sfage Posted March 14, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have not tried Ektar 100 in a long time. In fact, I had forgotten about it. I have liked Portra 160 NC for ages. The point I am trying to make is: I like "real" colour. I just want what I saw. If you want that too, you might consider the Ektar. Yes, Portra is very good... but so is this. So, I bought two rolls. I promised myself that I would only shoot one roll. I am not "as" concerned about the composition of these photographs. I am testing this film to see if I like it... and I do, very much. I have decided to post directly from my own site so that I could give you a 6 MB file. There has been absolutely NO post-production done to these shots (other than a JPG compress). Colour sliders set to the number one in the scanner software, and to "neutral". The shot of the rocks is out of the Plustek. The poplar trees at 3 pm is out of the Epson 700. Both are scanned with Vuescan. Original file size 3-400 megabytes. 1974 Leicaflex SL2 'cron 50. http://shanefage.ca/media/Ektar2.jpg http://shanefage.ca/media/Ektar3.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Hi sfage, Take a look here Ektar 100 Pro. Very nice for "reality" colour.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
treeplanter Posted March 14, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 14, 2011 A bit confused by your post. Ektar 100 is a new film, released in 35mm about two years ago. Are you referring to this Ektar 100? Or a previous version? Jim B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted March 14, 2011 Sorry. I confused it with Ektacolour. I have gone through a metric tonne of that stuff in 6X6 format with the Rollei. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted March 14, 2011 Here is a repost of the #4 image. It has been manipulated to: +2 contrast, sharpen @ 300, radius 2... and that's it. Unedited: http://shanefage.ca/media/Ektar4.jpg Edited: http://shanefage.ca/media/EktarM.jpg Again, I must stress that this is not a "photograph". I am not concerned about "composition". I am trying this new film out. So, the test in this shot is dynamic range. The meter gives me a general broad range of the light in this predominantly bright, mostly white photo. So, we get the upper end (white), the browns and grays of the rocks (midrange) the ice in the pool (lower midrange) but here's the real kicker: look in the hole in the ice at the bottom right. Click upon the image and it will enlarge. You can actually see 3 or 4 tree branches *under the water*. The breadth of dynamic range coming out of this film is really excellent to me. I absolutely love this film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted March 14, 2011 Oh! I forgot to mention the set - up for the scanning. I just received a request PM. This is -for me- the most impressive thing about this film. I have done nothing! All of the colour sliders were set to the number one, brightness to the number one, the drop-down set to "neutral", film set on generic. So, I have done nothing to help this film do its job. ... and, have made sure to test it on BOTH the V700 and the Plustek 7200. Both results are completely predictable and excellent! Ektar 2 was on the Plustek. Ektar 3 and 4 were on the V700. Both files are originally 3-400 MB before compression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 14, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 14, 2011 Ektar is a very saturated film. Having a lab that knows how to develop itis absolutely essential, in my experience. When I have tested this film, the reds in particular are so saturated as to make the photographs unuseable. Even when I tried to scan the negatives myself (as opposed to the Noritsu that the processor used), I couldn't get anywhere near a natural look. Your examples have a very grey subject matter, which probably helps. C41 is hard to scan at the best of times, but this stuff, again in my experience, is just too much trouble. However, if you like Velvia 50, and want a hard time getting a scan right, this stuff might be for you. I still have a couple of rolls in the freezer. One day, when I am long gone, they will still be there unless my wife has thrown them out in the meantime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 14, 2011 Share #7 Posted March 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ektar is a very saturated film. the reds in particular are so saturated as to make the photographs unuseable. You've mentioned your dislike of Ektar on a couple of occasions. Are you certain that you're referring to the new Ektar rather than the old Ektar. Was your experience within the last couple of years? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 14, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 14, 2011 Definitely the latest stuff. I have no experience of any older versions of Ektar. Have a look on Flickr for Ektar shots and you will see the saturation for yourself, I'm sure. http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodak_ektar/ Check the reds and greens on some of these. Way too much for my taste. In fact, this film reminds me very much of some of the Japan-only formulas that Fuji produce. In fact, it's not just saturation, there's a "muddiness" to a lot of those shots too. I almost looks like film that's been left in the glove box in the car too long. Seriously, I can't understand why people like it - but that's fine. It would be a dull world if we all liked the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted March 14, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 14, 2011 I am also partial to Ektar 100, even the Flickr samples (although I have a feeling that much on Flickr is extra saturated to start with). With the OP's pictures I would not immediately think of Ektar 100 as the first film although I am surprised indeed at the outcome. Pete's examples in the film thread are definitely representative IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted March 14, 2011 It's interesting, Andy. I found the Ektacolour (the old stuff) to be an uphill fight, all the time. Not too crazy about it. This stuff, I like. And yes, you're right. The reds were from hell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted March 15, 2011 Share #11 Posted March 15, 2011 Hey Shane , It's good your exploring Ektar 100 . While some dislike it, I have had decent results. I still say the old 25 as Ektar was the best C-41 going. Anyways, have you got any results of the new Ektar with the Rollei twin? Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 15, 2011 Share #12 Posted March 15, 2011 These first Ektar scans are with silver fast with no adjustment. I'm always impressed with this much maligned software. I don't feel the greens or reds are over the top. They look pretty accurate to what I remember. 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! Unfortunately, as is my usual experience, my straight Vuescan scans (with the previous posts settings) look terrible: I haven't used Ektar for many months either. It is a very flat film and easy to scan and Silverfast seems to read it very well. Pete Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Unfortunately, as is my usual experience, my straight Vuescan scans (with the previous posts settings) look terrible: I haven't used Ektar for many months either. It is a very flat film and easy to scan and Silverfast seems to read it very well. Pete ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146259-ektar-100-pro-very-nice-for-reality-colour/?do=findComment&comment=1616012'>More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 17, 2011 Share #13 Posted March 17, 2011 These first Ektar scans are with silver fast with no adjustment. I'm always impressed with this much maligned software...Unfortunately, as is my usual experience, my straight Vuescan scans (with the previous posts settings) look terrible... Hi Pete - not wanting to derail the thread (maybe nothing else needs to be said now anyway), but I'm intrigued by the difference between SilverFast and Vuescan here - it made me go back and nervously look at some comparison scans I'd made a while ago. But I couldn't see any really dramatic differences in my scans. I gave a trial version of SF a spin when I was trying to rescue some underexposed images shot on expired Portra400NC in dim light - very grainy and dull negs, in other words. But the SF scans were almost indistinguishable from the Vuescan versions. IIRC the software is approx six times (or so) as expensive as Vuescan, and limited to just one scanner. I couldn't really get a hang of the cryptic interface either - but it really looks like you get far better scans from SF than Vuescan. What's the trick? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 17, 2011 Share #14 Posted March 17, 2011 I didn't do anything to these scans. That's why the vuescan example is so bad. I think the Silverfast Algorithm for Ektar must be very good. These examples weren't balanced by me in any way. By contrast, the Silverfast algorithm for Portra seems quite poor with magenta reds. They're going to have to sort that if most of Kodaks film production is eventually Portra. This is the main reason I haven't gone through with an upgrade. I'm sure better results with Vuescan can be achieved but I just wanted to see what the results were like with a straight scan and the OPs settings. I can't account for the difference between our results. Usually, I scan for a linear raw with vuescan and either correct with the levels technique I outlined in another thread, or try it in ColorPerfect. Both these methods seem a little poor sometimes under my guidance. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 17, 2011 Share #15 Posted March 17, 2011 Ok thanks Pete. I always do the raw linear negative scan thing, and convert using ColorPerfect, so maybe that accounts for the minimal differences in my case. I must say, sometimes the results are really spectacular - lifelike but vivid and crisp - and sometimes they're a bit dull and lifeless. I'd love someone to make a really definitive workflow that would eliminate the variables once and for all. Naturally the biggest variable happens when I press the shutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 17, 2011 Share #16 Posted March 17, 2011 I was considering working something out for another thread but my experience is very limited. We could do to have a thread with people chipping in with their thoughts on how to get the most out of ColorPerfect. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 17, 2011 Share #17 Posted March 17, 2011 My biggest, probably only, gripe about Vuescan is the lack of film profiles. They haven't been updated in the 8 years I've been scanning and could make a huge difference. I think we could easily share .ini files thagt get created with various bespoke settings for various films that work for users, in much the same way that Lightroom users can share camera and lens profiles. Edit: I personally don't feel the need to go down the Colorperfect route - definitely not until they sort out the user interface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 17, 2011 Share #18 Posted March 17, 2011 My biggest, probably only, gripe about Vuescan is the lack of film profiles. They haven't been updated in the 8 years I've been scanning and could make a huge difference I don't think they've changed in the last 12 years or so that I've been using Vuescan. From memory they relate to films that were around when Photo CD was 'the next big thing'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 17, 2011 Share #19 Posted March 17, 2011 Well like I said, I'm using Vuescan to output a linear raw scan, so these profiles don't really affect my workflow. I'm pretty much 85% happy with the workflow I use at the moment, but I find that sometimes there's an image that resists any sort of treatment, and I wonder if I could maybe squeeze even more out of the images that I've already scanned. I'm probably having some sort of existential doubt today. Maybe something I ate. But constructive comparisons or workflow examples can always be useful - we started something like that in another thread - maybe we should pull the information out into a more structured framework? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeplanter Posted March 17, 2011 Share #20 Posted March 17, 2011 While primarily a B&W shooter I've started to dabble in C-41 the past few months. I've downloaded both Vuescan and Silverfast onto my Mac Mini. When it comes too scanning Ektar 100, Silverfast wins hands down. Much, much better, and more accurate, colors. Easier to use too. Jim B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.