Film Test: Kodak Ektar 100 (The E-6 Killer?)

A somewhat atypical Ektar shot. Lots of light and little overexposure gives this a bit of a pastel look. The true colors of the scene were not nearly so vibrant, however.

Everyone was raving about Kodak's relatively new film, Ektar 100, so I had to give it a try myself. Kodak originally just released it in 35mm, but the film was so popular that they now carry it in 120 and large format, as well as 35mm. K and I were heading out to the Bay Area in California in October of last year for a marathon that she was running and to visit family, and I knew this would provide a perfect opportunity to test out the film. I bought five 36-exposure rolls of the stuff before the trip and shot all of them over the course of the week we were there.

Overall, I was really impressed with the film. As everyone else who as already been converted over to Ektar has already said, the film provides awesome color, extremely fine grain, is much more forgiving than slide film as to exposure and has a much wider exposure latitude than you will get with digital. It's not a perfect film - there is a little too much saturation for general purpose/snapshot photography for my taste, and it has nowhere near the exposure versatility that you would get with Kodak Portra 400 - but it appears to be a really spectacular film for landscape work.

With this film in their stable, and the generally niche market status of slide film these days, I don't think its any surprise that Kodak recently made the decision to discontinue the production of all consumer slide (E-6) films. While the film originally was only available in the "miniature" 35mm format, Kodak has really targeted this film to landscape photographers over the past year or so, and I have to think that the possibility of discontinuing the slide films was part of the impetus behind that push.

I am going to spread out the test shots over a few posts. The images in this post are all from a little park that is nearby to K's parents house, Benicia State Park. K went for a run and I hung out and played the part of the creepy guy in the bushes with a camera. Fun times.

If I was being more technical about my testing, I would have shot everything using a tripod and made several bracketing exposures for each image. If I really wanted to be technical, I would have shot the same scenes with one or two other films for direct comparison. I generally don't have the patience (or the wallet) for such testing, however, and this time was no exception. When I "test" a film, I just take it out shooting and see what I think when I look at the pictures. I generally use one company for all of my color film developing these days, and the rest of the post-processing is done by me, so I generally can expect any observed differences to be the result of the film and not some odd link in the processing chain. My impressions are highly subjective and not meant to be a technical review of the film. I know what I like for how I shoot, your mileage may vary.

All shots taken using fresh-dated, 35mm Kodak Ektar 100, shot at box speed with my Canon Elan 7ne and a 17-40mm f/4L lens. Metering was done using the camera's internal meter with some over/under exposure compensation, depending on the scene. Development was done by Dwayne's Photo. Scans were done by me, using an Epson V600 and Vuescan software with the infrared dust removal option set on "Light." Images were resized, along with some slight cropping and sharpening  using Adobe Lightroom 3.

The film really captured the warmness of the early-morning sun well and delivered great detail. I've gotten a bit spoiled by medium format, but even with 35mm in the full scan of this image, the branches are distinct and crisp (even handheld without a tripod).

Colors are nicely saturated, especially greens and reds. The film provides a good definition between close color tones as well, such as in this scene where the tan/yellow tones overlap each other.

Ektar loves red - the berries are bright and saturated, without losing detail or getting muddy as can happen with some other films, and which can be a huge problem with digital cameras.

Ektar also loves light - compare the color rendition here (where the main subject is mostly shaded) to the shot above (where the shade is offset by some reflected sunlight and a lot more light in the background). This shot shows a distinct color shift into the blues, which is fairly typical for shaded subjects shot on negative film. While the saturation of the red berries seems about the same, to my eye the green of the leaves is much less saturated than in the shot above.

Ektar handled this high contrast scene really well. The sun itself is blown out, which was expected, but the highlights on all the grass hold details and there is detail in even the deepest shadows.

Not sure what is going on in the upper right corner on this one, maybe a scanning artifact as it doesn't appear to be on the negative. Same subject as the first shot, above, but without the slight overall overexposure. Again, the film handles the flare and high contrast in this shot wonderfully. I'm not sure I was ever able to get this kind of performance out of slide film.

Some more test shots to come, but I think that this film could well become my go to color film for landscapes. It really does not seem to like caucasian skin tones, although I've seem a few photographers who seem to know the right voodoo to get good portrait results. I've still got some nice Velvia 50 and Provia 100 slide film in my freezer, but that may get relegated to use for cross processing. The Ektar really does deliver a very "slide-like" look - high contrast and saturation, with little to no visible grain - and is much easier to work with and more forgiving on exposure. From what I can see, you can still get pretty good results with shooting this a stop or two over and perhaps a stop under. Slide film gives you maybe a third to a half stop in either direction by comparison. Since almost all of my shooting these days is on older cameras, many without internal metering (or with unreliable metering), having that extra exposure latitude can be the difference between getting the shot and wasting film.

