Shooting Ektar 100. Rate at box speed or 50?

[Kupo43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Trying to see what everyone rates Ektar 100 at when shooting. I've heard overexposing a stop or two can help with details in the shadows.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Kupo43,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

If you pick up a roll of Ektar 100 & hold it horizontally with the little nubbin to your left & then tell us the colors in the 6 boxes on the top row: Reading left to right: For example: white - black - white - black - white - black 

 

And then read us the lower row in the same manner:

 

I will tell you what those 12 little boxes would tell an M7 to do.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Mute-on]

Ektar will give even more saturated colours at 1 stop over. Rate at 100 for more realistic, but still highly saturated, colours.

You can happily rate Portra at half box speed, though.

Cheers

J

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[250swb]

I rate it at box speed before I leave the house and then look at what I'm photographing to decide if I want to under or over expose it. 

[Doc Henry]

Question of Neil in "I like film thread"

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3131413

you can see many replies and photos after this question

Rg

H

Edited October 20, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Mark II]

Ektar will give even more saturated colours at 1 stop over. Rate at 100 for more realistic, but still highly saturated, colours.

 

Yes - but be careful with blue skies which seem to turn cyan if over-exposed (at least with my processing!).

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I normally rate Ektar at 80, and then if the scene is worth bracketing I will take another exposure with 1/2 to a full stop more light.

 

This topic recently came up on the I Like Film thread and I remarked that I find Ektar a bit tricky b/c it has a fair amount of latitude but if you push your luck too much it affects the color balance and doesn't sing as it should.

 

A couple of recent examples:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kupo43]

Thank you everyone. Going to rate at 80 mostly but bracket the shots that matter.

[Abram]

One thing I know about Ektar 100 is that it loves sunlight, the more the better. I've tried over / under exposing it and have typically found that box speed was ideal, however I haven't tried rating it at 80 yet so I'm curious to try that out myself!

[Trivette]

One thing I know about Ektar 100 is that it loves sunlight, the more the better. I've tried over / under exposing it and have typically found that box speed was ideal, however I haven't tried rating it at 80 yet so I'm curious to try that out myself!

 

There is only 1/3 stop difference between ISO 100 and ISO 80. I would be pleasantly surprised if the shutter speeds of my M6 or M2 were accurate to 1/3 stop. However, ISO 80 would at least help insure that one is not underexposing the Ektar,

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Kupo43

 

Did you consider doing what I suggested in Post #2 above?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

[Kupo43]

Hello Kupo43

 

Did you consider doing what I suggested in Post #2 above?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

 

Hey Michael,

 

I don't have a roll with me at this point; I've ordered some and it's on the way. I've shot it at box speed before but found that when underexposed shadows have a strange purple tint. I'll make sure to check in when I receive the film. Thanks!

[250swb]

Hey Michael,

 

I don't have a roll with me at this point; I've ordered some and it's on the way. I've shot it at box speed before but found that when underexposed shadows have a strange purple tint. I'll make sure to check in when I receive the film. Thanks!

 

Under exposure is not caused by the film. So adjusting the film speed to compensate for either the camera or the photographer is the wrong way to go because the camera or photographer will still under expose using other film types, and they always end up chasing their tail asking 'what is the correct film speed?'. It's better to determine if your camera meter is accurate, or if the photographer is metering for the scene intelligently. Of course the way to compensate for an inaccurate meter is to change the ISO so the camera thinks the scene is too bright or too dark, but this will be universal across all films. The way the photographer can compensate for under exposure is to take a reading with more shadow in the meter area and then recompose.

 

Others in this thread have commented on the different effect over or under exposing film has on colour, but the effect a photographer wants (and created by changing the ISO) is separate to the basic exposure principle. This because even if the ISO is set at 50 for the effect on the colour, the scene will still need metering intelligently by choosing to further over or under expose the image if necessary to maintain that effect. So by all means experiment with film speeds, but it is never a direct equivalent of compensating for correct average exposure because as soon as you dial in a different ISO (given an accurate meter) the effect it has on the films characteristic curve changes the nature of the films response and look, and this is true for B&W as well as colour.

Edited October 21, 2016 by 250swb

[MarkP]

The way the photographer can compensate for under exposure is to take a reading with more shadow in the meter area and then recompose.

 

 

+1

[A miller]

Under exposure is not caused by the film. So adjusting the film speed to compensate for either the camera or the photographer is the wrong way to go because the camera or photographer will still under expose using other film types, and they always end up chasing their tail asking 'what is the correct film speed?'. It's better to determine if your camera meter is accurate, or if the photographer is metering for the scene intelligently. Of course the way to compensate for an inaccurate meter is to change the ISO so the camera thinks the scene is too bright or too dark, but this will be universal across all films. The way the photographer can compensate for under exposure is to take a reading with more shadow in the meter area and then recompose.

 

Others in this thread have commented on the different effect over or under exposing film has on colour, but the effect a photographer wants (and created by changing the ISO) is separate to the basic exposure principle. This because even if the ISO is set at 50 for the effect on the colour, the scene will still need metering intelligently by choosing to further over or under expose the image if necessary to maintain that effect. So by all means experiment with film speeds, but it is never a direct equivalent of compensating for correct average exposure because as soon as you dial in a different ISO (given an accurate meter) the effect it has on the films characteristic curve changes the nature of the films response and look, and this is true for B&W as well as colour.

 

All makes sense.  I would just clarify that my general workflow of rating medium to high contrast scenes at 80 (and then developing at 100) is simply to ensure that I don't underexpose by not choosing the right average meter reading that is appropriate for the given scene.  Lots of times it is not super clear as to what the correct average reading should be, particularly when the darkest areas are in the 3-4 zones and the brightest areas are in the 7-9 zones.  You know you're gonna have to compromise, but which way to you go?  Keep the dark zones dark w/ little or no details (or with detail but with ugly color casts) and crush some shadows or increase the exposure a little to better preserve the shadow detail but then move the bright zones closer to 9 and then pure white and risk, e.g., not getting as pretty of a blue sky or lose some other pastels in the horizon.  I don't think one can say that there is a single right answer for this; I would argue that it is highly dependent on the particular scene as well as the intended rendition. With B&W, there is much more artistic freedom; but with color, especially Ektar, one is constrained by the knock-on effects of the color palette.  My main point was that I find Ektar to be particularly sensitive to color shifts when it either gets too much light or not enough light.  B/c I find the shifts to be particularly undesirable with underexposure, I tend to put my finger on the scale ever so slightly with a 1/3 stop increase in light - and then I take my average readings and see which zones it puts the brightest, darkest and middle gray parts of the scene.  And then I adjust (as anyone should) this accordingly to make sure that you hit that sweet spot of EVs to strike the best balance between getting the best exposure and minimizing color shifts.

[MarkP]

Thanks Adam. Nicely put. Again though you are discussing the problem of getting the optimal exposure which is often more art and experience than science, and as so often with film it's just that bit more tolerant to overexposure.

Edited October 21, 2016 by MarkP

[EoinC]

In case anyone was wondering how Ektar behaves when you forget to remove a yellow filter left on from shooting B&W, it's a little like this...

b010 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

[MarkP]

Haven't we all done that at lease once.

[EoinC]

Haven't we all done that at lease once.

Some of us more than once...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

+2