Just in case anyone has been hiding under a rock...
Kodak Ektar 100
The new 100 film uses tech from the motion picture division to give grain similar to the old Ektar 25.
In the shops from October (USA) November (Europe)
Full Version: New Ektar film from Kodak
In 35 mm only, I see. Too bad for me! 
Along whichever axis you wish to plot, this film is more extreme than the portras:
more vivid, more contrast, more fine-grained, more sharp.
Sounds like the C-41 version of Velvia.
Along whichever axis you wish to plot, this film is more extreme than the portras:
more vivid, more contrast, more fine-grained, more sharp.
Sounds like the C-41 version of Velvia.
I need a history lesson.
I've used Ektar 100 and Ektar 25 but an acquaintance of mine swears he has used Ektar 50 asa.
Was Ektar 50 ever produced?
I've used Ektar 100 and Ektar 25 but an acquaintance of mine swears he has used Ektar 50 asa.
Was Ektar 50 ever produced?
There has been Velvia 50, Konica Impresa 50, and an Agfa RFX 50, I think, but no Ektar 50 that I know of, unless you're referring to the Ektar 50mm enlarging lens.
Mike.
Mike.
QUOTE (wolfnowl @ Sep 10 2008, 11:48 PM)
There has been Velvia 50, Konica Impresa 50, and an Agfa RFX 50, I think, but no Ektar 50 that I know of, unless you're referring to the Ektar 50mm enlarging lens.
Mike.
Mike.
Ah no, I was referring to the film. Thanks for the confirmation.
Will give this new one a bash when I can get hold of some.
It will be punchy and vivid colour wise, but should be a tad more restrained than velvia. Ideal for landscape work. Kodak are making a lot of claims on this one, better latitude, and grain as fine as the ISO 25 stuff used to be. We shall se shortly!
Some may wonder why people will bother with this, rather than slide. Truth is it's faster and easier to get negs done nowadays. I like the extra headroom too.
It will be punchy and vivid colour wise, but should be a tad more restrained than velvia. Ideal for landscape work. Kodak are making a lot of claims on this one, better latitude, and grain as fine as the ISO 25 stuff used to be. We shall se shortly!
Some may wonder why people will bother with this, rather than slide. Truth is it's faster and easier to get negs done nowadays. I like the extra headroom too.
A pity they don't do this in 4x5, I would be really interested to give it a try.
In my view, 4x5 is pretty much the only niche where film could make real world sense. If the latitude is indeed significantly wider than slide films while delivering similar levels of detail and color saturation, then there is real potential here!
Cheers,
Bernard
In my view, 4x5 is pretty much the only niche where film could make real world sense. If the latitude is indeed significantly wider than slide films while delivering similar levels of detail and color saturation, then there is real potential here!
Cheers,
Bernard
Well I agree that larger formats would be nice. However, Kodak obviously feel that 35mm is where the volume sales are.
I disagree that 35mm is a waste of time, ok I won't debate larger format film is the place to be for massive enlargements. But I have never been unhappy for my own print sizes with good quality 35mm film. Plus my entire system is cross compatible with my digital stuff, so there are no black spots there.
Not everyone shoots film for pure resolution, it's a tonal thing IMO. Esp notable with b&w films, but colour too. Simply put I prefer the look of film to digital, for "some" subjects.
I disagree that 35mm is a waste of time, ok I won't debate larger format film is the place to be for massive enlargements. But I have never been unhappy for my own print sizes with good quality 35mm film. Plus my entire system is cross compatible with my digital stuff, so there are no black spots there.
Not everyone shoots film for pure resolution, it's a tonal thing IMO. Esp notable with b&w films, but colour too. Simply put I prefer the look of film to digital, for "some" subjects.
QUOTE (abcdefghi_rstuvwxyz @ Oct 11 2008, 07:15 AM)
I'm not sure this Ektar makes sense for Kodak's business (I hope so), but Kodak certainly deserves a big credit for remembering us the film customers.
Yes, I shoot DSLR too, but there is no affordable solution for me to get anything close to the beauty from a 24mm x 65mm. Xpan other than a 35mm film.
Sure, still wish for the 120 version and 4x5 version.
Yes, I shoot DSLR too, but there is no affordable solution for me to get anything close to the beauty from a 24mm x 65mm. Xpan other than a 35mm film.
Sure, still wish for the 120 version and 4x5 version.
What do you think this baby was shot with?
A camera called PTgui...
This being said it could be fun to try a few rolls of this new film in a pano camera. Too bad they don't do 120, I would really give it a try using my 12x6 film back on the - now very very dusty - Ebony 4x5.
