that is a piece of horrible advice. Ektar is a film that people tend not to understand. First and foremost Ektar has almost no latitude meaning you have to shoot it on point it won't accept overexposure or underexposure either. Ektar is just demanding and someone below said Ektar on an overcast day just won't cut. Ektar loves the sun.
www.flickr.com/gp/ganzonomy/EE4R4x Here's some of my latest shots with Ektar, in Central Park. I personally love it when it comes out right. In order to get the best from Ektar you need a really sunny day, with an almost cartoonishly blue sky to start with. I tend to shoot it at ISO 50 just to get some of the magenta out, and if I'm shooting in a camera that doesn't have a meter I'll use the mental note of Sunny 11, or even cloudy 8 depending on the intensity of sunlight. But it is possible to get some very nice shots with good saturation without having a magenta overload if you will. Jason
@@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel www.flickr.com/gp/ganzonomy/EE4R4x What ektar does when you get it right. I love it! It also works better the larger the negative for me.
It depends on what you’re going to be shooting, but Ektar 100 is a fantastic emulsion. For me, it truly works as an all-around film stock except for portraiture. Even then, overexposed by one stop you can use it for portraits without much of an issue, and effectively mitigating the red hues. In recent years, the problem with film photography has been that Portra films have become the trendy look, and when another film stock adds more realism to their images, it gets shunned. This is even more true when talking about slide film. Funnily enough, they’ve shot Portra as an all-purpose film stock for so long that they’ve now considered a portrait film as the de facto every day film. Also, I find it baffling how he complained about the warmness of Ektar, but completely ignores the overly warm and yellowish tones of the Portra samples, and then goes even further by saying that they look “more realistic”. Portra has it’s place, but landscape ain’t it.
Ektar brings the colour and contrast, a lot of people really love the toned down, flat, desaturated look. I don't vibe portra for this. It's good at the beach but when you get away from the shore it just looks hazy to me.
'no edit' doesn't exist with C41. It's just the standard point your scanner gives you. But if you say "it is really saturated", that just means your scanner-software makes it saturated. Start seeing your C41 negatives as a RAW file, a light measurement. The final picture you end up depends on what you do with it. My ektar100 mostly comes out pretty flat and more natural compared to what everybody says it does. Just invert it with less contrast!
I personally love Ektar 100. More than I do Portra 400 or Ektachrome. Ektar is a film that needs a lot of light to work right and I always rate it at ISO 50. Just gives that nice punch of color and contrast
www.flickr.com/gp/ganzonomy/EE4R4x Here's some of my latest shots with Ektar, in Central Park. I personally love it when it comes out right. In order to get the best from Ektar you need a really sunny day, with an almost cartoonishly blue sky to start with. I tend to shoot it at ISO 50 just to get some of the magenta out, and if I'm shooting in a camera that doesn't have a meter I'll use the mental note of Sunny 11, or even cloudy 8 depending on the intensity of sunlight. But it is possible to get some very nice shots with good saturation without having a magenta overload if you will. Jason
@@KingJvpes you're very welcome. Give it a shot at 50, and see what happens. One thing with ektar is that the bigger the negative, the better it performs for me. 35mm is okay, but it really comes into its own at 6*7 and 6*9. At those sizes, it's my favorite color film to shoot with.
You're a braver man than me. I thought about going down to the spot you were shooting from, but chickened out half way down and ran back up to the street. You weren't kidding about making it down without dying - that's at least a 100 foot drop. Thanks for sharing.
Always always expose ektar100 at ISO50 or even ISO25 and develop at box speed. The film works wonders with highlight detail and color rendition, moreso than Portra.
I’ve noticed that Ektar 100 doesn’t work for most avarage landscape shots without exposing it properly or generally avarage cliche film shots of California, but, it works beautifully for more “professional” work, for example a well thought-out baroque period inspired frame, like something out of a Caravaggio painting, it’s uncanny, what it can do. If anyone knows what I’m talking about I urge you to try it because it’s amazing how well it renders such lighting, color, and shadows.
I get that portra 400 is nice and technically a "perfect" film stock, but man... it is so overused, you see and hear about it everywhere in the analog community. Honestly i'm bored of the "portra look".
