Kodak Ektar 100 C-41 Color Negative Film Review | All About Film

[@caldera878]

This is the most info related to ektar 100 I've seen on KZbin. Thanks and best regards.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@aristoioannidis7490]

Thanks David. I have not shot Ektar 100 at all. I just ordered it in 120. Like your followers I am most grateful for your patience in producing a great update. RIP Cheever!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@patriciatedeschi512]

I was looking at my scans this morning and had my own "ah, ha" moment of falling in love with Ektar 100 after going back and forth between these scans and the Portra and Fuji scans. This You Tube video is also the best review regarding film stocks I have ever watched. Being able to combine the technical with "real life" experience in a true talent. Thank you.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@patriciatedeschi512]

@@DavidHancock You are welcome. Your videos are refreshingly informative and easy to comprehend.

[@ChristopherMay]

Great review and it was refreshing to hear someone get it right regarding Ektar’s bias towards blues. One of those bits of internet apocrypha that still won’t go away is that “Ektar loves reds and does them like Kodachrome.” I’m not sure who proposed that idea but it’s become one of those things I’ve heard repeated so much that it’s essentially taken as truth by a lot of film photographers now. In truth, I can’t imagine a color film that’s less like Kodachrome than Ektar. So many thanks for getting that right! Ektar and I have had kind of an on again, off again relationship. Initially, I wasn’t a fan of the film and found that it came out way, way too cyan for me. That turned out to be a problem with the company I used to develop the film. Once I switched to the Darkroom for developing and started doing my own scanning, results were much improved. I think I still prefer Velvia overall but Velvia is getting hard to find and very expensive in 8x10. If I start shooting 8x10 color like I intend to do this year, I decided I’d need another film stock to do so with. Because of that, I’ve been shooting more Ektar in smaller formats and learning how it responds to different lighting situations before I start investing in big pieces of film. And it’s starting to grow on me. Thanks as always for the in depth review. This series is the best of the myriad of film reviews on KZbin and I always enjoy seeing new content (even if it takes me a bit to leave comments - my apologies about that!).

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Chris, and no need to apologize. I always appreciate comments that reflect on the content and whether I get the details right or wrong.)

[@Frisenette]

Simply the best C41 film ever made. With Portra 400 a close second. They compliment each other very well. Ektar was not made especially for scanning though. That is a popular commonly promulgated misconception. Photo Engineer and other Kodak insiders have debunked that myth long ago. There is no such thing as optimizing for scanning. We *do* desperately need better, faster and cheaper scanners though. Something that could easily be build with the explosion on cheap, good CMOS sensors for smartphones in the last ten years.

[@RoastBeefSandwich]

The analog photography market needs a company like U-Turn Audio to do for scanning what U-Turn did for turntables.

[@macdizzlefoshizzle]

Another great and detailed film video! I purchased several boxes of Ektar 100 recently because they were on clearance and I’ll be shooting my friend’s maternity pictures outdoors this weekend with this film. This video came just in time. Many thanks!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! This could be great for that. If you find that your friend's skin takes on a pink cast, you can counter that with an adjustment layer in post.

[@hejmRage]

I shot Ektar only once but I loved it! The photos turned out amazing and even portraits looked good.

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! Yeah, this is definitely an awesome film.

[@sharonleibel]

My condolences about Cheever. rest his soul.

[@DavidHancock]

We miss him. We're starting the process of rescuing our next dogs, though. I'll never replace Cheever, and our next dogs will be different, but it will be okay.

[@sharonleibel]

David Hancock We can never replace them. Only have different ones in our lives. I am sure it will bring you great joy

[@Spino138lolp]

Best in-depth film reviewer on the internet! Thanks for the upload! keep up the good work! Imho ektar is a less forgiving film than porta that is why often you see it less commonly used in the youger generation an less praised in general, but if it is used correctly yields amazing results!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@MrMarkpoole]

That's a lot of good information. My favorite film is still Kodachrome,but I recently got some Ektar in 120,so maybe I'll change my mind. Very sorry for the loss of your friend. The worst thing about dogs is they don't live long enough.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you. I had Cheever for 12 years and a day and I rescued him from the pound just a few days before he was going to be euthanized. He had about 12 years longer than he would have, and it was a pretty exciting time with lots of road trips and dog park visits. I miss him, but I gave him a good life. And we're looking for two more rescues now, so hopefully we can give them even better lives.

[@marcossantana1164]

First of sorry about your loss (cheever). Second, great review. Ektar is my favorite color negative and while i usually prefer shooting slides for studio work, i recently started shooting ektar as well for studio portraits. I did not know about the EI for tungsten lightning, i will test that out sometime and see for my self. Thanks for a great video!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, on both counts!

[@FrancescoCoppola]

Happy to see a new video from you. Recover well and fast! Best wishes from Italy!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Francesco!