Cheers,
Bernard
i tried this film with an Xpan, and have been liking it so far
here's a test image shot at sunrise at the Sutro Bath's in San Francisco
It was scanned at 3200 dpi on an Eversmart flatbed (no sharpening)
100%crop
here's a test image shot at sunrise at the Sutro Bath's in San Francisco
It was scanned at 3200 dpi on an Eversmart flatbed (no sharpening)
100%crop
QUOTE (collum @ Mar 4 2009, 04:02 PM)
i tried this film with an Xpan, and have been liking it so far
Very nice.
I have read recently that they were going to have a 120 version too... that could be enough to motivate me to take my 4x5 and 6x12 adapter out of the closet.
I'll have to revive the Imacan scanner too. Cheers,
Bernard
Looking forward to trying this stuff in my Mamiya 7, results should be close in terms of detail to 5x4 i've been shooting recently with Portra 400NC. I still will not be scanning the neg however as i now firmly believe i get far superior results hand printing then scanning print!
Gary.
Gary.
QUOTE (Gary Yeowell @ Mar 4 2009, 05:08 PM)
Looking forward to trying this stuff in my Mamiya 7, results should be close in terms of detail to 5x4 i've been shooting recently with Portra 400NC. I still will not be scanning the neg however as i now firmly believe i get far superior results hand printing then scanning print!
I guess there is a reason why well paid scanner operators ruled the world for years... contrary to what Epson would like us to believe, scanning well isn't the easiest thing to do.
Cheers,
Bernard
QUOTE (BernardLanguillier @ Mar 5 2009, 09:17 PM)
I guess there is a reason why well paid scanner operators ruled the world for years... contrary to what Epson would like us to believe, scanning well isn't the easiest thing to do.
Cheers,
Bernard
Cheers,
Bernard
Recent post in Medium format 'Recent Professional works' shows 2 images which are scans from prints and are definately superior to an Imacon scan from my 343. The imacon is not very good at scanning negs but very good for transparencies. Drum scan negs are way better but i still think that scanning a handprint is better.
Regards, Gary.
"Drum scan negs are way better but i still think that scanning a handprint is better"
Gary,
I'll have to say that it's a matter of hardware, software and operator that all come into play when considering how to best digitize your color negs. If you're happy with the limited resolution and squashed highlights and shadows of scanning an existing print, then go that route. For me, I'll drum scan the original neg. In extensive tests I did with a discerning fine art photographer, we were easily able to make prints from scanning the original neg that surpassed projected prints in every aspect.
It also got to the point where you could opt for a slightly sharper print with ever so slightly more apparent grain, or a very similar grain structure with identical looking on print detail.
Drum scanning affords you the option of holding and printing more highlight and shadow detail that you could ever get with a projected print. Analog printing does not give you that option. Of course, the drum scans are always tack sharp from corner to corner with no regard to the limitations of an enlarging lens. Every time I've made a high res scan of what I thought was a really great print, the defects of the lens became really apparent as the image was enlarged - typically softly rendered grain in the corners.
For the record, we found the best hardware/software combo was a Howtek 8000 with Trident 4 software. Howtek/Aztek with Aztek's software was not anywhere in the same league. Heidelberg Primescan with Newcolor were close to the Howtek but much harder to get great color with.
Gary,
I'll have to say that it's a matter of hardware, software and operator that all come into play when considering how to best digitize your color negs. If you're happy with the limited resolution and squashed highlights and shadows of scanning an existing print, then go that route. For me, I'll drum scan the original neg. In extensive tests I did with a discerning fine art photographer, we were easily able to make prints from scanning the original neg that surpassed projected prints in every aspect.
It also got to the point where you could opt for a slightly sharper print with ever so slightly more apparent grain, or a very similar grain structure with identical looking on print detail.
Drum scanning affords you the option of holding and printing more highlight and shadow detail that you could ever get with a projected print. Analog printing does not give you that option. Of course, the drum scans are always tack sharp from corner to corner with no regard to the limitations of an enlarging lens. Every time I've made a high res scan of what I thought was a really great print, the defects of the lens became really apparent as the image was enlarged - typically softly rendered grain in the corners.
For the record, we found the best hardware/software combo was a Howtek 8000 with Trident 4 software. Howtek/Aztek with Aztek's software was not anywhere in the same league. Heidelberg Primescan with Newcolor were close to the Howtek but much harder to get great color with.