You definitely shot in the wrong light for Ektar. It’s best on a bright sunny day, I also meter it at 50 too. For some reason I love Ektar in 120 but not in 35mm🤷♀️
What's up with your audio??? Enjoyed the video even though I couldn't hear anything you were saying. Ektar is my FAVORITE color stock it *is* heavy on saturation but if you pull it to 50 ISO you get some really nice contrast. I don't think it's great for landscape or portraits and is better suited to images that are going to have a lot of bright colors. Think farmers markets, neon signs... places where you want the bright colors to pop. That's where it really shines.
Highly, highly recommend you take a roll of Ektar 100 if you go to a tropical location with lots of sun. I got my roll back and it was hyper-saturated with this insane water hue that was to die for.
I really like the photos you shot with Ektar, also its high saturation gave the scene a dramatic touch wich really suits the subject as well as the overcast weather. I even like them more than the portra photos wich almost seems a bit dull in comparison.
I like Ektar for darkroom prints. You can get pretty stunning colours from it. But it's a pain in the ass for scanning! Always get that super strong blue cast in the shadows no matter what I do.
I think the philosophy of Ektar is it's the color negative that performs most like color positive slide film. Deep blacks, rich saturation, high contrast, little apparent grain. The 4x5 images I've made with it are some of my favorite ever.
Key with Ektar is to shoot it in bright light. Overcast definitely isn't best, but if you have a sunny day, it's a go. ⅓ stop overexposure and you're there 🔥
I recently picked up 3 rolls of Ektar and shot a roll on a family walk exposed at ISO50. Faces came out like orange tomatoes (it was a bit cold so people were rosy but JEEZE), and the green foliage was so saturated it was distracting. I also found the shadows dropped off too quickly, but the highlights rolled out nicely. I agree with you it's not a stock for people photos. Not sure when I'll shoot the other two rolls. not soon.
First, I have a shirt exactly like your sweater. Second, I was watching someone else talk about how it works well for portraits for people of color. I thought, well, I'm of color, cool. I literally saw your video title right when I thought that and now here I am confused again.
I've just used two rolls of Ektar and really liked it. I shot one roll at ISO50 and one at 100 (50 from now on). I would never use it for portraits, best for landscapes. I also shot both rolls on bright sunny days, which I think is where the difference is made (same with Portra in my personal experience).
Appreciate your viewpoint, but I grew up shooting B&W and Kodachrome -- and reading National Geographic -- so I am used to the saturated/warm look of Kodachrome, which Ektar 100 is close to. To my eye, yes, the Ektar shots pushed the warm tones beyond the colors in the video. But I loved the teal/blue from the water in those shots. And the Potra 400 seemed a bit too mid-toned and washed out to me. But that's just me! Now even though back in the day film wasn't scanned and editing on a computer before printing/publishing -- there was a lot of color control that could be done in the printing/publishing process. A lot of Nat Geo shots of people, mostly shot on Kodachrome, were flattened in the publishing process to avoid too warm Caucasian skin tones. And if I am shooting Ektar 100 with just a mixed bag of subjects, in post-processing my scans, I can tame the too-warm skin tones and still retain some of the color punch in the clothing/background. But we all see things in our own ways, our history with film/photography has a big influence, and that's what's awesome. I cannot fault your shots on either roll, because it was your eye and your equipment, and what you produced -- I appreciate it for all the work you went to -- like almost falling off a cliff into the ocean!!!! Oh -- and if you have any Ektar 100 lying around that you probably won't use, you can just send it my way....... 🙂
I'd rather pay $25/roll for Ektar than shoot Ektachrome for free. New Ektachrome is so flat & is so hit/miss depending on batch. Ektar comes alive at 64 ASA or 50 ASA. I don't understand why so many people love Ektachrome but will hate on Ektar.
I know that it's easier to scan the negatives and work on them in this day and age. But do try to print some real paper copies and then scan the prints. I'm amazed by the sharpness and powerful colors of this film in 6x9. It's best for outdoor, landscape and buildings. Be sure to have enough light if you want the colors to "sparkle".
You'd looooove to shoot that bridge with the Fuji Superia 100 - very fine grain, highly saturated greens and blues but not reds, no red / purple tint and so on... oh, wait...that film is discontinued. F***...
As another person has posted re: just purchased. I can go one further, I am new to the med format and just loaded my 2nd roll ever...Ektar 100. I honestly don’t expect much, so I won’t take it personally. Enjoy videos.