Digital Darkroom: Scanning Black & White Film In Color

This post is about being reminded that while trial and error can be lead one down creative roads that would otherwise remain unexplored, it can also send you down the wrong path without even being aware that there might be a better way.

It's a basic fact of modern photography that almost all film shooters are also digital, even if they don't own a single digital camera. Unless all you want to do is make wet prints in the darkroom to pass around by hand, you are going to need to find a way to digitize your analog images if you want them to get seen. Most people don't even deal with paper prints anymore - they shoot on digital, post images to Facebook, Flickr and etc. or maybe email digital photo files to friends, family and like, all of which get viewed on some type of monitor.

"New Year Light" - January 1, 2012, Chicago, Illinois
(Canonet QL-17, Fomapan 400 film, home developed and scanned)
The final, post-processed "color scan" of the black & white negative. The negative was scanned as a 24 bit color image (RGB) and outputted to a 24 bit RGB TIF file. There is much more detail in the shadow areas and much smoother transitions between tones than any of the Grayscale scans of the same negative, even when saved at the highest Grayscale bit setting.

If you are shooting film, getting that image converted to a digital file means getting a scan somewhere along the line. You can scan prints, of course. And scanning a print is relatively straightforward. Even low-end scanners will generally give you a decent scan of a color or black & white print. But a scan of a print is, at best, a third-hand representation. The negative is used to make the print, which is used to make the scan - each step in the chain represents a potential loss of detail and degradation of the image.

"The Impossible Project" . . . Perhaps Too Aptly Named?

This is a post about giving up on a good idea.

My old, super cool SX-70 camera and some "re-imagined" instant film from The Impossible Project. Such a good idea, going nowhere fast. (Panasonic GF-1, 20mm f/1.7)

I really, really wanted the people over at The Impossible Project to succeed. I bought a decent amount of their early attempts, knowing that what I was actually doing was subsidizing their research, rather than purchasing a viable film format at that time. And the initial progress was hopeful - the films got better. Unfortunately, they never got "good."

"Gotham" (September 2010, SX-70, TIP PX 100 film)

This is one of my early attempts with TIP film, and still probably my favorite result. Temperature sensitivity has made the TIP films very difficult to work with out of doors here in Chicago, where the temps tend to reside at either end of the extreme and are rarely settled into the 60-70 degree range where the film seems to work best.

As TIP has gone forward, it seems that the emphasis has shifted. From my perspective, it seems like TIP has essentially abandoned the idea of developing a true replacement for the Polaroid integral films, and are now just intent on milking the hipsters for every red cent they can before the fad fades.

  

  

"K Playing Scrabble" (above), "J & C At The Ballpark" (below) (May 2011, Polaroid Spectra, TIP  PZ 600 film)
You can see the marked temperature effect between the two shots above. Both were from the same pack of PZ 600 film. The top shot was taken in an air conditioned hotel room, the bottom shot was taken outdoors on a hot and humid day.

The first few iterations of the TIP films showed decent improvement - the "Silver Shade" product got closer to providing a neutral black and white, and the "Color Shade" product, while remaining washed out and very soft, was actually getting to the point where it was differentiating colors and not just a wash of muddy blue tones. You were still having to shield the prints immediately upon leaving the camera, but the UV protection was at least getting better.

"Ye Olde Ball Game" (May 2011, Polaroid Spectra, TIP PZ 600 film)
Another shot from the ballpark. In this case, the strong sepia/yellow cast actually works, making the picture seem old and giving it a nostalgic feel.

But then things seemed to stall. The email updates from TIP became less and less about advances to the film, and more and more about marketing gimmicks - "limited editions," different color image frames, accessories and refurbished Polaroid cameras priced for hipsters living in trust fund lofts rather than tip jar apartments. And as actual improvements to the product appeared to get fewer and farther between, the cost of the product got higher and higher - including the need to sometimes buy additional products to make up for deficiencies in the film itself. Right now, TIP film will run you approximately $3.00 per shot, not including shipping. Pretty steep rate for an unstable, unpredictable and (let's face it) still highly flawed product.

"Summer Garden" (June 2011, Polaroid 600, TIP PX 600 UV+ Black Frame film)
Case in point as to the gimmicks - the shot above is a special edition of the PX 600 UV+ film. Still has the same temperature sensitivity problems, still too sensitive to light during development, still a problem with uneven distribution of developer chemicals (see the cutout in the center top of the frame), but hey the enclosure is black, isn't that cool? (Of course, if you just scan the image without the "way cool" black frame - as above - you are just left with a finicky, over-priced film product.)