[@oldfilmguy9413]

One of the best film reviews I have seen. New subscriber, looking forward to watching more of your videos. Especially useful for me as I am just returning to film after 30+ years away, and most films offered today were not available back then. Cheers!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@epstar83]

One of my favourite films too! I do love Portra and Velvia too though! I like Velvia a tad more but generally choose Ektar first because of price, availability and latitude (I shoot without a meter often). It’s a superb choice for travel! I also recently tried the new Ektachrome! It’s wonderful film and has more latitude than Velvia, but based on my limited experience with E100 I think I still like Ektar 100 more. Your shoot film series is my favourite, please keep them coming!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and I will. I've been enjoying Ektachrome a whole lot. I think that I'll get that video out next year some time because I'm enjoying shooting the E100.

[@omnesilere]

Yay a new all about film! I know you've got a lot of videos lined up but I'm very excited for these! Edit: I'm so sorry for your loss David, hope you're doing alright.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! And I have a LOT of AAF videos lined up, too. I have four more that are close to complete with three of them that should wrap the image-capture phase in the next few weeks.

[@GideonSmit]

Thank you for a great year of tutorials. I enjoy the detail, especially as I've been trying out different cameras and films. I finally found a Pentax MX, which is partially because of your review. I haven't used much Kodak film in my life, but I hope to change that. Finally, I'm sorry to see your final message about Cheever. My condolences for the loss of a great friend. May you have a peaceful and enjoyable holiday season and an excellent 2019.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I've been really missing Cheever the last few weeks. He was a fantastic dog.

[@NBartrina]

I learned a lot about color film. Great and passionated, as always...

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@MichaelRusso]

I just developed Ektar that was dated 2014 and it still looks great. It has good longevity, at least the role I had as it has always been refrigerated.

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! Modern films, stored well, have a good deal of longevity. I don't know about Kodak, but Ilford has expiration dates that assume the film is left out on a shelf, not refrigerated, if I recall correctly.

[@MichaelRusso]

@@DavidHancock I would think B&W would be less of a issue, where color dies tend to shift. My expired Fuji and Portra did not fair as well, as the colors shifted heavily to the blues.

[@erikvanleeuwen7376]

This series is just wonderful!Really helps me to understand films I use better!! Great to have one source which discusses the film sensitivity curves and developers (not) to use. Carry on the good work. Looking forward to the PanF review.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Seven rolls of PanF+ left and then I'll be able to make the video. So that's going to be early next year.

[@mattparkin7224]

I just had the first roll that I've shot through my Mamiya back from the lab. It was also the first Ektar 100 I've ever shot. Some of the shots are beautiful and I'm beginning to regret just having bought a pack of portra

[@DavidHancock]

Portra is a fine film, too, just best suited for other subjects, especially for people.

[@fishtacoguy]

Great review as always. Superb detail on film characteristics is appreciated. Sorry to hear about Cheever-looks like he enjoyed many a good ride in the car!

[@DavidHancock]

He did. His last ride was a five-day road trip navigating in the passenger seat of a box truck when we moved to Colorado last month. It was a fun trip.

[@angus10538]

Great in depth explanation of this film, and wonderful supporting mages. Lovely Cheever, too. Thank you.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@EE12CSVT]

I used Ektar back in the day and had very good results. I prefer slide - especially Kodachrome when it was good - but for C41 nothing came close to Ektar. I used to use Portra 160 occasionally if I was doing people photography in intimate settings. But it was unsuitable for non-people and portraiture. And Ektar brought people out too pink. 16:20, nice tram lines from the lab...

[@DavidHancock]

I'm working on the Kodak Gold video for this series (end of October release) and it's a very good C-41 option as well. I'm still debating if I like it better than Ektar. I do like many of the color tones better.

[@markglore7196]

OK, this is gonna sound like a rant. It ain't. Just my point of view. I am very old school. VERY old school! I don't own a computer or scanner or printer. So, when you ( and other reviewers) start talking about post processing, lighten this darken that, correct this or that, I start hearing blah blah blah. Lol! In my (limited) mind, if my photo doesn't look the way I want out of the camera, then I've done something wrong. I would love it if you would show the photo before scanning and post processing. That being said, I love your videos! I really appreciate the time and effort you obviously put into them. Very informative and educational. Keep up the great work!👍

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Mark, and I generally concur. I don't want to spend hours editing each photo, tweaking geometry and so forth. For me, my standard film post is cloning out dust spots and a quick auto-contrast to see if I like the look more or not. Straight out of camera is definitely my preferred approach. :D

[@RickMahoney2013]

When it first came out I used it all the time then I found slide film but I also still love it.

[@DavidHancock]

Ektar is awesome. :D

[@RickMahoney2013]

@@DavidHancock yes sir it is

[@mlittrell11]

This is a fantastic video/channel. I don't want an opinion...gimme the data (which you do!). These have been very useful to someone who just wants to shoot good photos and learn and not follow trends.