It would have been cool to see you create a panorama and stitch it together in photoshop at the Bixby Canyon Bridge (the lower area you were at). I’m inspired to go there now. 😄
Good video. I basically agree with you when it comes to the properties of Ektar. Saturation, reddish. I could make good use of this in the rain forests of Central and South America. Red was mainly localized in flowers or other parts of plants. They really stood out. Perfect film almost. The only trouble was the ISO of 100. Very slow for hand held 6x6. Because of its special character, Ektar can be great and bad, depending on the subject. Simply not « one size fits all ».
How are you scanning the ektar? if you look at the curves published from kodak, it should NOT have a heavy red cast. If you have a linear raw scan on the film (still in its inverted state), I would love to play with it and show you what I mean. Ektar doesn't have the same strong orange bast as other color negs. This is usually what makes lab scanned ektar photos more red than they are supposed to be.
Heya King, got a quick question for ya. Have you de-yellowed your 105 yet? I've had the famous pentax yellowing on my SMC glass. Turns out you can de-yellow them super easy if you have an LED video light. UV lights work fine too. I was able to de-yellow mine with a godox SL60W at half power using tin foil as a reflector behind the lens. 12 hrs, then flip and go another 12 hrs. Worked wonders to clean up that yellowed look. Not sure if the 105 you got has thorium baked into the glass, but if it does, that would clean it right up. Cheers King!
Ektar is definitely NOT for overcast days. It’s my favourite C-41 emulsion for scenics, landscapes, trains, ships and boats, river scenes, seashore, etc.; I also use it street photography with good results.
Definitely true about the red tones man... Sometimes I forget what stock I left in my 35mm camera and once took some portraits that turned out super red skin! I like it for this shoot and some other landscapes however... I'm super old though and grew up shooting so many way worse films back in my day, so in no way would I call this worst! Lol, but compared to lots of other modern stocks that people have now, I could see this one being controversial! Thanks for sharing!
Ektar is awesome but I would definitely avoid shooting it when it's overcast. I'm not sure why but it renders everything super nice when theres enough light. The overcast sky always makes it look muddy. (At least in my experience)
Love your videos learned alot in 2 days ,Im new to FIlm just finished my first film roll it was a free film kodak 200 color not sure. When I turned it in I was looking for all the flim rolls my friend recommended kodak gold, porta etc none D:, so I picked up the ektar 100 . I would say I would like it for all the hiking I been doing In Hawaii maybe I can finally get nice shots
That’s the beauty of film photography; you either like a certain stock, or you don’t. Personally I do like Ektar but it’s not the stock I shoot most in color.
But Ektar 100 is such a good film stock! In the right light and situation of course. One of my go to's on a bright sunny and colorful scenery. It needs a lot of light to really shine. You should check out Wendy Laurel's images. She's a pro at taking beautiful photos with Ektar 100.
Interesting take on Ektar. I have shot a few rolls and still need to scan them to see if I like it yet. I do like saturated colors in colorful landscapes though. For all the times I have been to Bixby Bridge I have never shot from the backside... dud! I may do that on my next trip in a couple weeks.
If he had blue skies rather than haze, those photos would have been stunning. Ektar handles color super well if it's there to capture. My best photos on Ektar were of my family in a flower garden or near brightly painted murals in the city.
I love shooting the Ektar in 120. For best results, I rate it at ISO 50 and my Rolleicord is (almost) always on a tripod. I've even shot it at sunrise and it came out great.
Didn't Kerouac stay in a cabin up that canyon under the bridge? Wrote about it in the novel 'Big Sur'. Re Ektar... pretend it's a Lomo colour film (same thing, no?). You may find you shoot it differently, with different expectations.
Yeah really interesting i prefer portra 400 on medium format but ektar 100 just has really fine grain and makes 35mm look great, over expose about a stop and skin tones do okay.
Ektar is not my favorite either . I really like Kodachrome. I haven't shot any color reversal film since starting back with film, but back in the 90's-2010 both were something I played around with. Never purchased any slide film unless the rolls were expired. Filco Superstore on Fulton Ave, Sacramento, CA would have a sale on gently expired film. So a roll of 35mm or 120 would cost anywhere from $3-7 as a posed to the $10-11 dollars. Also liked FujiChrome - Provia, Velvia, Astia, Sensia.
