Trouble with Ektar 100 film??

[leica dream]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As part of getting back to analogue photography after many years, and remembering that during the 1950/60’s I had super results with slow rated reversal films, I have run an EKTAR 100 film through my Leica R3. My shots are just very general but I have to say that the results surprised me - while the detail is there the colours seem overly intense and the images have a blueish bloom. I need to explore whether I have done something wrong, whether that is normal for modern EKTAR, or whether the lab process/scan did not suit the film.

For processing I use the AG Photo lab at Birmingham, UK, who are usually excellent,  then Capture One manipulates images on my IMAC. I can improve these images to some extent but they still do not look right.

For shooting I have set the R3 controls to ASA 100 and fixed Shutter speed 125. At each shot, I adjust the aperture until the needle in the view finder is as close as possible to 125. There are some slight over exposures but generally that seems to work OK.

The first image below is direct from the lab scanned negative and the second is after my best effort with C1. Maybe there is a further facility in C1 which could lower colour intensity and remove bloom but has eluded me.

I would really welcome any constructive feedback about why my images do not reflect the supposed natural colour balance of the fine grain EKTAR. What am I doing wrong? May be EKTAR is not suited to my R3, so if not, what would be the best balanced alternative.

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!

[leica dream]

This is the C1 adjusted image

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!

[Kl@usW.]

Hello Leica dream, to me the first image looks like you exposed for the highlights. That's correct for reversal films, but not for color negative films. Here, you should expose for the mid-shadows. However, Ektar is a bit capricious, as it needs quite precise exposure and reacts to overexposure with a shift towards reddish tones. Perhaps a Portra 400 would be more forgiving.  In any case, have a lot of fun in the new old analog world!

Edited June 22, 2024 by Kl@usW.

[250swb]

If the R3 has a centre weighted auto metering system I’d start by using that instead of deciding for yourself what to meter from, you then have a datum point across exposures and not your opinion which could be wrong if you are metering off a particular area. I would also over expose colour negative a bit because it can tolerate it and obviate the problems with excess contrast. I doubt processing is a problem because C41 is standard across the range and all films, scanning could be the problem, but as you are rightly post processing to get the best results I’m sure C1 has an ‘auto colour’ button just so you can see if the software agrees or disagrees with you, it’s a check.

[adan]

4 hours ago, Kl@usW. said:

Hello Leica dream, to me the first image looks like you exposed for the highlights. That's correct for reversal films, but not for color negative films. Here, you should expose for the mid-shadows. However, Ektar is a bit capricious, as it needs quite precise exposure and reacts to overexposure with a shift towards reddish tones. Perhaps a Portra 400 would be more forgiving.  In any case, have a lot of fun in the new old analog world!

Exactly. When I shoot Ektar 100 (with 6x6, not 35mm) I set my meter for EI 80, or even EI 64, rather than ISO 100. Effectively biasing the exposure for "mid-shadows."

Followed by "normal" processing.

The only real color problem I've had with Ektar 100 is that the near-blacks tried to go electric-blue/black under the huge horizon-to-horizon "fill reflector" of Colorado's cloudless deep-blue skies (haven't needed a polarizer since I moved here 30 years ago 🤪 ). Fortunately I have Photoshop's "Selective Color" tool, to add "yellow ink" to "blacks only" until they are more neutral.

[Mute-on]

Examples of decently exposed Ektar here 

 

I rate at 100 but certainly expose for mid-tones, or whatever approximates 18% grey. However you get there, Ektar likes to be properly exposed in good light. Personally, I love its look for that purpose.

If you are regularly photographing in very mixed light, or overcast conditions, Portra 400 certainly has more latitude, but is very pastel in comparison.

In your case it is definitely worth persevering with Ektar until you get the results you are looking for. A good lab that uses fresh chemicals will also make a difference, too. 

[leica dream]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Grateful thanks, everybody. As ever your wider experience has provided food for thought. I need to understand terms like "expose for mid shadows" so I guess shall attempt various experiments. I shall begin by trying spot metering and set the ISO slightly lower to see how that goes.

Edited June 23, 2024 by leica dream

[hansvons]

Your shot is underexposed by about 1-2 stops. Negative, when underexposed, doesn't mean darker images but means muddy shadows without much detail and an overall colour shift, often to the bluish/reddish side. 

As a rule of thumb, box speed indicates the maximum ISO at which a particular stock will deliver proper results if exposed correctly. At box speed, there’s not much leeway for underexposure but lots of leeway for overexposure. If you are uncertain or just want to leave some headroom, best practice is to rate the stock one stop lower, in this case an exposure index (EI) of 50 would be perfectly normal. This one stop of more light won’t degrade image quality not at all, just makes the negative fatter which is desirable for printing and scanning. 

As shots are often uneven in their amount of light, in cinematography it’s best practice to compensate that with reducing the EI, thus guaranteeing that the negative won’t be thin in any part of a sequence. Why not do what Hollywood does? 

Spotmetering is great for faces that represent 18% grey like slightly tanned Caucasian skin. For everything else it's a bet that can be way off. Eg, if your camera spotmetered the swans, your negative will be solidly underexposed because the swans are white, which is way above 18% grey. However an integral metering that includes everything in the frame would have added to the Swans’ brightness the dark shadows in the bushes, bringing up the exposure to a meaningful value. 
 

BTW, with the white swans and dark shadows in a sun-lit scenery, your image is a hardcore test for any negative stock, including digital sensors regarding dynamic range. I don’t know how many stops that shot spans but easily way above 10. 

Edited June 24, 2024 by hansvons

[leica dream]

Thank you for explaining that so simply for me, it is most helpful.

[lincoln_m]

leica dream,

To me your Ektar scan looks fine, accurate colours and good contrast. It could be your monitor colour balance if you're not seeing the correct looking colours that I see. I have my iMAC 2019 5K display set to Adobe 1998 and use that colour space for my film scans and in Lightroom.

The lab has given you an image where the blacks are not blocked out and the whites aren't blown out which gives you room to adjust the image to your liking. You corrected the black point so the shadows aren't grey. The swan is white and the sky is reflected a realistic blue in the water. The grass is also a realistic deep green. It looks like you exposed the scene correctly and the lab gave you a very usable scan.

My experience, on the other hand, with my home scans (Minolta Elite 5400) of lab processed Ektar is extremely variable in colour cast depending on the exposure +/- 1 stop. I've tried using Auto Levels in my Vuescan software and Kodak Ektar, Portra, Pro depending on the film but Portra 400 colours seems to move about all over the place depending on the exposure. So two images taken of the same subject but slightly different exposures turn out very differently. Portra 400 for landscapes gives a brown cast (I suppose it's really designed for skin tones). Pro Image 100 seemed OK for bright holiday scenes but isn't so good for bright cloudy contrasty English countryside giving me a very warm yellow grass that need a big increase in the Blue curve (pull the middle of the blue line to the left so a point at 64,64 becomes 44, 64) to give realistic dark green grass instead of the horrible yellow cast. My Red(cyan) channel also often needs a twist, less red in the shadows (60,64) and more balanced in the highlights (192,192).

For me it's so different between exposures that I can't copy paste my Lightroom settings from one corrected image to others taken in similar lighting because each one needs careful manual adjustment. I never had such trouble with Fujifilm slide Provia, Velvia, maybe a little extra green (less magenta) but these Kodak Print films seem to be very tricky.

Because most of my films have been through airport CT scanners I've been overexposing by +1 stop to compensate (Pro Image 100 didn't seem to need the +1EV) but then it seems to make +/- 0.5 stops either side give very different results.

When I look at the Kodak Negative film specs I notice that the RGB lines have very different densities for any given point(Exposure =-0.5 lux-seconds Density R=1, G=1.5, B=2). Whilst the spec for a slide film (Ektarchrome) generally shows the RGB lines on top of each other. The Negative films also have slightly different gradients for RGB. Ah that explains why an over exposed negative has more (denser) blue which translates to less blue (more yellow) in the positive in Lightroom. But for slide film changing the exposure +/-0.5 stops generally doesn't change the colour cast unless you're at the underexposed end. 

I guess I could try different Colour settings in my Vuescan software [Auto levels, White Balance, Neutral] as I guess it amplifies the RGB channels to fit which ever scheme.

Anyway if I had the sort of scan you're showing as a start point I'd be very happy.

Regards, Lincoln

[leica dream]

Thank you for that, Lincoln.

I have my shots processed and scanned by AG Photographic in Birmingham and then view on my iMAC 12 inch 2017 (Ventura 13.7). It looks like my colours are set by an icc from September 2022 probably from a self calibration. I have looked at your idea of Adobe RGB (1998) but I am now quite confused.

I guess this is where my naive inexperience kicks in because I do not understand what different options provide. Your remarks triggered me to look at other colour spaces available and in the list I see there are two labelled Adobe RGB (1998).

Is there a generally accepted "better/best" setting which people use? I shall have my next ektar film ready for processing soon so shall be interested to try alternatives.

I suppose it is OK to just change my display colour settings to experiment on my previous shots to see whether your Adobe RGB 1998 makes any difference. Maybe I have just got something very basic wrong!

Richard

[hansvons]

On 10/21/2024 at 7:26 PM, lincoln_m said:

Because most of my films have been through airport CT scanners I've been overexposing by +1 stop to compensate (Pro Image 100 didn't seem to need the +1EV) but then it seems to make +/- 0.5 stops either side give very different results.

Good practice! When factoring in the regular one-stop higher exposure, I figured I'd end up with two stops of "overexposure" when airport scanners are unavoidable (the term "overexposure" is misleading as it's only "over" regarding the box speed, which is, in many cases, already at the edge of best performance). And even then, another extra stop might be advisable. The best is to avoid scanners altogether. 

[hansvons]

On 10/24/2024 at 9:07 PM, leica dream said:

Your remarks triggered me to look at other colour spaces available and in the list I see there are two labelled Adobe RGB (1998).

Adobe98 won't make a visible difference, especially if you prepare your images for screen and online use, as most screens cannot reproduce Adobe98. sRGB is the standard here. However, it does make a difference when printing your scans with high-end inkjet printers. In terms of software and file handling, Adobe98 isn't a thing, nor is sRGB, as your editing application handles your RAW files in their native colour spaces, which are much larger than Adobe98 or sRGB, for that matter, or anything your screen can show.

[hansvons]

On 10/21/2024 at 7:26 PM, lincoln_m said:

When I look at the Kodak Negative film specs I notice that the RGB lines have very different densities for any given point(Exposure =-0.5 lux-seconds Density R=1, G=1.5, B=2). Whilst the spec for a slide film (Ektarchrome) generally shows the RGB lines on top of each other. The Negative films also have slightly different gradients for RGB. Ah that explains why an over exposed negative has more (denser) blue which translates to less blue (more yellow) in the positive in Lightroom. But for slide film changing the exposure +/-0.5 stops generally doesn't change the colour cast unless you're at the underexposed end. 

Precisely. That's why, conversely, underexposing your negative leads to bluish, magentaish tints in the shadows, often at the corners where vignetting lenses underexpose the negative by design easily by a stop or more—another good reason for exposing negatives on the fat side.