Kodak EKTAR 100 | ROLL REVIEW

[@peskymacaw9033]

Really love Ektar, I hope they realease a higher ISO version to do some wildlife or astro photography.

[@craziijess007]

I used Ektar for the first time this summer and it is LIFE. The colours I had were so rich and bright! I am so happy with this film. Definitely worth it.

[@FreezerKing]

Ektar is really good for darker skin tones.

[@nickfanzo]

You can hand shoot ektar100 fine. We shot kodachrome 25 back in the day without a tripod.

[@JamieMPhoto]

Just shot some Ektar in 4x5 and I can definitely vouch for its strength in handling darker skin tones. Good review!

[@priyeshabsolute]

2:26 Oreks is how I know the photos were made in Toronto. This guy’s just so good.

[@teleaddict23]

I love Ektar. It has a look of 1980s movies.

[@SebastianHernandez-nq2st]

I just sent my first Ektar roll to the laboratory a couple of days ago. I will check your observations on my shots, thank you!

[@jamesonnorth]

I love Ektar in medium/large format, though I have not shot it in this format. It's definitely not for everything, but a great film stock. I think of it as the opposite of Portra. You can use Portra for almost anything--people, things, landscapes, buildings, etc. Ektar is more like Velvia--it's for a specific scene. I'm not sure 35mm is the best format for this film, and you nailed it on that. I shoot almost anything I can get my hands on. I'm shooting through some Colorplus at the moment, and it's alright. I think I prefer the slightly grainier look of Ultramax, or the much cleaner look of Portra/T-Max. Colorplus is a good middle ground, but it doesn't have a lot of character to me.

[@timothymorton2092]

Kodak EKTAR came out originally as 25 ISO, 125 ISO, and 1000 ISO then released as 400 ISO and later 100 ISO in Canada, and found the 125 ISO my regular film.

[@13squier]

Good review! I just got back from vacation and shot 11 rolls of film, a couple each of Ektar, Portra 400, Superia 400, 800T, Lomo 800, Velvia 50 and Provia 100F. The rolls that most consistently turned out the most "keepers" all around were the Ektar rolls. I found it to be the most versatile in all kinds of lighting, best look for vacation-type photos. Every roll had a few pics for the wall, but Ektar was the best overall. I will say it's really the scanning and processing method that makes all the difference. I scan with my D750 + 105 macro then edit with Negative Lab Pro. NLP turns Ektar into art, the images absolutely blow away lab scans.

[@heres_the_sauce]

One of my favorites. Our desert like scenery really pops on this film

[@lucasleonardo2111]

Ektar is beautiful and works best in bright sunlight and colorful landscapes. It's up there with Provia in terms of gorgeous colors imo

[@1989Goodspeed]

My all-time favorite film (the modern version), 120 and 35mm. My 2cent analogy is: Portra is Aquarelle while Ektar is a Oil Painting. Do like Portra as well, but I don’t do a lot of portraits… as of now.

[@satriyo796]

easily my favourite color negative film for general use

[@bwc1976]

I remember using the old Ektar/Royal Gold in the late 80's/early 90's, I'd love to try this as well as Portra 160 sometime when I'm doing better financially.

[@whakabuti]

I ordered Ektar for Sri Lankan street photography and portraiture as we've got darker skin and the tones I saw produced off Ektar for darker skin were wow.

[@ganzonomy]

My favorite color negative film. It's especially great with older cameras to "liven up their color palette". Some of my vintage cameras (Leicaflexes and my Medalist I) can be a bit muted when shooting nature, scenes, buildings and Ektar helps to bring out the punch. At the same time, when I shot it with a modern camera / lens (pentax 645n / 75mm f/2.8), it resulted in almost cartoon levels of saturation, which can be a good thing. I made my own little review of it, and linked my flickr with samples. Jason

[@aengusmacnaughton1375]

I've shot Ektar 100 in old 120 and 620 (rerolled onto 620 spools by the FPP) cameras -- old box cameras, pseudo-TLR cameras -- and I get these amazing paradoxical images. The colors are bold and modern, the almost lack of grain is very modern -- yet the optical qualities of the images reflect the simplicity of the cameras. So think of those old medium-format family photos from the 1930s and 1940s -- but instead of being in soft black & white -- they are in bold colors and almost no grain. I get great "foreground" landscapes (like hay rolls in a field) that almost look like a well-done, realistic painting. Try it -- you'll like it!!!!