[@jdebultra]

As usual, a very thorough review. I learned some things that will make me revisit this film. I had no idea about the low light speed, this is kind of what turned me off about this film. I loved it for medium to dark skin tones. I always thought it was exceptionally sharp color film. I'm going to order a few rolls today (your link) for an upcoming photo shoot. I have a box of filters but never use them. Gonna give it a go again with a portrait shoot using my Minolta Maxxum 9 and the 85 1.4. The lady is medium brown skin tone but your review will help me dial things in. Thanks David, your knowledge is appreciated.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@oldtvnut]

DIR couplers = Development Inhibitor Releasing couplers. This means that an area that develops (due to light exposure) releases development inhibiting chemicals into the emulsion. These inhbitors diffuse a bit into any adjacent less-exposed area and make it develop less than it would otherwise. Similarly, an area with less exposure produces less DIR inhibitor, so there is less inhibition nearby inside the edge of an adjacent highly exposed area. This all means that near an edge, the effects of higher or lower exposure get emphasized. This increases the contrast near an edge, and makes the edge sharper looking. It's the equivalent of an unsharp mask (unsharp due to diffusion), produced automatically by the development process. Similar effects can occur in film without DIR couplers due to local developer depletion, but then it is dependent on the amount of agitation during development.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@paolociccone]

Another fantastic review. Thank you very much for making these videos, they are exceptionally useful

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@petebutler8098]

Super review - thank you. Found the comment about portraits a bit confusing, however - you feel it’s amazing and yet recognise the pink / red cast on white skin. Does this not bother you, or do you always correct digitally in post? Thanks again

[@DavidHancock]

I do recognize that the film is amazing and that it has some weaknesses. It's both. I don't shoot tons of portraits, so skin tone color shifts aren't my worst nightmare. And yes, it is really easy to fix that in post digitally, probably also in the darkroom with color enlarger color temp or filtering magic.

[@justyjust]

I've only used two rolls of ektar but I found the blue cast was just too much on my images, what you say makes sense now, great videos best film in depth reviews on KZbin. I been using ilford delta 100/400 it would be interesting to hear your review of it. Thanks

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Delta 100 is up on deck for this year. I'm digitizing a BOAT LOAD of film this weekend to get Delta 100, CMS 20 II, and probably TMax 100 completed this summer. CineStill 800T and Kentmere 400 will follow later this year.

[@justyjust]

@@DavidHancock that's great to hear look forward to seeing it.

[@williamhamblen3808]

DIR coupler = development inhibitor releasing coupler. Not knowing any photographic chemistry I don't understand what that means, except that they are supposed to improve sharpness and reduce grain. Kodak started to use them in Kodacolor II in the '70s.

[@DavidHancock]

Oh nice. Thank you! I couldn't find that acronym anywhere.

[@jdebultra]

Love to see your review of Kodak Ultramax 400. I have been real surprised by the results.

[@DavidHancock]

I haven't started using that one yet. After Velvia, I think that the next batch will be black and white. (The color film videos are really expensive to make.)

[@jdebultra]

@@DavidHancock no worries. It is surprisingly good, IMO.

[@idancedonthemoon]

@@DavidHancock

[@andrewfrost8866]

A very interesting and helpful video. I’m sorry for your loss.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@stuartbaines2843]

Great explanation of this film and its Limitations. I am trying it in 35mm at the moment and will adapt my ideas with this video in mind. Still to be convinced of its Large format benefits? I would like to hear a similar in depth video of Kodaks Portra 160 which seems better.

[@DavidHancock]

Don't rely on my samples to convince you of the LF benefits. :D I'm using an Anniversary Graphic 4X5 with a WWII Dallmeyer Pentac 8" f/2.9 or pre-WWII Elgeet 10" f/4.5 (which is actually an amazing lens, better than a lot of my 35mm lenses.) But the Pentac, which I think collected all the samples in this video, is REALLY soft at f/2.9 and doesn't suitably sharpen up until f/8 or f/11, which is an issue since it only stops down to f/11. The Anniversary Graphic is a fine camera, but mine has inconsistent shutter speeds and pinholes in some of the curtain segments. So it's usable range is limited. That curtailed what I could really do with this film in LF. Portra will be a while off yet. At least one of the Portra films will be in the next round of these (this round has PanF+, Eastman Kodak Double-X 5222, Fuji Velvia 50, and Rollei CN200 in it yet.) Those four are almost ready to be made, so I'm hoping to start image collection on the next round of these early in 2019.

[@Analogbrain]

A very thorough and nice video, David. Yes, it's my favourite color negative film too, reliable and predictable, letting you get the most out of your gear. I still prefer what I get out of E100 though, and sometimes Velvia.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Kalle!

[@gchristopherklug]

What a great video. As always, lots of useful information. You are such a great resource. Thank you

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@pkells1]

Awesome video! RIP Cheever ❤❤

[@jasonzayas5487]

Excellent video. Thank you for the in depth information.

[@CRJines]

This is my favorite color film as well. Almost 20 bucks a roll in 2024!

[@DavidHancock]

@@CRJines yeah. Film prices are intense now.

