Pushing Ektar 1 or 2 stops

[Tim Povlick]

Greetings,

Does anyone have experience / information on pushing Ektar 100 by 1 or 2 stops. Nothing was found in this forum or the datasheet.

Assuming it can be pushed how does one push C-41 (using the Rollei/Compard Digibase C-41 Mini Color Processing Kit)? The development time is 3:15 minutes for normal.

A secondary question - How fast past expiration can one keep C-41 if it's in the freezer? I have had good luck with Chrome but not sure about C-41.

Thanks,

Tim

[William Barnett-Lewis]

Only in roll film and I'd suggest not to. The roll variety has about as little exposure latitude as E6. This review: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...tar%20100.html reflects my feelings quite well. When I finally shoot some in 4x5 I intend to shoot it at box only.

[Tim Povlick]

Hi William,

Thanks for the quick response and link. I didn't realize Ektar was that touchy about exposure. I had some very good and some very bad images and was wondering what the problem was.

The reason I was asking about this is it looks like color neg file in asa 400 / 8x10 is no more and push alternatives do not appear available.

Thanks again for the very useful help.

Best Regards,

Tim

[Ben Syverson]

Tim, I would think that Portra 160NC would be a much better candidate for pushing than Ektar... However, you'll get pretty similar results processing 160NC normally and digitally "pushing" the file in Photoshop. The biggest problem in both cases (pushing and Photoshop) is that you can't make up for shadow detail that's simply not there.

In my experience, C41 ages well at low temperatures. It will lose a little speed over time (maybe half a stop every few years), and it will get a little grainier. Any change in color is hard for me to judge, since my scanning process eliminates a lot of those differences.

[Tom Kershaw]

I should point out that Canham cameras may be able to put together a bulk order for Kodak Portra 400 in 8x10" according to Scott DiSabato of Kodak.

[Tim Gray]

Take this with several grains of salt, but I've found in 35mm/120 with scanning, Ektar 100 at EI 200 with no development push but compensation in Photoshop didn't look too bad. Sure you lose some shadow detail, but it might work for you.

I've not found similar results to what Roger Hicks found. To be honest, his side by side comparison of proper exposure and 1 stop over looks the opposite of what I would expect. The shot with more exposure has less shadow detail?

Here were some of my tests - no adjustments to developing, all corrections done during scanning. flickr link

To make a long story short - I get a latitude range of exactly what Kodak says: -1/+2. Maybe a bit higher on the overexposure side.

[Tim Povlick]

Tim, I would think that Portra 160NC would be a much better candidate for pushing than Ektar... However, you'll get pretty similar results processing 160NC normally and digitally "pushing" the file in Photoshop. The biggest problem in both cases (pushing and Photoshop) is that you can't make up for shadow detail that's simply not there.

In my experience, C41 ages well at low temperatures. It will lose a little speed over time (maybe half a stop every few years), and it will get a little grainier. Any change in color is hard for me to judge, since my scanning process eliminates a lot of those differences.

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your input! The fact one can stash this stuff is good news. I placed and order for some 400nc and 160nc 160vc all in 8x10.

I would rather not push in photoshop but get the best exposure possible.

Greatly appreciate your time and expertise.

Best Regards,

Tim

[Tim Povlick]

I should point out that Canham cameras may be able to put together a bulk order for Kodak Portra 400 in 8x10" according to Scott DiSabato of Kodak.

Hi Tom,

This is good news as the film will work nicely in my Canham 8x10. :-) I had written 8x10 / 400 Portra off completely but maybe there will be hope. I hadn't thought about Canham's film bulk order but will keep Keith in mind as my (just ordered) supplies run out.

My concern is to be able to shoot 8x10 at 400 for both indoor and landscape and it seems like the high speed 8x10 color neg film is going away - unless I missed something.

Thanks and Regards,

Tim

[Tim Povlick]

Take this with several grains of salt, but I've found in 35mm/120 with scanning, Ektar 100 at EI 200 with no development push but compensation in Photoshop didn't look too bad. Sure you lose some shadow detail, but it might work for you.

I've not found similar results to what Roger Hicks found. To be honest, his side by side comparison of proper exposure and 1 stop over looks the opposite of what I would expect. The shot with more exposure has less shadow detail?

Here were some of my tests - no adjustments to developing, all corrections done during scanning. flickr link

To make a long story short - I get a latitude range of exactly what Kodak says: -1/+2. Maybe a bit higher on the overexposure side.

Hi Tim,

That is some nice work you put together, thanks for sharing this. The zero-stop image has a nice linear curve on the 20 step contrast chart. That image is very good and nice job on all the scans.

Thanks very much.

Tim

[weebz]

One time I was shooting Ektar on 35mm I shot it at 200 with out realizing it. I didn't see too much of a loss in quality there. I would think if 35mm would do it, so would LF. Here is a like to a shoot from said roll on my DA