QUOTE (pfigen @ Mar 6 2009, 08:04 AM)
"Drum scan negs are way better but i still think that scanning a handprint is better"
Gary,
I'll have to say that it's a matter of hardware, software and operator that all come into play when considering how to best digitize your color negs. If you're happy with the limited resolution and squashed highlights and shadows of scanning an existing print, then go that route. For me, I'll drum scan the original neg. In extensive tests I did with a discerning fine art photographer, we were easily able to make prints from scanning the original neg that surpassed projected prints in every aspect.
It also got to the point where you could opt for a slightly sharper print with ever so slightly more apparent grain, or a very similar grain structure with identical looking on print detail.
Drum scanning affords you the option of holding and printing more highlight and shadow detail that you could ever get with a projected print. Analog printing does not give you that option. Of course, the drum scans are always tack sharp from corner to corner with no regard to the limitations of an enlarging lens. Every time I've made a high res scan of what I thought was a really great print, the defects of the lens became really apparent as the image was enlarged - typically softly rendered grain in the corners.
For the record, we found the best hardware/software combo was a Howtek 8000 with Trident 4 software. Howtek/Aztek with Aztek's software was not anywhere in the same league. Heidelberg Primescan with Newcolor were close to the Howtek but much harder to get great color with.
Gary,
I'll have to say that it's a matter of hardware, software and operator that all come into play when considering how to best digitize your color negs. If you're happy with the limited resolution and squashed highlights and shadows of scanning an existing print, then go that route. For me, I'll drum scan the original neg. In extensive tests I did with a discerning fine art photographer, we were easily able to make prints from scanning the original neg that surpassed projected prints in every aspect.
It also got to the point where you could opt for a slightly sharper print with ever so slightly more apparent grain, or a very similar grain structure with identical looking on print detail.
Drum scanning affords you the option of holding and printing more highlight and shadow detail that you could ever get with a projected print. Analog printing does not give you that option. Of course, the drum scans are always tack sharp from corner to corner with no regard to the limitations of an enlarging lens. Every time I've made a high res scan of what I thought was a really great print, the defects of the lens became really apparent as the image was enlarged - typically softly rendered grain in the corners.
For the record, we found the best hardware/software combo was a Howtek 8000 with Trident 4 software. Howtek/Aztek with Aztek's software was not anywhere in the same league. Heidelberg Primescan with Newcolor were close to the Howtek but much harder to get great color with.
Operator and software really are the key, absolutely. For the record we print with Rodenstock Apo enlarging lens with the neg taped flat in the neg holder and have not encountered any soft edges, and i'm very critical of this, it took some time for me to be convinced of the print and scan method, however the resulting scans really speak for themselves. The only issue we have found is that most papers are producing slight blochiness in the deep shadows from paper texture, but only in certain conditions, at present we are trying Ilfocolour display paper to see if this cures the problem.
On the subject of drum scans and varying results, i had some 5x4 negs scanned late last year from a highly respected London lab using a Howtek, the results were so bad that my Canon 1DS3 shots of some of the same scene were better! and that's saying something as i'm a real believer in film. As you say horses for courses, but it's beginning to get harder and harder to get quality drum scanning services, and i have had some great ones to truly awful, and price is no yardstick in terms of what you get. Better is very subjective as each method has its pro's and cons, i would have been better to say from what's 'consistently available' in London right now, i'd sooner carry on with scanning the print, which is a more expensive and time consuming process, and one where i do not see the compressed shadow and highlights as you suggest.
Gary.
QUOTE (mikeseb @ Sep 10 2008, 04:26 PM)
In 35 mm only, I see. Too bad for me!
Along whichever axis you wish to plot, this film is more extreme than the portras:
more vivid, more contrast, more fine-grained, more sharp.
Sounds like the C-41 version of Velvia.
Along whichever axis you wish to plot, this film is more extreme than the portras:
more vivid, more contrast, more fine-grained, more sharp.
Sounds like the C-41 version of Velvia.
You are in luck assuming you mean 120:
"New!
Now Available in 120 Format
The response to the introduction of EKTAR 100 has been amazing; with many requests to make the new film available in medium format. 120-size roll film is widely used for a broad range of photographic applications including ultra high-resolution photography.
Whether you’re a professional photographer or an advanced amateur, the pursuit of the perfect picture is a never-ending quest. By offering the world’s finest-grain color negative film in 120 format, Kodak continues its long-standing history of providing the tools and selection for photographers who want images with the best quality and highest detail.
The new KODAK EKTAR Film in 120 format will be available worldwide beginning in April 2009."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.