Your images with Ektar100 were great. 👍 I love it when using with 135 cameras format (nikon fe and minolta p). However, I don’t like it when using with medium format cameras.
It's the best for landscape...Specially on 120 film stock Jonathan! I need to get out here myself! Too busy working and not exploring when I was your age! Hahaha! Great views!
bro when where you there?! I am from East Tennessee and came and visited that area not even like 3/4 days ago was about to message you and ask if you were randomly in the area lol I was shooting with the Minolta X700 with some portra 400 at that bridge lol
kind of a dumb question though cause technically if you have these developed you shot it awhile back lol. dang. this area was beautiful to shoot though!
I love Ektar 100. It's my favorite film stock! I love the colors and flexibility in editing it. My local camera store just got a bunch in and I may have to pick up a few more rolls lol.
Ektar is gorgeous, has fine grain and true to experience saturation. Hipsters hate beautiful things: that's why distopian films like portra are so popular.
Ektar looks like it handles earthy tones better than most. In fact, I am planning on going to The Badlands this summer and I am thinking about bringing some Ektar with me because I think it will enhance the red tones in the rocks. #MinoltaGang
For ektar, I would definitely recommend overexposure, it can really bring out some of the colors and takes away some of the darkness in the shadows.
This. Also, shooting Ektar in an overcast day just won't cut it.
@@8andre3 I second this
64iso and ektar is like ying and yang
@@benberube9180 i had an Ektar overcast failure recently.
that is a piece of horrible advice. Ektar is a film that people tend not to understand. First and foremost Ektar has almost no latitude meaning you have to shoot it on point it won't accept overexposure or underexposure either. Ektar is just demanding and someone below said Ektar on an overcast day just won't cut. Ektar loves the sun.
Your least is one of my top favorite Films. I love Ektar 😍 Who is with me?
I am! Ektar is my favorite film! When done right, it has a sort of slide-like color profile. But still has some of the latitude of print film.
@@ganzonomy Exactly. Used correctly, Ektar is simply outstanding.
www.flickr.com/gp/ganzonomy/EE4R4x
Here's some of my latest shots with Ektar, in Central Park. I personally love it when it comes out right. In order to get the best from Ektar you need a really sunny day, with an almost cartoonishly blue sky to start with. I tend to shoot it at ISO 50 just to get some of the magenta out, and if I'm shooting in a camera that doesn't have a meter I'll use the mental note of Sunny 11, or even cloudy 8 depending on the intensity of sunlight. But it is possible to get some very nice shots with good saturation without having a magenta overload if you will.
Jason
@@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel
www.flickr.com/gp/ganzonomy/EE4R4x
What ektar does when you get it right. I love it! It also works better the larger the negative for me.
It depends on what you’re going to be shooting, but Ektar 100 is a fantastic emulsion. For me, it truly works as an all-around film stock except for portraiture. Even then, overexposed by one stop you can use it for portraits without much of an issue, and effectively mitigating the red hues.
In recent years, the problem with film photography has been that Portra films have become the trendy look, and when another film stock adds more realism to their images, it gets shunned. This is even more true when talking about slide film. Funnily enough, they’ve shot Portra as an all-purpose film stock for so long that they’ve now considered a portrait film as the de facto every day film.
Also, I find it baffling how he complained about the warmness of Ektar, but completely ignores the overly warm and yellowish tones of the Portra samples, and then goes even further by saying that they look “more realistic”. Portra has it’s place, but landscape ain’t it.
I feel like Ektar really is one of those polarizing stocks where people either love it or don’t care for it. Appreciate the insights!
Ektar brings the colour and contrast, a lot of people really love the toned down, flat, desaturated look. I don't vibe portra for this. It's good at the beach but when you get away from the shore it just looks hazy to me.
'no edit' doesn't exist with C41. It's just the standard point your scanner gives you. But if you say "it is really saturated", that just means your scanner-software makes it saturated.
Start seeing your C41 negatives as a RAW file, a light measurement. The final picture you end up depends on what you do with it.
My ektar100 mostly comes out pretty flat and more natural compared to what everybody says it does. Just invert it with less contrast!
I saw Ektar 100 and legit said, "Excuse me sir?" Good video man!
Same!
I personally love Ektar 100. More than I do Portra 400 or Ektachrome.
Ektar is a film that needs a lot of light to work right and I always rate it at ISO 50. Just gives that nice punch of color and contrast
www.flickr.com/gp/ganzonomy/EE4R4x
Here's some of my latest shots with Ektar, in Central Park. I personally love it when it comes out right. In order to get the best from Ektar you need a really sunny day, with an almost cartoonishly blue sky to start with. I tend to shoot it at ISO 50 just to get some of the magenta out, and if I'm shooting in a camera that doesn't have a meter I'll use the mental note of Sunny 11, or even cloudy 8 depending on the intensity of sunlight. But it is possible to get some very nice shots with good saturation without having a magenta overload if you will.
Jason
Going to try Ektar at 50 next time. Thanks chief 👌🏻
@@KingJvpes you're very welcome. Give it a shot at 50, and see what happens. One thing with ektar is that the bigger the negative, the better it performs for me. 35mm is okay, but it really comes into its own at 6*7 and 6*9. At those sizes, it's my favorite color film to shoot with.
@@KingJvpes sure, dude!
@@ganzonomy amazing. Bright sunny days and overcast days are the BEST
You're a braver man than me. I thought about going down to the spot you were shooting from, but chickened out half way down and ran back up to the street. You weren't kidding about making it down without dying - that's at least a 100 foot drop.
Thanks for sharing.
My man is really walking along a cliff without a camera strap on a 6x7 of all things 🙃
Always always expose ektar100 at ISO50 or even ISO25 and develop at box speed. The film works wonders with highlight detail and color rendition, moreso than Portra.
I’ve noticed that Ektar 100 doesn’t work for most avarage landscape shots without exposing it properly or generally avarage cliche film shots of California, but, it works beautifully for more “professional” work, for example a well thought-out baroque period inspired frame, like something out of a Caravaggio painting, it’s uncanny, what it can do.
If anyone knows what I’m talking about I urge you to try it because it’s amazing how well it renders such lighting, color, and shadows.
Of course, this film is for professionals, not yoyo's like king jokes.
I get that portra 400 is nice and technically a "perfect" film stock, but man... it is so overused, you see and hear about it everywhere in the analog community. Honestly i'm bored of the "portra look".
Awesome images dude!! I’m surprised you don’t like Ektar that much! I have really loved the results I’ve gotten from Ektar!
I hope you were able to see more of Big Sur that day, or at least get to go back on a sunny day. There’s so much to see there!
You definitely shot in the wrong light for Ektar. It’s best on a bright sunny day, I also meter it at 50 too. For some reason I love Ektar in 120 but not in 35mm🤷♀️
When you meter at 50 do you still process the film as if it were shot at 100?
@@nikibaron yes process the film at 100
I LOOOOOVE EKTAR! It’s one of my favourite film stocks!
What's up with your audio??? Enjoyed the video even though I couldn't hear anything you were saying. Ektar is my FAVORITE color stock it *is* heavy on saturation but if you pull it to 50 ISO you get some really nice contrast. I don't think it's great for landscape or portraits and is better suited to images that are going to have a lot of bright colors. Think farmers markets, neon signs... places where you want the bright colors to pop. That's where it really shines.
I just bought some ektar, and that title made me just say bruh😭
It’s not for me, but it could be for you! Give it a shot :)
Me too. Got my very first roll a few days ago.
just make sure to meter correctly and you'll be fine
you'll be fine. Use it more than 2 times to fully grasp whether you like it or not.
Highly, highly recommend you take a roll of Ektar 100 if you go to a tropical location with lots of sun. I got my roll back and it was hyper-saturated with this insane water hue that was to die for.
Just a rip for editing . Don't make the music any louder than your voice because I found myself turning down the volume when the music started
Pro image 100 is perfect for my film needs. Its like Ektar and Portra combined!
Pro image is amazing
I really like the photos you shot with Ektar, also its high saturation gave the scene a dramatic touch wich really suits the subject as well as the overcast weather. I even like them more than the portra photos wich almost seems a bit dull in comparison.
I like Ektar for darkroom prints. You can get pretty stunning colours from it. But it's a pain in the ass for scanning! Always get that super strong blue cast in the shadows no matter what I do.
I think the philosophy of Ektar is it's the color negative that performs most like color positive slide film. Deep blacks, rich saturation, high contrast, little apparent grain. The 4x5 images I've made with it are some of my favorite ever.
