Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Kodak Ektar 100

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    219

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    It depends on at least some degree on the workflow that you want to use. If you just shoot the film, than scan to digital, and print digitally, then you have a lot of control over saturation, etc. If you are staying strictly old school, ie., printing from your negs optically through an enlarger, film choice is very critical so that you get the results you want.

    The difficulty with contact sheets, is that they are great to judge the image composition from, but will be printed so that the image looks good on paper, so corrections are made to compensate for over/under exposure, as well as lighting.
    This is why contacts (or any print from a neg) can be misleading, as it all depends on how it was printed, so, if you don't like the results, it's worth asking for another try, especially if it is a machine done, or other low end print service.

    The best way to determine correct exposure is to examine the negs, and if you lack the experience, get the lab to give you their opinion.
    Typical neg film has a bit of underexposure latitude(less then a stop), and quite a bit (2-3 stops) of overexposure latitude.
    C-41 films don't push/pull well, but it's seldom necessary, and not recommended, unless there is a large error in exposure.
    If you have processing facilities nearby, try a box and see how it will work for you.

    Personally, I intend to give this film a try, as I'm interested in the degree of latitude that it can give.
    Keith

  2. #12

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    Just to throw a (mostly) 4x5 commercial shooter into this, here is C-41 (mostly) from Dana Neibert, who lives not far from where I do in San Diego. A few years ago I found out he was using Kodak Portra 160NC for most of his work. Due to the lack of processing labs, he has been doing his own C-41, then scanning (Imacon) and post-processing in PhotoShop. He recently added a Canon DSLR and Hasselblad digital back to his gear, though he is admittedly not gear centric.

    To my eyes, there is a flatness to many C-41 images. That lends itself to compelling renderings of many subjects. However, I have long been preferential to the higher contrast and less range of E-6 films. That might sound like the opposite of many large format photographers, who largely seem to champion exposure latitude over all else. Yes, one can change C-41 scans in post, but how much time do I want to spend post-processing? I agree with the comments about contact sheets and negatives; those are huge issues to someone use to editing and selecting images on a light table.

    I could imagine that E-6 films, or labs, might become too few in the near future. Perhaps moving everything to C-41 is one answer, though it would be a fundamental work-flow shift for me. Why does E-6 large format seem like the red-headed stepchild of photography?

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography

  3. #13
    Daniel Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Posts
    2,097

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    Gordon,

    just so you're aware, the Samy's Camera in Santa Barbara runs DnD E-6 AND C-41 lines 5 days/week. They're EXTREMELY ECONOMICAL, and if you don't have a super-fast turnaround, well worth a look.

    they take mail-in orders, and you can see their pricing online

    http://www.samys805.com/film-processing/

    right now they're running a $5/roll E-6 special for 35mm/120 OR 220 film.

    they use Fuji chems, and run daily(at least, mostly 2x/day) tests to ensure chemistry stability.

    I've been using them for the last 6 months, and have been very pleased.

    regards,

    -Dan

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Carmel Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,047

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    Glad to know about Samy's doing 4x5 C41 and E6 for cheap.

    Is it news to anyone that virtually all commercial lab printing is now hybrid? Saturation with C41 in the darkroom used to also be controlled by choice of printing out papers, not just film selection. Now the same range of results can be achieved with curves and profiles. It's easy to re-profile an image, can even be batched. If you're not doing your own lab work and scanning, then film choice is as much finding what's a good fit with your commercial labs standard profiles and ink choices as anything, nowadays. For instance, last roll of Ektar 100 I shot and handed off to a lab for scanning, they didn't yet have the right profiles so the more magenta-than-orange mask skewed things a bit. Pro 160S looked better out of the canned profile.

    I've previously also done my own RA4 wet lab work. Problem nowadays is the paper choices are severely restricted. With color it becomes an issue of finding paper and film combinations that are popular enough to not be discontinued. I found Fuji films with the 4th layer did not look good on Kodak papers (which was all I could source locally) so I was keen on shooting only Kodak neg films. Now, I can be brand-agnostic. If I were still as concerned about this as when doing RA4, I'd be pretty comfortable with Kodak choosing Ektar as their new defacto standard, as there is bound to be at least one easily sourced, middle-of-the-road contrast paper choice that works well with it so long as they continue making color film.