[@MichaelWellman1955]

Nice review. I've been thinking about venturing out into the world of color for my LF. This was great info for me to help me decide on film and when to use that film

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@Superbustr]

Ektar 100 is vastly misunderstood while being Kodak's best film. Ektar 100 requires great skill, knowledge and foresight to shoot correctly. Variables such as -1 / +1; (so) slight variations in exposure can drastically effect the look of this film. In addition variables such as your lighting dramatically effect the result of this film. If you shoot photos of landscapes during dark / overcast days your photos will come out muddy and ugly looking. If you shoot during days with fantastic sunlight and bright skies your result will be totally different. The red skin tones can be said to be a flaw of this film but used in the right setting they can make scenes of people really pop out. As you can see this is a very difficult film that only advanced professionals should look at using as if you don't know the characteristics of the film in different lighting scenarios and with different subjects, you may be disappointed with the results.

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely one of their hardest films to us. Thank you!

[@freddymuggs3902]

We love you Cheever.

[@DavidHancock]

He's going to be missed the heck out of.

[@davidpresnell1734]

I love ektar and expose it 1/4 stop over. I use it in daylight only however I often use flash to highlight the shadows. I think it's only flaw is it's price. I never scan it reling on lab prints only croping to fit the print format.

[@BriansPhotoShow]

So if I understand correctly, the apparent oversaturation of red which most people get from Ektar is not inherent in the emulsion. Rather, it is a product of incorrect post-processing, specifically, the "auto color" or "auto tone" functions in photoshop?

[@DavidHancock]

That note is specific to cases where the whole image has an abundance of red and things like yellow grasses or dirt look red and greens skew toward the brownish. If someone took a photo of a bright red flower (I have one example in here like that with 6X6), then the red in that should still look red.

[@bryanotero123]

Well executed video, you earned a jar of rolls

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! This was one of the first of this series where I felt like I was hitting my pace.

[@MarcoFantin1]

Great, great overview. One (long) comment: I think that to evaluate the overall spectral-dye-density curves you need to subtract the two lines (midscal response - minimum density) in order to get the actual response. That "minimum density" curve accounts for the colorants that remain in the film base to "correct" the over-response of the couplers in the blue region. In other words, minimum density = film base. If you subtract the two curves you notice that the blue sensitivity is not that marked. After subtraction, in the case of Ektar, yes, the film is still (slightly) biased towards blue. But for other films the correction will flip the "midscale nutral" response. Basically all film stocks have a more intense midscale response in the blue region, because the blue light has much more energy than the red light (shorter wavelenght for blue light). The compensation (masking) is done by the orange filmbase.

[@MarcoFantin1]

By the way, I just went ahead and made a rough subtraction of the two curves. It turns out that Ektar has three distinct peaks, one in the blue, one in the yellow-green, and one in the deep red. I think this speaks for the unique and beautiful color separation/contrast/punch that is the Ektar signature. Thanks again for the insights, I think all this geeking technicality will actually help me a lot in using the film "better" from the creative point of view.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and that makes sense.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you for confirming!

[@sharonleibel]

I missed the “All about negative” series. Welcome back!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you. These will continue to come in fits and spurts, but the good news is that I'm almost done with image capture for Fuji Velvia 50, Rollei CN200, and Kodak 5222 motion stock.

[@sharonleibel]

David Hancock Great news! I also shared this video on our Israeli film shooters FB group and they loved the depth of information. Buy the way: I would like to suggest again having some kind of a table combining the best development combination for each film (BW of course...) Today I am just going over the videos, stopping and taking screenshots of the slides where you specify that. Thanks again David, Each video is gold.

[@MrMartinRose]

As I understand photo technology from an amateurs point of view this is a perfect presentation of a film, wow! And your pictures are amazing, really! How would you compare Ektar to Kodachrome, not technically but regarding colors, saturation and contrasts? Best regards, Martin.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Martin! For Kodachrome, I never used it as a color film. I have old Kodachrome slides from when I was a kid. It's hard to compare a modern film to Kodachrome because age, even on Kodachrome, can sap color saturation. I can compare it to Ektachrome, which has similar but slightly more muted colors (based on a couple of rolls of the new stock that I've shot.)

[@vedranr.glavina7667]

MAY GOD BLESS YOU DAVID FOR THIS AMAZING WORK AND PRESENTATION! FANTASTIC, WONDERFUL. GRAPH ARE FANTASTICALLY WELL EXPLAINED! LOVE LOVE LOVE YOUR PRESENTATION! I SHOULD DO THIS WITH ALL ACCLAIMED FILMS!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I'm working through them and, given enough time, I will!

[@vedranr.glavina7667]

@@DavidHancock many thanks!

[@MakersTeleMark]

Fantastic review. Thank you.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@Frisenette]

Couldn’t the red skin be due to a scanner effect like the one you described? Or it could be, as you theorized, that it simply looks slightly beneath the skin a bit like old collodion plates. Because the redness doesn’t seem to affect the rest of the image.

[@DavidHancock]

I wondered that, so I did some tests. My primary lab uses different scanners for 4X5 vs. 35mm and 120, so I sent them portraits in all formats. And all turned out with the pink cast. I also tried another lab, same result -- pink. When I digitized some shots at home, same result. So I think it's intrinsic to the film. And with a number of other reviews, some by people who develop and scan their own color film, that would further support the idea of it being in the film. Fortunately, it's easy to fix with an adjustment layer in post.