Key with Ektar is to shoot it in bright light. Overcast definitely isn't best, but if you have a sunny day, it's a go. ⅓ stop overexposure and you're there 🔥
I may be wrong but it seems like ektar 120 looks best in bright sunlight otherwise for overcast days you should overexpose it a bit.
I recently picked up 3 rolls of Ektar and shot a roll on a family walk exposed at ISO50. Faces came out like orange tomatoes (it was a bit cold so people were rosy but JEEZE), and the green foliage was so saturated it was distracting. I also found the shadows dropped off too quickly, but the highlights rolled out nicely. I agree with you it's not a stock for people photos. Not sure when I'll shoot the other two rolls. not soon.
First, I have a shirt exactly like your sweater. Second, I was watching someone else talk about how it works well for portraits for people of color. I thought, well, I'm of color, cool. I literally saw your video title right when I thought that and now here I am confused again.
I've just used two rolls of Ektar and really liked it. I shot one roll at ISO50 and one at 100 (50 from now on). I would never use it for portraits, best for landscapes. I also shot both rolls on bright sunny days, which I think is where the difference is made (same with Portra in my personal experience).
Why wouldn’t you use it for portraits?
Missed out on shooting in the sun! I wouldn't use ektar for a dull day like that
For it being an over cast daytime ektar gave it a nice tone it gives me an idea to shoot it and try it out
Appreciate your viewpoint, but I grew up shooting B&W and Kodachrome -- and reading National Geographic -- so I am used to the saturated/warm look of Kodachrome, which Ektar 100 is close to. To my eye, yes, the Ektar shots pushed the warm tones beyond the colors in the video. But I loved the teal/blue from the water in those shots. And the Potra 400 seemed a bit too mid-toned and washed out to me. But that's just me! Now even though back in the day film wasn't scanned and editing on a computer before printing/publishing -- there was a lot of color control that could be done in the printing/publishing process. A lot of Nat Geo shots of people, mostly shot on Kodachrome, were flattened in the publishing process to avoid too warm Caucasian skin tones. And if I am shooting Ektar 100 with just a mixed bag of subjects, in post-processing my scans, I can tame the too-warm skin tones and still retain some of the color punch in the clothing/background. But we all see things in our own ways, our history with film/photography has a big influence, and that's what's awesome. I cannot fault your shots on either roll, because it was your eye and your equipment, and what you produced -- I appreciate it for all the work you went to -- like almost falling off a cliff into the ocean!!!! Oh -- and if you have any Ektar 100 lying around that you probably won't use, you can just send it my way....... 🙂
Ektar looks best in a lot of sun. I think the camera lens also makes a difference. Also, was that hike mom approved? 😅
I'd rather pay $25/roll for Ektar than shoot Ektachrome for free. New Ektachrome is so flat & is so hit/miss depending on batch. Ektar comes alive at 64 ASA or 50 ASA. I don't understand why so many people love Ektachrome but will hate on Ektar.
I know that it's easier to scan the negatives and work on them in this day and age. But do try to print some real paper copies and then scan the prints.
I'm amazed by the sharpness and powerful colors of this film in 6x9. It's best for outdoor, landscape and buildings. Be sure to have enough light if you want the colors to "sparkle".
You'd looooove to shoot that bridge with the Fuji Superia 100 - very fine grain, highly saturated greens and blues but not reds, no red / purple tint and so on... oh, wait...that film is discontinued. F***...
As another person has posted re: just purchased. I can go one further, I am new to the med format and just loaded my 2nd roll ever...Ektar 100.
I honestly don’t expect much, so I won’t take it personally. Enjoy videos.
It would have been cool to see you create a panorama and stitch it together in photoshop at the Bixby Canyon Bridge (the lower area you were at). I’m inspired to go there now. 😄
Good video. I basically agree with you when it comes to the properties of Ektar. Saturation, reddish. I could make good use of this in the rain forests of Central and South America. Red was mainly localized in flowers or other parts of plants. They really stood out. Perfect film almost. The only trouble was the ISO of 100. Very slow for hand held 6x6. Because of its special character, Ektar can be great and bad, depending on the subject. Simply not « one size fits all ».
Most definitely a landscape film. It's also good in a pinch for portraits and just tone down the saturation in post.
That Portra shot with the red van on the bridge is dope
LEAST favorite?! What?!
