damaso Posted August 29, 2009 Share #1  Posted August 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I thought people might be interested in reading the latest reviews of Kodak's Ektar 100 film...  Shutterbug EKTAR 100 120 review: Shutterbug: Kodak?s Ektar 100 Medium Format Film  Shutterbug EKTAR 100 135 review: Shutterbug: Kodak?s Ektar 100: 35mm Roll Film  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 29, 2009 Posted August 29, 2009 Hi damaso, Take a look here Shutterbug Magazine Ektar 100 Reviews. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
abrewer Posted August 30, 2009 Share #2  Posted August 30, 2009 Nice review  I know you're a fan, as am I, damoso  I've not had the problem with exposure the writer mentioned: pretty much guesstimating exposure on everything I've shot in the last year or two and been very happy with the results  Nor have I been spending much time in PS trying to "fix" things  YMMV, I guess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted August 30, 2009 Share #3 Â Posted August 30, 2009 Thanks for the links, in particular the 120 which gave more more insight into the film than the more subjective but still interesting, 35mm version. To balance the thread a bit I am not a fan. I do agree I found more tolerance to over and under than the authors but that may be down to their more contrasty light. The colours don't come out to my taste and I found them very inaccurate in the purples in particular. Having said that the M8 was also off, even IR filtered, most accurate was my Phase One back. I am not averse to some saturation, I used Fuji Pro 160S on a recent holiday, but the Ektar was just OTT for me. As the authors (120) sound I am beginning to despair of commercial processing, unless you want to use a pro lab and stand the associated costs. The best quality and highest keeper ratio I had from the Hols was with Acros 100 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 30, 2009 Share #4 Â Posted August 30, 2009 Finding a lab who know what they're doing with it is crucial I think. It's in the processing that it goes wrong. Â I just can't get a good scan from the roll I tested, so it must be the negative that's the problem. The en-prints I had done were just horrible Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted September 2, 2009 Share #5  Posted September 2, 2009 Finding a lab who know what they're doing with it is crucial I think. It's in the processing that it goes wrong.  I just can't get a good scan from the roll I tested, so it must be the negative that's the problem. The en-prints I had done were just horrible  Are you scanning your own negatives Andy? I find silverfast to be quite the tool for any form of correction you may need. Im sure there isnt a neg profile yet, but you should find something close and adjust as needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.