Kodak Ektar - The Best Negative Film, I'm Posititve
As I mentione din the last post, there have been a couple of nice bits of news for large format and film photographers recently and one of these was about a new film stock (Wow! Woop! Huzzah!) which is astonishing for many reasons, primarily just because some marketing department somewhere must have said "Well fell busines peeps, we should really address these 4x5 and 10x8 markets, we don't want to miss out on all of that revenue and acclaim". However, the big question is, "WHAT IS IT LIKE!!" - well, althoug the tests on the internet I've seen have shown that it scans very well (with as much resolution as Velvia for instance) a lot of people have asked about how it looks in comparison to Velvia, after all it is pitched as the most saturated negative film available.
Fortunately, Paul Mitchell has been taking a few example shots using his medium format camera as well as the equivalent Velvia shots. So, with a big thanks for Paul, here is my comparison.
Firstly, here is the Velvia shot of some Beech woods
This is clearly what we would expect from a Velvia shot, warmth in the highlights, cold shadows and a wonderful separation of colour, especially in the greens to yellows (although this does look a little yellow/green to me).
The next shot is the Ektar processed using ColorNeg with it's default Ektar settings.
Wow! Warm indeed, this is a little bit over the top and also a little bit dull first we'll up the saturation
and then we'll add a cooling filter (this is an 82 cooling filter)
This is getting better but we could still do with removing a bit of magenta to separate things. I've also tweaked the sky colour that got shifted a little too much when applying the cooling filter. Ektar does seems to have a cyanic quality in it's blues that may be a bit challenging - will have to play with some more shots before I can work out just what is going on.
And this looks pretty good to me.. It's got the saturation and the colour separation that transparency films such as velvia are well known for but with a nice boost in dynamic range.
Just as an experiement, lets see how if we can get it looking like velvia, just to see what happens. Firstly we need to give it more of a yellow/green cast (using a photo filter with a custom colour) and a final tweak to make things look like velvia is to cool down the shadows quite a lot (a surprising discovery whilst playing with digital and portra - more about that later).
The results are a pretty close match. Closer than I could get working on a digital file and better than I could get when working with Portra. The natural saturation from Ektar, although coming with a strong warm cast, gives the film the punch that a lot of landscape photographers love.
I must admit, I'm quite taken with it and really look forward to playing with the film in 5x4 format.
In the meantime, here is a direct comparison between my modified velvia-like version and the actual velvia version
And I've been asked about highlight and shadow difference - I reckon there is another 1.5 to 2 stops of dynamic range but it also seems to handle the edges of highlight detail better too.. This doesn't mean it's perfect, but it does make it interesting, definitely.
I should point out that these shadow and highlight detal examples are not from the 'velviafied' image. They are from the step before I velviated the picture (I love creating new words).
Shadow (rollover for ektar)
Highlight (rollover for ektar)
A few people have said in the comments that Ektar doesn't look like Velvia and I completely agree with them. It's a different film and has it's own natural palette. However, It does seem to be 'malleable' enough to get results that are not unlike some of the punchier transparency films. I hope velvia will be around for a long time, in a lot of circumstances it's absolutely beautiful. In other circumstances it's a complete pain to work with. Ektar offers a new film stock that is more like what many photographers desire in a film than other negative stock and, for those photographers that can cope without the exact rendering properties of Velvia, it's nice to know that there is another potential option.
I'm going to be playing with the film some more but I'm definitely not going to be leaving my velvia at home. (This article was never intended to try to line Ektar up as a replacement for Velvia - the main goal was to show people who are used to Velvia how Ektar differs and how 'malleable' it is.
Oh - I was going to mention one of the 'discoveries' I made whilst playing with the comparisons between velvia and ektar. One of velvia's key features that makes it easily recognisable is it's very cool shadows. Nearly all other films have warm or neutral shadows (e.g. Astia's shadows tend to magenta/red) but if you examine a few velvia transparencies, you see a consistent shift to blue as you get into the denser blacks. This adds to the separation of colours in a picture as most pictures tend to be warmer in the highlights. I haven't played with this discovery much but applying it to a few digital files had some interesting, and quite attractive, consequences
A few other links to Ektar stuff: -
Highlight this Comment Dave03/03/2010, 22:09
Interesting comparison. The Ektar still looks a million miles from Velvia to my eye, even after all that tweaking. I suppose this just goes to illustrate why, if you want the Velvia look, its easier to just shoot Velvia than to try an mimic it with any other emulsion or even digital for that matter.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin03/03/2010, 22:14
I'm with you there Dave but it's not necessarily a 'Velvia' look I'm after - what I do want is some of the colour separation of Velvia but with the dynamic range of negative film. Ektar could do this, it's could almost be a 'bridge' film between velvia/provia and negative films such as portra.