[@herbsmith21]

I have a question regarding shooting ektar inside. I use it to photograph my oil paintings, I use tungsten lights. With the lights I put on daylight filters, would I still use an iso of 25 with the daylight filter? Or was that for using the lights just as tungsten? One more question Would you scan it for contrast high low or neutral? Also If using iso 25 when I have it developed should I say I used 25 or keep it as 100 ? Thanks

[@DavidHancock]

Excellent questions. Under tungsten light, v even with correction, ISO 25. The reason is that tungsten has different wavelengths. Correction filters won't make those wavelengths daylight, but will simulate that look by cutting out the strong reds. You would then develop as 100. But it's also worth only shooting and developing one roll first to make sure that's correct and that your settings are working well. You may also want to bracket your images and keep notes on the settings to help fine-tune your setup after you get the first roll back.

[@herbsmith21]

@@DavidHancock Thank you I feel that this was a huge help before I start using film with my lights. Ive used them with digital so knowing this now is a huge help! Just wonfdering what you would recommend with portrait 400 and the tungsten lights?

[@DavidHancock]

@@herbsmith21 Thank you and I don't know on Portra yet. I haven't tried that except in natural outdoor light so far.

[@ubongakpan5756]

Damn!! Such an informative video. Wondering how I am just finding your channel!! I also feel like Ektar is my favourite film stock (maybe because it was the first film I ever shot). I have a slight question though. You mentioned you have to compensate a bit depending on the lighting temperature i.e. the warmer the light the slower the emulsion is. I was wondering how exposing Ektar to strobe/flash where the flashes fire at 5600K, would be.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! It's been a while since I made this, but I think that Ektar is a 64 ISO film under a flash. The technical data sheet would indicate if my memory is correct.

[@markharris5771]

I was getting concerned with no Monday videos! I hope you’re ok. Gosh it’s good to have you discussing film again, no one compares to to you at doing this. Ektar is the only colour film I use at 35mm, it is an exceptional film, but I prefer a Portra 160 for my landscapes with 120 film. I like the undersaturated look of the Portra, I accept I'm in a minority with my view. I mainly shoot B&W, HP5+ being my favourite film at 35mm, but I do sometimes like the change. Even then I doubt I shoot more than half a dozen rolls a year if that and I don’t shoot e-6 films at all, I can’t cope with the developing chemicals even if they have less aroma. I find Ektar and Zuiko glass to be a perfect partnership when I do use it though, and it is an extremely forgiving film. Because I shoot it mainly at 35mm I use it more as a sightseeing type of film so I rarely have to use reciprocity, though I know after 3 seconds my app starts snowballing 4 seconds at 3 up to about a month at 30 seconds (there might be some exaggeration here). However, the reciprocity rule and myself do not get on well at all. The video not only showed off the wonderful characteristics of Ektar, but also your skills with the camera as well. There were some top notch images there, some very nice indeed.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Mark. I shot this with a LOT of different cameras, too: in 6X6 alone there was a Hasselblad 501CM, Bronica S2A, and Ondu pinhole. I think I used around two dozen different cameras in the course of taking these photos. I only mention that because cameras have slightly different shutter speeds due to build or age and abuse, different meter function (again due to build, age, or abuse), and the film performed in fundamentally the same way on every camera. I do agree that Ektar responds really well to the Zuiko lenses. To my eye the old Zuikos have a slightly warmer cast than other lenses (especially similar-vintage OEMs like Vivitar), and that warm tone complements this film really well. Monday videos return next week. I spent a week in the hospital last month recovering from outpatient hernia surgery (you read that correctly) and it took a while to recoup to a point where I could sit long enough to edit videos after a day of sitting at work.

[@markharris5771]

David Hancock I sincerely hope you make a speedy and full recovery, especially with Christmas coming up. I’m glad Im not the only one who thinks that about the old Zuiko lens, I've noticed a difference with those lenses more than any other Ive used.

[@protestagain]

If you don't know the Ondu, here's the Ondu III www.kickstarter.com/projects/ondu-/ondu-iii-pinhole-cameras-perfect-shutter-snap-on-f?ref=project_link Not you David, but all others who don't know.

[@davidedwards3432]

Really good, thank you. Did you do one for Delta 400?

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and not yet. I will, but it's a ways away. I have this series outlined through December 2023 and Delta 400 isn't in the queue yet.

[@yvesdanis6049]

Great educational video, thx. Curious to see how Ektar positions against the new Ektachrome?

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you. Ektachrome has similar but more muted colors, based on the two shots of Ektachrome that I've shot so far. MY view on that could change as I use it more.

[@paultaylorphotography9499]

Incredible review David such detail is amazing I’m shooting ektar 100 120 for landscapes and absolutely love the results I get the film processed and scanned at the lab I do minor tweaks in LR such as drop highlights raise shadows add a bit of contrast that’s about it. I’m keep to shoot some portraits with it now too. Top work mate appreciate the effort you put in. Regards Paul 📷❤️

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Paul!

[@devnow5808]

David with which camera you made these wonderful 35mm images?

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and good question. I don't remember them off the top of my head. For the future videos in this series I'll include a list of the cameras I used in the stats section .

[@marcelocampoamor4761]

@@DavidHancock Many of the photos seem to remind me of the video report on Minolta 9

[@joedoe7936]

Excellent video, thanks

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@beaupfeifferrecordings]

It looks really good on 6x6 cheers david for sharing the information

[@DavidHancock]

6X6 and 6X7 were my favorite formats for this. I wish I'd tried 6X9, but I haven't shot that format in a long time.

[@marcoantoniogarcia38]

That was a very informative video, thanks for all the info! I was only surprised to learn that Ektar is less sensitive to reds as, to me at least, the reds on Ektar look more saturated. Do you know why is that? I'm talking about analog prints, not digital files, I often shoot Ektar, it's my favorite color negative film, but I don't know much about the technical aspects of film.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I suspect that many of the prints from film negatives now are actually digitizations and then prints. Unless you're printing yourself with a color enlarger I would assume that your lab prints are scanned negatives that are printed. If so, the lab probably has some automated digital processes that auto-correct colors and tones, which would amplify the reds in the same way that opening them in Photoshop and hitting CTRL+SHIFT(or ALT, I forget which)+B auto adjusts colors. For most films, that works well, but Ektar is an exception.

[@marcoantoniogarcia38]

@@DavidHancock Thanks for the answer, but that’s really not the case as the lab where I develop my C-41 color negative films here in São Paulo, Brazil still makes analog prints with color enlargers and the reds I get from Ektar are beautiful and vibrant. I don’t know if he filters the colors in any way on the enlargers as I don’t even know how it works in color prints, but I get saturated reds from Ektar so I thought that it was a characteristic from this film. By the way, for black n white also there are labs here that makes analog prints, the only process which I don’t know of any place here that makes analog prints is E-6 so my E-6 prints are the only ones printed from scanned slides.

[@DavidHancock]

@@marcoantoniogarcia38 oh very nice! I didn't realize they're were still labs making color darkroom prints. That's very cool.

[@AndrewGoodCamera]

Like drinking from a firehose. Excellent! Also, great shots. Especially those 6 x 6 shots and (of course) the photos of the dogs. :)

[@AndrewGoodCamera]

Oh, just saw the end. Condolences for the loss of Cheever. :(

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you. He died four days after we got to Colorado. All the sudden he lost the ability to walk. It looks like he had degenerative myelopathy, which is basically a canine version of ALS.

[@richardg6109]

Nice job as usual, David. A review of Delta 3200 (120) would be great if there is enough interest. R. I. P. Cheever.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Richard. Delta 3200 is in process. I have 73 photos with it so far. I need to shoot more of it in medium format and try to experiment with it a bit still. I like 3200, but it works best around ISO 1250. Still fast, but not two stops faster than an 800-speed film.

[@richardg6109]

@@DavidHancock Too grainy for me in 35mm. In medium format I shoot it at 1600 and develop normally at 3200 in Xtol 1:1 which works fine but I'd like to experiment.

[@miscible21]

Thank you so much for the content. It's much appreciated. I was wondering if you could do something like this for cheaper film? Namely Fujifilm C200. That's the easiest and cheapest film I can get my hands on.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and maybe yes. Lomography metropolis will be next and it's a good deal cheaper. I think that I'll add a budget film to three next batch, too, like the Fuji 200.

[@b6983832]

In my opinion, Ektar performs well also in a darkroom setting. It is not a film only for digital use as I have sometimes heard some people saying. As all Kodak professional films, it doesn't like to be underexposed, or there will be color shifts. I am not promoting the way some young folks treat color film by strongly overexposing it, for getting something they call "film look", but that said, the film will not lose details even with quite strong overexposure. Biggest problem with this film in darkroom is that you can't see the grain :-) .For Kodak color negatives, my long rime favorite is Portra 160, and Ektar comes just after it. I am not saying that Portra 400 was a bad film. On the contrary. If there in enough light I do prefer these films to Porta 400, especially because of their color palette. I don't use the "usual" develop-and-scan procedure most people seem to use these days but I print manually C-type in my darkroom.

[@DavidHancock]

I would definitely believe that. I would LOVE to have a color darkroom that I could use, and I think that all of Kodak's films would probably perform WAY better in that setting than in digital.

[@kevin-parratt-artist]

I shoot 5x7 and have ordered 5x7 through Keith Canham cameras in the USA. Keith periodically prepares 5x7 film orders directly with Kodak, and takes care of collecting the down-payments and eventual distribution. 👌

[@DavidHancock]

@@kevin-parratt-artist yeah, he's an awesome asset for the large format community.

[@protestagain]

Thank you, because there was a lot of learning here

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I do what I can to make sure my videos are full of a lot of good and usable info.