[@scotthullinger4684]

I used that to take pics of a sunset decades ago which I enlarged to 20 by 24. And the result was spectacular -

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

I shot Ektar in the 90’s. I’ve tried the current emulsion as well. It behaves essentially the same. It’s Velvia in a negative film. It’s disney-chrome. It’s all the kiddy, Sugar Smacks colors you’ll find in a roll of Life Savers. I don’t like it. Unless you’re going for that drunkard’s blush look, don’t use it for portraiture. As for low grain, sure. Frankly if that’s a driving factor just shoot digital.

[@davyboyo]

The fact that portra vs ektar is divisive speaks mostly to the fact that the people who swear by one or tear down the other pretty much don't know what they're talking about and seem to think that every film should be ideal for pretty much any situation. This is somewhat true for consumer grade films but with Kodak's professional line of films they give pros the ability to choose the best stock based on the contrast and other considerations of the shooting conditions. In other words the two films aren't competing, they have different uses. I guess there is a reason why they're called professional films.

[@dylangergutierrez]

The fact that Ektar is so widely used means that a lot of people like it, but personally when I scan it I get a ruddy look that looks gross to me. Could be my scanning technique but even the pictures from this video show some of that same tone to me. I've shot 10+ rolls of the stuff before largely giving up

[@davyboyo]

Based on my personal experience i would say that it most likely is to do with the scanning process in your case and in the case of this video. Lab scanned ektar looks stunning, but again it always comes down to whether it's the right film for a given scene. I agree that there is more warm cast to ektar in general but it is easily controllable if you have good scans. Just my thoughts.

[@dylangergutierrez]

@@davyboyo Yeah, it could be I'm not using it right. Maybe if I shot more vibrant scenes and had lab scans, it would come out better. It would also triple my shooting cost per roll. But I definitely don't think it's a film optimized for scanning, as he says in the video. For my money, if I wanted deep, saturated colors, I think I would shoot E100 now that it's back on 120.

[@davyboyo]

Yes it is expensive. I would say speaking very generally, ektar is a film that would be most useful when you were shooting a scene that benefits from higher saturation, but perhaps who's dynamic range is outside of what can be captured effectively on a slide film without losing details in shadows or highlights. I believe ektar was designed to give a look more similar to slide without the dynamic range penalty. For vibrant scenes i think a portray type film makes more sense but again it's all personal.

[@dylangergutierrez]

@@davyboyo That makes more sense. "Like a slide film, but with more dynamic range" is how I will attempt to shoot it next time. Thanks for that. I think I still have some at the back of my freezer.

[@MB-or8js]

Main debit of Ektar are the commonly found blue shadows. Can add some artistic value but is often a debit in landscape photography.

[@zluzhy5108]

U da best man! Love to check out all ur stuff even though i’ve only got a polaroid!

[@ErikJensenDetroit]

Last year I shot a roll of Ektar pushed 2 stops, and it really looked like Velvia but without having to send it out for E-6 processing.

[@Otokichi786]

Modern Ektar 100 sounds from your description, a film that Eastman Kodak never made: Kodachrome 100. I did use the "old" Ektar briefly before the turn of the century and found it to be interesting. All hail Ektar 100: The Photoshop-friendly analog film.;)

[@joeltunnah]

Otokichi786, it’s nothing like Kodachrome. Kodachrome had nice warm skin tones and moderate saturation. Ektar has red skin tones and over saturated reds and blues.

[@miguelnglopes]

Best 35 film around! Gorgeous colors.

[@reedwarbler]

Great video by the way. I don't know much about photography but its a very interesting subject

[@paultaylorphotography9499]

Portra was my go to for weddings back in the pre digi days. A few months ago I put a roll of Ektar 120 100 through the Bronica, I've never looked back I just love the results I get from it. Mostly I shoot landscapes with Ektar plenty of examples on my chan I know cheap plug but I'm desperate...anyway great review mate keep shooting. New Sub for ya.

