1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Ektar 100 - Can You Spell Disappointment?

Discussion in 'Film Forum' started by frankier, Aug 9, 2009.

  1. I am sure that it has something to do with me but I was very disappointed when I saw the scan from my first roll of Ektar 100 taken with my F100 and (mostly) 35-70 2.8.

    The colors seem washed off and mute while I was expecting something more vibrant. It seems that there is overexposure happening, but I am not sure. Most of the pics were taken with matrix metering on no EV adjustment.

    What do you think? Was I expecting too much? Any idea what went wrong? Was it me (most likely)? The developing lab (Costco)?

    Here are some of the pics from the 36 exp roll.

    Thanks


    088124-R1-01-36.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    088124-R1-04-33.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    088124-R1-05-32.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    088124-R1-13-24.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    088124-R1-28-9.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    088124-R1-34-3.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  2. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    They look like they may have been overexposed with the density made up for in the scan.
     
  3. Frankier, did you have prints made? If so how do they look. Ektar can be very unforgiving if the exposure is not right on, especially if it is underexposed. Your exposure needs to be right on with this film. Also, the scanner used needs to be set up with the proper profile.

    In your pictures it looks like most were shot when it was overcast. They actually look a tad underexposed.
     
  4. Julien

    Julien

    Jul 28, 2006
    Paris, France
    This new Ektar is definitely washed out. My 2 films have the same kind of pastel colours as yours do.

    If you really want punchy and vibrant colours better look at some Velvla/Provia/E100 VS for slide or even some Portra for print.
     
  5. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    From what I've seen of Ektar, these look about right to me. Yeah it has a kind of pastel washed out cooler look to them. Not my cup of tea. I prefer Reala or Velvia for this type of shooting. Need to try some Provia too.
     
  6. Thanks to for the replies. It sounds like it might not be 100% my fault (that would be a novelty :)  )

    I didn't have prints made. The pics are the jpgs from the CD that Costco made for me. I assumed they scanned from the negatives.

    I have a roll of Fuji Reala 100 in the refrigerator ... will give it a try sometime before the end of the summer and share then.
     
  7. Sangetsu

    Sangetsu

    543
    Apr 18, 2009
    東金市
    It's been a lot of years since I used Ektar, but I remember my results being better. Out of curiosity I'll pick up some next weekend and see what happens. Ektar was my favorite print film at one time.

    From what I can tell, your light conditions weren't all that great for bringing out the color in your subjects, the last 2 shots look entirely normal given the available light. You would get better results shooting flowers and greenery in good sunlight.
     
  8. Sanford504

    Sanford504

    466
    Mar 27, 2008
    Yeadon, PA
    I had a similar problem with my Ektar shots. Definitely on the "pastel" side for color. I used F5 and 35-70mm 2.8 lens. At the same time, I also used D200, 16-85mm for comparison and I liked the results from the D200 better. Last Spring I shot a few shots using Fuji Superia 400 and they were excellent for color and contrast!
     
  9. Thanks for your reply.

    Are you sure is Ektar that you used? I thought that it was introduced only recently, but I may be wrong.
     
  10. I did two rolls of 35mm Ektar and went running and screaming to Portra for color print film.
    Haven't looked back...
     
  11. Kodak had another Ektar 100 film in the 1990s. There was also an Ektar 25 and 1000.
     
  12. Ah .... Thanks!
     
  13. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    That's what I meant. :rolleyes:  I was thinking that the negatives were too thin and the scanner made up density for them. But my brain was addled from other events, so of course I said it backward.
     
  14. mhcfires

    mhcfires

    Aug 23, 2007
    El Cajon, CA
    I've only shot a few rolls of Ektar 100 in 35mm. I was quite happy with my results:

    sunflowers:
    3402008423_90ba02256d_o.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



    3394176370_044062e1b4.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  15. frankier, how does the negatives look? Are the letters and numbers on the film a nice deep black? Is the film a nice dark brown?

    I've shot a couple rolls of the new Ektar myself and I was very happy with the results.

    3060219316_4af694d38e.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    3425907474_cb2cc8ffe3.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  16. Hmm I dont think its an error on the films part, check out this shot its a little overexposed but look at the colors even with that:

    070_4.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.