[@protestagain]

Whether short or long, they are full of precise information. Do not piss through half the video as many youtubers do. Thanks again

[@oldtvnut]

One other thing - spectral dye density curves are not spectral sensitivity curves. The high blue peak in the dye density curves is due to the colored couplers that give the negative its orange background. It is not an indication of the warmth or coolness of the film. Your observations on that subject may be correct, but it has nothing to do with the blue peak of dye density.

[@DavidHancock]

Dye density curves are directly elated to how a film performs. Dye density curves are determined against a neutral gray background and reading the dye density. The curve data is, in essence, a reading of the variation against the minimum density of each dye across each wavelength. So it would, perhaps, be most accurate to say that the high points represent greatest saturation, but that's a semantic difference at best. The dye sensitivity curves provide additional information about how each layer responds to provide added detail to the spectral sensitivity layer. The dyes have to correspond to light waves, however, otherwise the film wouldn't deliver any images. The dye sensitivity curves demonstrate how each layer responds to light across the visible spectrum.

[@tiansili]

Please do one on ultramax

[@DavidHancock]

I will eventually. These videos are largely on hold until I have a job again.

[@brycepinson8641]

On your new newer video for E100, you say it is the best color film ever made. What about E100 has caused it replace Ektar as your favorite/best color film?

[@DavidHancock]

Our came down to color trueness. I love the image rendering on Ektar, but the color accuracy work E100 was staggering. Also, E100 delivered and amazing level of detail.

[@brycepinson8641]

@@DavidHancock I can appreciate that. Ektar certainly comes off a bit more "romanticized" I might say in terms of color rendition, almost velvia like if I dare say that. I use it regularly for 4x5 landscapes, where I find it really shines for late afternoon shots where the extra dynamic range is appreciated.... I've only shot a couple of sheets of E100 so far and am reserving judgement on it for now.

[@MichaelWellman1955]

Are the films similar across the formats? If I shoot 35mm and switch over to LF will I get similar results?

[@DavidHancock]

Similar but not identical. The color performance is the same but the physics of LF cameras will change the intrinsic nature of the images. Also, there will be even less grain on LF.

[@myronhensel]

Wonderful video. Please do one on Portra!!!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Portra will happen but it will be a while.

[@myronhensel]

Well I’ll be looking forward to it!! If you like on location large format photography please check out my last few videos.

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

What did you make today?

[@DavidHancock]

A few other videos. :D

[@node547]

But what about the archival traits of C41 vs chromes? Don’t C41 negs degrade faster than their positive siblings?

[@DavidHancock]

Film archival ability is based on a lot of factors. Processing, cleaning afterward, and storage all play a role. In general, slides stored well will last around 30 to 40 years, I think. C-41 is probably about the same.

[@anthonyknight5114]

Thoughts or inside on Ektar with flash photography?

[@DavidHancock]

It's been years since I made this, but IIRC there are some guides in the datasheet for how to use this with flash. One will be that xenon light from a strobe is blue, which means you may need some filtration either on the lens or at the flash or with gold-tinted reflectors to counter it. If you're just trying it out for the first time, dedicate a roll to some different flash setups (bounce flash, direct flash, reflectors, etc.) and record what you did so you can go back later and know what worked in the good results and what led to bad results (so you don't do that again.)

[@anthonyknight5114]

@DavidHancock Thanks for the tip. It's been my experience that with modern strobes, I consistently get overexposed images but in natural light the exposures are perfect. So yeah, the light not being "daylight balanced" and more on the blue side makes a lot of sense.

[@gchristopherklug]

I got to the end after I left the earlier comment. My condolences.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and we definitely miss him every day. Both our dogs were great and someday we'll have two more to photograph the heck out of for these videos.

[@gchristopherklug]

David Hancock We still miss our golden who passed in 2003. I understand.

[@markglore7196]

I wish Kodak would bring back the ISO 25 version.

[@DavidHancock]

That would be awesome.

[@jerryrichards8172]

Whats the best site to look up Kodak film spec. ?

[@DavidHancock]

Kodak's website has that and I'd consider it reliable.

[@jerryrichards8172]

@@DavidHancock OK thanks I must of whent to the wrong kodak site . Thanks for your vids and especially on the minolta a9 just orderd 1 like 5 min. Ago I'm quite excited. should be a nice update from x700 I have been shooting with since the 80s :)

[@DANVIIL]

Very nice images!!! I couldn't agree more that Ektar is my favorite color film, by far.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, and I already miss shooting it. I'm shooting my last Velvia 50 shots for the installment in this series in a couple of weeks. I'll miss the heck out of that film, too.

[@davidstrom5505]

I am so sad - seeing Cheever in so many of your videos...my condolences

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you. He and Hannah will still turn up from time to time since there are lots of old photos that I haven't used in videos yet. And, at some point next year, we'll rescue two more dogs and their photos will start showing up.

[@tompoynton]

I love using Ektar at night

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! How are the results for you?

[@tallaganda83]

I don't like what it does with blues sometimes turns them cyan.

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely understandable.

[@klauslehrmann4927]

3:07 - "To my eye, the colors of the Ektar are the most true of any I've ever used". Then you show a picture infinitely magenta it might as well be entirely purple.