[@brycepinson8641]

I agree with your comment that it doesn't stand out as much in 35mm. But on 4x5 it is amazing for places and landscapes.

[@jacoblatoria5692]

Definitely want to try this film out now!

[@NoviSavvy]

For me it is way too pricey. As I shoot really often I really prefer some fresher cine film which is around 5$ per overloaded (40+exp) roll. Some people say Eterna 64D is a little bit more predictable and has wider latitude than Ektar if developer with 3,5-DNBA is used. And I got very used to ECN-2 process. Have no idea if to have c41 chems or not. If there will be a really nice (probably high ISO) c41 I'll be thinking about buying c41 lab chems (But some people don't even develop their own film which is a total nonsense for me personally)

[@grahamtownsend3751]

i can remember the old ektar 25 used to print beautifully on black and white paper, and also if the snow looks red then it hasn't been printed properly.

[@LaskyLabs]

I just cracked open my first roll today. I can't wait to see what kind of shots I get out of it. I'm going to order another roll, and that one will be used to take pictures from a helicopter... Once it gets even nicer for me to be able to do that.

[@kenowens9021]

I remember using it when it came out; loved it!

[@UnTitleJA]

did you try proimage 100? id like to see that review

[@AnalogResurgence]

Haven’t yet, but I will add it to my list!

[@swisswildpicsswp3095]

I absolutely LOVE Ektar in medium format. Expensive, sure. But the landscapes are just great. Better than anything. Curiously, I also find that it's the case for Fomapan 400. I find it just meh in 135 but great in 120.

[@StickPeopleAndPuff]

I used Ektar for the first time a few months ago when I went shooting around Downtown Raleigh, I didnt even know it was meant for things like landscapes! I sure do love Ektar but my wallet sure does not love Ektar!

[@ganzonomy]

Love ektar in 35mm. Going to shoot it in 620 through my medalist ii. Can't wait to see what results

[@max-lee]

Can you do a review on proimage 100?

[@simonbabicek4686]

ProImage 100 is combination of ektar and portra (70% portra 30% ektar) whit a bit higher grain. For the price is a really good film.

[@reginaldopadua8258]

Andrew Garfield of film photography, really good content bro keep it up

[@A_r78]

More like Jay Baruchel

[@Zkpe02]

Very good info! Thanks 👍

[@SinaFarhat]

Ektar is a interesting film, I remember having problems scanning it, but that was in my flatbed scanner days when I was just learning to get the most out of my scanner! How do you rate a budget film like a Fuji superia with its strong colours?

[@HawklordLI]

Ektar is nice but Fuji Superior Reala 100 was always a favorite color film of mine, but of course it was discontinued.

[@bwc1976]

Reala was one of my favorites as well.

[@SISSI_LU]

Adding Ektar to the cart now 👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼

[@someguy2504]

Ektar 100 is the superior film roll. Kodak don't you dare discontinue it!

[@nelsonm.5044]

I use Ektar in 120 format only and landscape or urban photography

[@trevisonclark7135]

I love the punchy greens and blues making far better than Portras beiges.

[@dylangergutierrez]

What sort of subjects are you shooting that you're getting beiges on Portra? Also how are you processing and scanning?

[@Lavi-Aemilia-Astori]

Yes roll review!

[@sarahj9699]

Kodak Ektar is my absolute favorite! Kodak Portra is honestly so overrated, but Ektar is one of the better kodak films. I've shot portraits with Ektar and they've always come out great, with great color too! The 100 iso is the one downside to this film.

[@superfunnymonkey123]

So I have a question about developing. If I develop a roll film and it’s underexposed a stop, can I put it back in the Developer after the bix. Redo the process to get a proper exposed roll ?

[@AnalogResurgence]

Once film goes through the developing process what you see is what you get! It loses it’s light sensitive properties and is locked into what is developed, you can’t develop a second time.

