anything Saunders or Omega. By design, it is a more saturated and higher contrast film than the Portra series. Just as easy to correct or adjust in darkroom printing than any other color neg film, probably easier because the hues are cleaner. But I don't just buy such a film and make a quick comparison. I've shot Ektar and printed it for as long as its been on the market, in multiple formats. Did plenty of Portra prior to that, done all kind of color neg films, in fact.

My take : As usual, don't blame the film. It's quality control is superb. There is something off either in your exposures, equipment, chemistry, or workflow. But I've said all this twice already.