    I do enjoy looking at transparencies as much as the next guy or girl (having been shooting them for 30+ years). But the reality is that they're not necessary to the offset printing process anymore, which was why they became the defacto standard for commercial work in the first place. And while it could be seen as a plus to learn something about dead-on exposure by looking at an unforgiving original, that's hardly a plus when you need to deliver bulletproof one-shot results. It's probably not a bad plan to gird ourselves for the day when E6 gives up the ghost. Personally, I'm very glad for seeing Ektar 100 rolled out across all the common formats.

  5. #15
    Greg Greg Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Maryland
    Posts
    1,093

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    De facto standard? That sounds Quay-zee!

    Why would they do that? I can see a fine grain film being popular. however not everyone wants the same degree of saturation. Saturation also means that some tone reproduction will be lost in the opposed colors. From what I've seen the Ektar has a bit more contrast than say 160VC from online posts of comparative images.

    Kodak states that the comparative E6 film with regard to grain is E100G, but why not say E100VS? Don't both of these E films use T-grain technology- I thought so but correct me if I am wrong? I also thought Portra was a T grain film, which is why it scans better than Fuji NPS. I understand though; that the Ektar according to Kodak is a newer sort of T technology, so maybe it is better for scanning.

    It will be interesting once I complete my test of this film as I have not shot it or 160VC previously- interesting to see how it scans.....and maybe prints optically.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan J. Eberle View Post
    Glad to know about Samy's doing 4x5 C41 and E6 for cheap.
    If I were still as concerned about this as when doing RA4, I'd be pretty comfortable with Kodak choosing Ektar as their new defacto standard, as there is bound to be at least one easily sourced, middle-of-the-road contrast paper choice that works well with it so long as they continue making color film.

  6. #16

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    E100VS and E100G are T-grain films, though the colour rendering of each is very different. I think the biggest factor is actually the clear base of E-6 films, at least for scanning, though with Ektar 100 Kodak has improved scanning capability. Until they make a clear base C-41 film, it will be tough to really compare with E-6 scanning. Yes, many scanners handle C-41 films quite nicely, but the reality is that a clear film base will pass more light from the scanner.

    About the only real clear benefit I can see to C-41 over E-6 is that the C-41 films are more forgiving of exposure. So in a tougher mixed lighting situation, there is potentially better performance with a C-41 film. Under or over exposure of E-6 will produce a noticeable difference in the final results, so sometimes that can be used to advantage.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    245

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    If you're looking for a "ship to" E-6 processor, I highly recommend AgX Imaging (agximaging.com). Prices very reasonable, esp. for the quality. Return shipping very reasonable too- no gouging.

    Rick

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan J. Eberle View Post
    Ektar 25 was heralded as Kodachrome's replacement back in the 1990 time frame.
    Ektar 25 was the worst, over-saturated film I've ever shot.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Carmel Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,047

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    This is not Ektar 25--and they didn't get exactly get rid of Kodachrome back in 1990, did they? What they did next was introduce a cascade of E6 films, some with strange color crosses in the shadows (Lumiere 100 SW, anyone?). For a time back there, the E6 product line seemed to changed every few mos, just about the the same interval pros would have been getting comfortable with the new emulsion (since eclipsed).

    Meanwhile, Fujichrome cleaned Kodak's clock, at least in the pro ranks, during this period.

  10. #20
    Greg Greg Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Maryland
    Posts
    1,093

    Re: Kodak Ektar 100

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan J. Eberle View Post
    (Lumiere 100 SW, anyone?)

    Was garbage and I shot one free Roll Kodak sent to me.

    Meanwhile, Fujichrome cleaned Kodak's clock, at least in the pro ranks, during this period.
    Fujichrome was- is good stuff. I have personally liked Sensia versions. I kind of wished Fuji had provided it in large formats. I always seemed to get good results using it, unlike Provia it seems to have better contrast and more natural color saturation than Velvia although the Velvia 100 is a pretty close match.

Similar Threads

  1. Kodak Ektar 100
    By scrichton in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16-Dec-2008, 09:15
  2. Kodak Wide field Ektar - f6.3 135mm
    By Stan Fisher in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2-Aug-1998, 12:09

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •