Kodak 6031330 Professional Ektar 100/36 Colour Negative Film

Product Information

Ektar 100 has really fine grain and that’s one of the things that makes it so popular for landscape photography. If there were flash output added to this scene, it would have looked far different. With that said though, you can still see how well it did with holding its tonality.

And just to be clear, there are definitely examples of photos taken on Ektar where the skin tones look great. Plus, some people may not mind the way that it looks. We would personally just choose Portra vs Ektar for shooting portraits. One testament I’ve seen to that is comparisons made between Ektar and slide film. Having only shot one roll of slide – the new Ektachrome 100 – at the time of writing, I don’t really have the experience to repeat those claims. But I’d say them getting made elsewhere is worth noting. Theres no doubt that Ektar is some of the finest grain film in the world. It’s 100 ISO and rich colors help make the grain so smooth. Almost every shot I have taken on Ektar has turned out incredibly clear with only a little bit of grain showing up in the darker scenes. While I do love grit and grain in my photography, Ektar has such a beautiful character to it I can’t help but fall in love. Versatile But compare it to Kodak’s professional offerings and Gold 200 begins to lag behind. Its slightly more saturated color palette places it firmly in the consumer film category, and will take a little bit of post-processing to get looking absolutely perfect. The film’s latitude also isn’t as wide as Kodak’s other offerings, limiting its usage to daylight shooting.Fuji X Weekly reader Thomas Schwab helped me immensely with this recipe. He’s had a hand in several recipes, and even created one from scratch that’s quite popular: Urban Vintage Chrome. Thomas captured a bunch of pictures with actual Ektar film, and made several similar exposures with his X-Trans IV cameras. He showed me examples of both, applying my original Ektar recipe to the pictures captured with his Fujifilm cameras. Then we began to create a new Kodak Ektar 100 film simulation recipe based on his Ektar pictures, hoping to achieve something closer to the film than the original recipe. Whenever those measurements were taken, the observing distance was set to 14” from the print. However, the print enlargements varied, and so did the negatives which the enlargements were made from.

Things are easy when it comes to scanning too. Ektar dries very flat and remains flat with no noticeable curl. I use an Epson v500 for scanning almost all my film and find it scans very easily with VueScan. The film is also fairly receptive to Digital ICE, which removes dust and hair from the scan automatically (via an infrared scan pass). I also had the pleasure of using a Nikon Coolscann 8000 for a few years and echo the same sentiments with that scanner. Kodak Ektar scans easily and well. Using VueScan I am easily able to find the proper exposure and color balance. Raw scans also are very sharp and crisp. Conclusion The original Kodak Ektar was replaced by Royal Gold – another Kodak film that didn’t stay in production for too long. It was in 2008 when the current version of Kodak Ektar film was first released. But if you do want those colours, sharpness, and world’s finest grain for everything else, and do your thing somewhere with ISO 100 friendly light levels, Ektar is more than worth a shot.It performs best when shot at the box speed of ISO 100 and does perform slightly better overexposed than underexposed. The images that are underexposed tend to render muddy colors and overexposed images tend to look slightly washed out. So when we compare them to what’s available, for the job they do, there isn’t much better available. What Formats Do These Come In? Kodak Ektar is a film that is a low ISO value of ISO 100. For this reason, it’s popular with many landscape photographers and in the 120 format you’re surely going to shoot it with a camera placed on a tripod. This is one of the few films that I’ve shot which gives me consistent results that I’ve pretty much expected. In a few situations though, it was unexpected–like when shooting it when it’s 10 years expired. Ektar 100 also notoriously turns light skin tones red, whereas Portra 160 renders all skin tones true to life. Ektar” is a name Kodak has been reserving for its premium products since 1936 . Up until 1960, Ektar belonged to a series of the brand’s top-end lenses.

The Kodak Ektar that you find in stores today is technically the “new” version of this film. The “original” Ektar was released in 1989 but only had five years on the market before it was discontinued. Another key characteristic of Kodak Ektar is the extremely saturated colors. Once again, it’s hard to find another C41 color film with more saturation than Ektar. Many would agree that the biggest disadvantage to Ektar 100 is that skin tones can look…pretty bad. Sure, if you’re comparing Ektar vs Portra, it’s obvious that Portra is going to shine in this regard, as the film is intended for portraits. The original Ektar recipe isn’t an exact match to the film, and I believe that this new recipe is closer. The two recipes each produce a different look, and perhaps they both have a place, depending on what exact aesthetic you are after. This new recipe was a collaborative effort, and I want to give a special “thank you” to Thomas Schwab for all of the time and effort he put into making this a reality. It’s much appreciated! I specifically wouldn’t use it for street photography, portrait photography, documentary photography or wedding photography if the bulk of your subjects are light skinned. However, just for the versatility I would just suggest using Portra 160 if you want a low ISO film that has better skin tones throughout a range of skin colours. What’s The Difference Between Kodak Ektar 100 & Kodak Portra 160?

I’ve tried to use three photographs below that demonstrate the claims Kodak explicitly makes of Ektar. Of the vivid colours, exceptional sharpness, and world’s finest grain. And also one they imply by not including portraits in that list of recommended uses for the film.