[@DavidHancock]

Good point. Yes, that scan came back with some purple and magenta tones in the dark areas. That's more a limitation of the lab scanner combined with my preference to edit images in these videos as little as possible than a shortcoming in the film stock.

[@klauslehrmann4927]

@@DavidHancock Sounds good. I like shooting film in addition to digital. I have been photographing as an amateur for 13 years. I am a nerd :)

[@klauslehrmann3906]

@@DavidHancock Fair enough, I reckon, but why show the picture then if it makes the video unrepresentational of the facts? Why bother doing photography and chemical processes, but not do editing? That is my question. T.y. for your response. Note: I am responding from my stationary, hence the profile-picture. Not two dif. accounts.

[@m00n-Child96]

Best c41 film ever.

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely.

[@oldtvnut]

You say the emulsion is a T or tabular type using cubic crystals. These are contradictory terms. Actually, it uses both T-grain and cubic crystals, most likely in sub-layers of each color layer. See a couple of references: www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/spr10/shu-wei/ www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_04_How-film-makes-image.pdf

[@DavidHancock]

According to Kodak'd technical guidance, tabular grain emulsions are a morphology of T-grains. www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/photogrst1964/49/6/49_6_499/_pdf In both the sources you cited, tabular grain as a term appears zero times and T-grain appears only once, referencing the fact that Kodak won an Oscar for their T-grain film. You are correct that Ektar uses both T- and cubic-grained elements in the emulsion.

[@oldtvnut]

@@DavidHancock Thanks for the reference.

[@damium5]

Thank you so much for the content you bring, really liked the video and the pictures you put in it were amazing, can you do this on fujifilm xtra 400? orrrrrrr fuji superia 200? Thank P.S. Sorry about your dog, i know how it feels, hope you are feeling better. =)

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I haven't ever used Xtra 400. I have shot Superia 200, but it's been a while. My next video will be on Velvia 50, but I think I'll take a break from Fuji for a while then. Fuji keeps discontinuing films and since this series only addresses in-production stock (in-production when the video goes live), when film stocks have been cancelled before I finish a video, it is a lot of lost money and photo-taking time. There are a few film makers on my 'I don't trust these guys to keep their stock in production' list and Fuji is at the top.

[@damium5]

@@DavidHancock I understand man =) I know how you feel but they make really good film, try out xtra 400 =)

[@asherdog9248]

I have never liked the look of Ektar. Yes, I have seen nice Ektar photos, but nothing E6 couldn't do better.

[@DavidHancock]

Absolutely yes. I'm not 100% certain I know of a good slide film that isn't better than Ektar.

[@btrdangerdan2010]

Ohh so sorry about your beloved dog!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Dan. He had a great life with lots of road trips, off-leash dog park and open space runs, and 12 more years than he would have gotten at the kill shelter. He was going to be put down in a day or two if I hadn't rescued him.

[@_guillermo]

RIP Cheever

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you. We still miss him. He and our other dog at the time Hannah we great.

[@joeltunnah]

I guess it depends on your taste and what you shoot, but to me Ektar produces odd colors and terrible red skin tones. I would never shoot people with it. It’s also way too contrasty and saturated for general use, like Velvia.

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely concur that is' hard on skin tones and that, like each film stock, it's a matter of taste and use for sure.

[@jakkeboenti]

Of the ranch anyone in the intro

[@DavidHancock]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If it's about the intro music, that's from the KZbin free music library, I think it's called "Hooky with Sloan".

[@jakkeboenti]

@@DavidHancock yeah i was talking about the intro, another famous KZbin uses that song no offense. Your really good sorry if I insulted you

[@DavidHancock]

@@jakkeboenti Not insulted at all. Every now and then I hear some of the music I use in other videos. It's always good to know that other people like the same music for their videos, too.

[@klofisch]

ooohhh poor Cheever....

[@DavidHancock]

Yeah, he lived a good life and lived to at least 14. That's pretty good for a 70-pound dog. He had a lot of good times, too.

[@SgtSuissie]

All lab scanned ektar rolls are very red and I don't like it. It's really horrible sometimes. Makes not want to use that film. Even some of yours have too much red.

[@DavidHancock]

Well, all of these images are lab scanned. But I think, IIRC, that I talked about the cause of that and how to avoid it.

[@SgtSuissie]

@@DavidHancock you're right you talked about it. I just wanted to rant a little. Infact I got one ektar negative scanned at a different lab and they used a fuji frontier and it turned out much cooler in Temperature. Gives me hope for that film again

[@DavidHancock]

@@SgtSuissie Thank you! It had never occurred to me that the scanner would have any effect.

[@MileyonDisney]

You must have never shot Kodachrome, if Ektar is your favorite. For studio work, Kodachrome 25 just cannot be beat.

[@DavidHancock]

I've shot it. Kodachrome may have been great, but it's all past-tense now. It can't be bought new. It can't be developed as slide film. Kodachrome is basically photographic fossils.

[@amysarg]

It’s a hard sell when so many people’s faces will come out poorly…

[@DavidHancock]

For portraits, Portra is a much better choice.