[@thomask1424]

All Kodak film is expensive (only Pro Image 100 is relatively reasonable) but you get what you pay for. Nothing else looks like Kodak.

[@1990chrism]

I've recently noticed a lot of places selling 'Kodak Pro Image 100' and i was wondering what your impressions are of it? Would you consider doing a roll review on it? I recently shot a roll of it myself and i'm currently waiting on getting my shots back from the lab.

[@AnalogResurgence]

For sure! Oddly enough I keep forgetting about Pro Image, it only showed up here in Canada at least a couple years back and it just seems to slip my mind.

[@1990chrism]

@@AnalogResurgence It seems to be a fairly new addition to the UK market too tbh, I'm looking forward to seeing how it looks.

[@iNerdier]

1990chrism it’s a film specifically designed to withstand higher temperatures without refrigeration and was mostly sold in South America and Asia for non professional work, hence only in 135. It’s not a bad film but it’s not amazingly different, think a more robust colour plus and it’s cheaper here than portra.

[@1990chrism]

Well i got my shots back today and i'm certainly impressed for the price, I like the skin tones it produces, it's been surprisingly forgiving on exposure and pretty fine grain for the price point. I'm 100% shooting it again, very happy :)

[@markus4891]

I really liked ProImage100, it is less grainy than Kodak Gold and less satured, kind of like a poor-mans portra. Skin tones tend to be more neutral and colors I would rate somewhere between Portra and Ektar.

[@Derginator]

I don’t know why but I’ve been thinking Ektar was black and white for some reason. For like months now.

[@miguelnglopes]

Maybe you're confusing it with TMax, whis is bw and also uses t grain technology.

[@verablack3137]

If I really wanted low grain I feel the more “normal” look of 50D would just make more sense.

[@mzf11125]

Hi

[@reedwarbler]

Can Ektar be replicated on modern mirrorless or dslr cameras?

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Easily. Just move that saturation slider to the right.

[@andrewbarnum5040]

According to the Film Photography Project (recent episode) Ektar is Kodak's attempt of a C-41 Kodachrome. The film has also gone by other names such as Royal Gold. I love shooting Ektar, especially in 120 with lanscapes with loads of color. Its one of my top 3 favorite films. And if your in the united states check out needfilmdeveloped.com for low cost professional developing services!

[@joeltunnah]

Andrew Barnum, if it’s an attempt at c-41 Kodachrome, they failed miserably. Ektar is more like Kodak’s version of Velvia.

[@andrewbarnum5040]

@@joeltunnah I am only quoting Leslie Lazenby of the Film Photography Project. In Episode 256 she reviews multiple professional kodak films and she gives the history of Ektar. I personally have no evidence one way or another. I do love the film and while I have never shot Kodachrome film, I have shot Velvia, Provia and Ektar. I personally think Ektar is in a class of its own.

[@snax_4820]

Who uses film for professional work?

[@AnalogResurgence]

A decent amount of people! I've met people who shoot film on things like large ad campaigns or magazine shoots.

[@FreeManFreeThought]

It is a serious discussion sometimes. Especially for images that you want to last. A good quality negative can be scanned in 50 years and look better than the day it was shot, but there is only so much you can do with a digital file that may not even be readable in 20 years. I personally have lost photos to bitrot or other editing caused glitches that I took 15 years ago. Thankfully I had prints that I could scan. Film/Digital is a question of what you want out of the image.

[@snax_4820]

@@FreeManFreeThought I understand your arguments, but in commercial photography, the photographers pays his bills within 60 days. Furthermore, whoever develops your negatives in 50years is not you anymore and the outcome is unpredictable.

[@iNerdier]

Corona Virus I don’t follow your argument. I can get my film back within a day from a pro lab without a rush fee, less if I’m willing to wait a few days. Not every client wants the finished results within an hour.

[@FreeManFreeThought]

@@iNerdier Most shops have a large supply, my developer that I had for personal use (unicolor c-41) went bad right in the beginning of April. I can get my stuff developed at a local shop, but I don't trust them with the expired film that I was shooting on.

[@robdixon5016]

Great film