I’m going to try a roll of Kodak Ektar 100. I’ve been using Gold 200 rated at ISO 100. I only get 4 exposures per roll (6x17) and would like to be close to a proper exposure.
Does anyone here have expierence with 120 Ektar 100?
Thanks
Back in the day I used to shoot Ektar 100 at ISO 64 on my Plaubel Makina. I always tended to expose for the shadows with the highly centered meter of the Plaubel so maybe more like 50 effectively.
No experience with 120, but I always shoot the 35mm version at box speed, and use exposure compensation as needed to protect shadow detail. This reminds me I have a 120 roll sitting in my freezer, which I should use.
I have used an ISO of 80. I just came upon some Ektar shots from 2010 and really like the skin tones whereas the general thinking is Portra 160 for decent skin, but you pick up a more punchy look with Ektar. Waiting for a roll to get back from the lab.
fjablo wrote:
+1 for box speed but prioritizing shadows / foreground when metering and letting highlights go wherever they want to 😉
Agreed on box speed in full sun.
But I would assume anyone using Ektar (over Portra) wants colors that pop a bit more (but less than Velvia), so rather than meter for fully defined shadows, I would instead meter to preserve the highlights (Ektar has a limited dynamic range, it is relatively easy to lose the highlights) and let the shadows fall where they land. Nothing wrong with dark shadows.
Edit: Ignore my comment on metering Ektar to preserve the highlights. See the link in fjablo's post.
But I would assume anyone using Ektar (over Portra) wants colors that pop a bit more (but less than Velvia), so rather than meter for fully defined shadows, I would instead meter to preserve the highlights (Ektar has a limited dynamic range, it is relatively easy to lose the highlights) and let the shadows fall where they land. Nothing wrong with dark shadows.
I think you might be confusing Ektar with Ektachrome? It's almost impossible to blow highlights on Ektar.
theHUN wrote:
No confusion on my end ... instead I was just dead wrong! That shot of the sunflower straight into the sun convinced me. Thank you for posting it!
Edit: My comment was based on the summary posted here and shame on me for parroting it rather than relying on my own experience.
No worries, I also learned a lot from Alex's work over the years. He still recommends being as accurate as possible with exposure and using GND filters when the scene calls for and allows them. If I remember correctly Ektar (and Ektachrome, but that one with less headroom) will not easily block up highlights, but saturation decreases. I think that's actually a pleasing look, but something to take into consideration when metering.
When I said prioritizing shadows when metering, I also didn't mean putting shadows on Zone V, but rather Zone IV or III. I just meant not worrying too much about where highlights fall as long as the main subject is well exposed and shadows don't get too dark (unless that's intended of course!)
I rate Ektar 100 and all other color films positive and negative at their manufacturer recommended or so-called "box speed" in all formats from 135 through 4x5. fjablo wrote:
... being as accurate as possible with exposure and using GND filters when the scene calls for and allows them.
That equally applies to shooting on all color films... fjablo wrote:
If I remember correctly Ektar (and Ektachrome, but that one with less headroom) will not easily block up highlights, but saturation decreases...
In both my testing and field experience Ektar 100 has as much exposure latitude as any Pro color negative film from both Kodak and Fuji with normal development. All such films lose saturation with overexposure.
SergeyT wrote:
I rate Ektar 100 and all other color films positive and negative at their manufacturer recommended or so-called "box speed" in all formats from 135 through 4x5.
That equally applies to shooting on all color films...
In both my testing and field experience Ektar 100 has as much exposure latitude as any Pro color negative film from both Kodak and Fuji with normal development. All such films lose saturation with overexposure.
Yes true that that's the "correct" way to expose color negative films generally.
I think we should probably differentiate exposure latitude and dynamic range, even though they're related.
E.g. Ektar and Portra both have huge dynamic range and will usually still hold highlight information when exposed for the shadows. However, Portra is a bit more forgiving in it's exposure latitude as it doesn't shift color as much when the whole frame is overexposed. Ektar starts to shift color even at 1 stop over (probably correctable after scanning though).
Kyle McDougall's exposure latitude test of Ektar: ?si=z0StfW3P9KRi1sse
I used to overexpose print film, probably more than I should have, didn't seem to hurt too much (maybe more grain?) But underexposure such death in the darkroom on B&W, couldn't get max black. Color looked the same on that issue so I overexposed