I don't know why the research seems to have stalled. Perhaps the technical hurdles are just too steep to overcome at the scale that TIP is able to fund. Perhaps the partial re-introduction of integral Polaroid/Fuji films has killed off some of the demand - and therefore the funding base - for TIP films. I have not used the Fuji Instax or the Polaroid 300 (which is essentially a rebranded Fuji Mini 25), but from what I've heard the quality is heads and tails above the TIP films at less than a third the cost per shot. True, the newer cameras leave a lot to be desired in the cool-factor category. Frankly, they are just plain ugly, at least in my opinion. But having an attractive box to run your film through only gets you so far if the film itself fails to deliver.

Supposedly, there are even more improved versions of the TIP films coming down the pike later this year. Indeed, the last email that I got from TIP was a bundling sale, that appears to be trying to clear out all of the old (and now for much of it, expired) film stock. However, even at the "super sale" price the per shot cost is still more than $1, which is where to my mind the cost should be in general. The new "improved" versions of the films will almost certainly be more in the $2 to $3+ per shot cost range, and if the most recent updates are any guide, improvements will likely be incremental, at best.

Perhaps I would think differently if I was more of a studio shooter. (There is some very cool work being done with these films, but almost all of it is studio work where the important factors - temperature, lighting, etc. can be controlled to optimize the result.) However, I'm not, and given the ongoing disappointment with the TIP films (not to mention the expense), I have reluctantly decided to give up on integral films altogether. The quality is just not there for the production of traditional photographic images, even in the Fuji/Polaroid integral films, and I simply don't think in the artistic way needed to elevate the types of images you can get with TIP films to get something that is worth clicking the shutter.

I sold off my second SX-70 body some time ago, and will be putting the other one up on the fleaBay this weekend. I still dream of TIP (or perhaps Fuji, Polaroid or ?????) resurrecting the SX-70 with a quality film product to run through it, I don't think the chances are at all likely, and I would rather use my time and money to subsidize other aspects of the (still shrinking) film market that provide me with the quality and usage experience that make them worthwhile now, rather than those that dangle the chance of that on some ill-defined future date while expecting me to pay premium rates for an inferior product.

Sorry TIP . . . it's not me, it's you. Later.

"Wake Me Up When You Get Your S#*t Together" (June 2011, Polaroid 600, TIP PX 600 UV+ film)

Fuji 400H Film With The Holga

I would like to like Fuji Pro 400H more than I do, as it would be nice to have an alternative to Kodak Portra 400. Jury is still out, generally, but it doesn't work that well with my Holga. The Fuji film appears to be rated at least a stop faster than it really is - meaning that it really needs to be overexposed to get decent colors and negative thickness. Since the Holga only has two aperture settings (at best) and one shutter speed, you either need to get just the right lighting conditions, or you need a fairly forgiving film. Black & white films tend to have a lot more exposure latitude, so you can get decent exposures under much more varied lighting conditions than with color negative film. Kodak Portra 400 also has a lot of exposure latitude, although not as much as the better black & whites. I've had very good luck with the Holga using Portra. However, given Kodak's recent troubles, and its apparent attitude toward us "backward" film shooters, having an alternative would be both helpful and prudent. Unfortunately, it looks like the Fuji isn't going to be it.

"Eventide" (Roscoe Village, Chicago, October 2011)
Holga 120n, Fuji Pro 400H
I like this shot, even though it is strongly underexposed, as I think the underexposure helps create a mysterious and evocative mood.

"A Little Light Is So Religious" (Roscoe Village, Chicago, October 2011)
Holga 120n, Fuji Pro 400H
This shot shows a much better exposure, resulting from the more direct light on the steeple and the bright sky.

OOFF (Out of Focus Fridays) - Squinting At The Bergoff

(Cross-processed Kodak EB-2 (expired), Canon A-1, 50mm f/1.8)
September 2011, Chicago, Illinois

Nostalgia?

"September 2, 1880" (Polaroid Spectra, IP PZ 600 Silver Shade - Cincinnati, Ohio, May 2011)

"Stadium" (Polaroid Spectra, IP PZ 600 Silver Shade - Cincinnati, Ohio, May 2011)

Some shots taken early last year at the Cincinnati Reds ballpark. K and I took in a game after she had run the Flying Pig Marathon. Shots are taken with a Polaroid Spectra camera, using the then-current iteration of Impossible Project's Silver Shade Film. It was a hot and humid day, and the IP film was having trouble with the heat, creating the washed out, yellow tones. You can get some interesting effects with this film, but it was and remains a very unpredictable and inconsistent medium.

OOFF - Experimenting With Abstracts

  

Memory of Twighlight, Chicago IL
(Mamiya RB67Pro, 90mm f3.8, expired Polaroid 669 film, Epson V600)

Frantic

A little experiment with the Holga and multiple exposures.

Holga 120N, Kodak T-Max 400
(processing by 120processing.com; scanned with Epson V600)