What is important for me is that there is now a film stock that handles the sorts of colours I sometimes want that isn't a Fuji stock.
As for this example, I think I prefer the Ektar film before I tried to make it look like Velvia.
Highlight this Comment Bob03/03/2010, 22:57
I think the main advantage of the negative over transparency is a wider dynamic range. You can fiddle about with colours etc in Photoshop but you cannot do much if the contrast is beyond the range of the film. In the example given, the contrast range of the subject is handled qite well with Velvia and as far as I can see the Ektar is no better. Is there detail in the shadow areas of the negative which could be extracted in Photoshop.
Highlight this Comment Julian03/03/2010, 23:13
Well, it certainly looks an interesting emulsion and I'll definitely be placing an order for some Ektar as soon as it's available.
One thing that does intrigue me is your PS work, Tim. Now, I know there are at least a dozen ways of achieving any given result in PS but have you tried neutralising the colour cast with the mid-grey eyedropper in curves before tweaking colours individually? This might make things more controllable. I tend to avoid the photo filters as they are a bit indiscriminate.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin03/03/2010, 23:36
Hi Bob,
Not sure it's giving huge amounts extra but I reckon a stop or so in the highlights in this example. I'd have to have an example with better gradation into the highlights to be able to say much more. I do like the way the highlights are handled though.
I certainly won't be ditching velvia/provia yet but I can very easily see quite a few situations where Ektar would bring me better results.
If I'm in a low contrast situation and want luscious gradations and colour though, velvia will always be the goto film..
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin03/03/2010, 23:45
Hi Julian,
I do play around with curves directly (which is what the grey point selector is doing) but sometimes where the cast is across the shadows and highlights, the grey point selector doesn't fix things and trying to use the white point selector screw with the levels. Where you have a colour cast in a particular dye (for instance, it seems the ektar yellows and greens contain a lot of extra magenta. If you neutralise magenta across the whole colour range, you kill the warm reds).
I'm open to suggestion though?
Highlight this Comment Andy04/03/2010, 00:00
The latest version of Silverfast introduced last month, version 6.6.1r5 has a NegaFix profile for Kodak Ektar 100.
Highlight this Comment Dan Baumbach04/03/2010, 02:25
I don't know, Tim... The original scan of the Velvia looks head and shoulders above any of the Ektar renditions. That's the reason I've been staying away from negative films. I keep hearing such great things and see such disappointing results. If this is actually better than Portra, maybe I should just sell my 4x5 now.
Highlight this Comment Tristan Campbell04/03/2010, 10:14
My own view is if you want it to look like Velvia, use Velvia. It gets it separation from its steep characteristic curve and you pay the price in limited dynamic range. Colour neg has its own rules, better to work with those rules than against them by trying to make it emulate something that it is not. Interesting post and great to see a new LF film released in this day and age!
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin04/03/2010, 10:17
Hi Dan - there is no doubt that this isn't Velvia and there will never be a 'best' film. I'm a big fan of Velvia but I also want to use the available films we have to their best. The one things about negative films is that they do take a lot of post processing, whereas the beauty of transparency film is there wonderful colour rendition straight out of the camera. I don't see velvia/provia going anywhere soon so I'd keep the 4x5 around for a while yet :-)
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin04/03/2010, 10:28
Hi Tristan,
I'm not disagreeing with you but could you expand on what you mean when you say "Better to work with those rules than against them"? Are you implying it's a bad idea to post process film scans or that we should only post process them in a certain way?
e.g. If velvia were not available (lets say you ran out) but you still liked the colour palette, what would be the problem in trying to emulate it based on another film stock (presuming you could emulate it successfully enough for your own standards)?
Highlight this Comment Tristan04/03/2010, 11:01
I'm simply saying if you want that velvia look (which arguably the majority of landscape photographers seem to seek) then it’s probably easier to just stick with velvia. As you say, it’s certainly easier to scan for a start. I have no problem with any post processing or trying to emulate any film.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin04/03/2010, 11:17
I get where you are coming from Tristan and agree. The only reason I was playing around with Ektar was to see if I could get a 'vivid transparency' look, not necessarily a velvia look. Velvia just happens to be the transparency that everyone seems to use :-)
I'll certainly be using Velvia for situations where I want a velvia look (whilst it is available anyway). However, for situations where I want a velvia look and the dynamic range is too much, I'll probably try Ektar..
Highlight this Comment Dan Baumbach04/03/2010, 13:23
My current use of Velvia is very limited. Perhaps a comparison of Ektar with Velvia is the wrong way to go. The original image that you posted is an image for which Velvia is perfect. It just looks good and not too saturated or contrasty.
Perhaps a real test would just be some beautiful Ektar pics. Unfortunately, all the Ektar pics here don't look as good as the Velvia one.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin04/03/2010, 15:24
Hi Dan, I'll do my best to create some beautiful pictures in Ektar but fire off some diferent film at the same time.. Another test soon I'm sure..
Highlight this Comment Paul Breitkreuz07/03/2010, 18:38
Tim, I applaud your efforts toward the LF experimentations, and toward testing the various film products these days. Overall, it would be years back that I can recall any magazine, publication, or individuals taking anytime to compare on a "shoot-out" basis the variety of film products that are left. Just the fact that Kodak would step up efforts in the film arena at all is a good sign IMO. As a long time user of almost exclusively Velvia 50, I still enjoy the comparisons and quite frankly would look forward to a day; if at all possible, someone could enhance the dynamic range on the transparencies in general. No complaints, just dreaming out loud. I’m sure most all in the LF community have learned to adapt to the various anomalies all the films seem to have one way or another, and as such, use the products they are most comfortable with. Heck, it’s what’s half the fun of trying to work with those variables to a certain extent that keeps many using film overall.
Highlight this Comment David Comdico10/03/2010, 00:17
I just purchased a Crown Graphic and yours is a blog whose archive I've been browsing. It's great to see posts like that this that express enthusiasm and insight into shooting film. For some of us, this (for me, large format) is new and your blog is like finding a great oasis.
Thanks.
Highlight this Comment betabug26/04/2010, 11:26
What do you mean with "Ektar processed using ColorNeg with it's default Ektar settings"? When I open that picture and look at the histogram, I see that the shadows have been clipped, either in scanning or in post processing. Or the picture might not have been exposed "for the shadows" as is custom for color neg film, which would be a shame.
It would be interesting to have a scan to play with that covers both the highlights and shadows completely. That would show the freedom that color neg film really gives you. I would guess that I could come pretty close to the Velvia example just by adjusting the RGB curves separately.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin26/04/2010, 11:43
Hi Beta (?),
The picture was straight out of ColorNeg software on default settings, i.e. I have applied no additional curves/levels etc.
I would imagine the shadows would be clipped anyway as the brightness range in that shot is probably 9 stops (I would imagine about EV 4-13 ish). I know Portra NC only just managed 9 stops (at a push) and Ektar has a lot less dynamic range.
I'd be happy to send you a small version of Paul's original scan if you want a play (I'm sure Paul wouldn't mind if it weren't full size). I'd be very surprised if you can make it look like velvia with a simple RGB adjustment but am happy to be wrong in this.. :-)
Highlight this Comment Sascha Welter (betabug)27/04/2010, 07:43
(Sorry for the name confusion... I'm so used to use my nickname).
If that software snaps off stuff by default, I'd be reluctant to use it :-) What I mean is that while scanning you have to set the input and output in the histogram (a good description can be found on Ken Lee's scanning tips page - under the heading "Correct the Histogram Before Scanning".
To get the maximum out of color negative film in my experience it's really essential to get this right. Otherwise you're getting some scanning software's best automatic guess at how to turn color neg into slide film. Automated software sometimes gets this right, but not always. I have minilab scans that got it, while on the next neg they failed big time.
Can't say anything about the latency of Ektar, that's what I was hoping to learn from a review :-)
Highlight this Comment Piero31/08/2010, 17:03
It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Ektar and another negative film or Provia maybe, but thank you very much indeed for sharing your tests.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin31/08/2010, 19:22
Hi Sascha - it's automatic but allows you to override pretty much anything. What do you mean by latency btw? I'd be happy to test if I knew how..
As for shadow clipping, the picture probably encompasses 18 stops from highlights in the sky to the shadow in the roots of the trees. Something's got to give at one end or the other.
I'm now a little unsure about all of the negative films - I'm starting to like Kodak Portra 160VC and 400NC - I'm testing all of the negative and positive films against each other for publication in a landscape photography magazine I'm starting
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!