How are you scanning the ektar? if you look at the curves published from kodak, it should NOT have a heavy red cast. If you have a linear raw scan on the film (still in its inverted state), I would love to play with it and show you what I mean. Ektar doesn't have the same strong orange bast as other color negs. This is usually what makes lab scanned ektar photos more red than they are supposed to be.
My buddy droped his tackle box halfway down the trail it didn't stop till the bottom in pieces and empty.
love the music. who is it
1:53 "I would only like to use it.." and then proceed to describe the ideal use case for ektar 100 :)
Heya King, got a quick question for ya. Have you de-yellowed your 105 yet? I've had the famous pentax yellowing on my SMC glass. Turns out you can de-yellow them super easy if you have an LED video light. UV lights work fine too. I was able to de-yellow mine with a godox SL60W at half power using tin foil as a reflector behind the lens. 12 hrs, then flip and go another 12 hrs. Worked wonders to clean up that yellowed look. Not sure if the 105 you got has thorium baked into the glass, but if it does, that would clean it right up.
Cheers King!
What's the name of the song when you took the first two pictures side by side
That was def poison oak in your face when you said "hope this isn't poison oak" lol.
i absolutely love ektar, great saturation and have pushed it up to 800 with great results😊
Ektar is definitely NOT for overcast days. It’s my favourite C-41 emulsion for scenics, landscapes, trains, ships and boats, river scenes, seashore, etc.; I also use it street photography with good results.
Definitely true about the red tones man... Sometimes I forget what stock I left in my 35mm camera and once took some portraits that turned out super red skin! I like it for this shoot and some other landscapes however... I'm super old though and grew up shooting so many way worse films back in my day, so in no way would I call this worst! Lol, but compared to lots of other modern stocks that people have now, I could see this one being controversial! Thanks for sharing!
Ektar is awesome but I would definitely avoid shooting it when it's overcast. I'm not sure why but it renders everything super nice when theres enough light. The overcast sky always makes it look muddy. (At least in my experience)
Love your videos learned alot in 2 days ,Im new to FIlm just finished my first film roll it was a free film kodak 200 color not sure. When I turned it in I was looking for all the flim rolls my friend recommended kodak gold, porta etc none D:, so I picked up the ektar 100 . I would say I would like it for all the hiking I been doing In Hawaii maybe I can finally get nice shots
That’s the beauty of film photography; you either like a certain stock, or you don’t. Personally I do like Ektar but it’s not the stock I shoot most in color.
Ektar is wonderful film if you shoot it on a sunny day. It likes light. I live in sunny Arizona and this film works fantastic.
bought a roll expressly for my trip to sedona next week!
@@carterc9171 Just make sure if your subject is backlit that you over expose one or two stops. the stuff likes light. Have fun.
But Ektar 100 is such a good film stock! In the right light and situation of course. One of my go to's on a bright sunny and colorful scenery. It needs a lot of light to really shine. You should check out Wendy Laurel's images. She's a pro at taking beautiful photos with Ektar 100.
It's like Fuji Xperia, just overexpose it a couple of stops and it's phenomenal.
I love Ektar!! Was this video brought to us by Pfuji?
Interesting take on Ektar. I have shot a few rolls and still need to scan them to see if I like it yet. I do like saturated colors in colorful landscapes though. For all the times I have been to Bixby Bridge I have never shot from the backside... dud! I may do that on my next trip in a couple weeks.
If he had blue skies rather than haze, those photos would have been stunning. Ektar handles color super well if it's there to capture. My best photos on Ektar were of my family in a flower garden or near brightly painted murals in the city.
Have you ever shot darker skin tones with this film? I’m curious the red tones would flattering for those complexions. 🤔
I love shooting the Ektar in 120. For best results, I rate it at ISO 50 and my Rolleicord is (almost) always on a tripod. I've even shot it at sunrise and it came out great.
I liked the images you had created. I see what you meant about the red tones and vibrant colors but I thought they worked.
Didn't Kerouac stay in a cabin up that canyon under the bridge? Wrote about it in the novel 'Big Sur'. Re Ektar... pretend it's a Lomo colour film (same thing, no?). You may find you shoot it differently, with different expectations.
At this point film is becoming so rare and expensive.....anything I get I make it work. Currently using Kodak color plus 200
Haha great, I’m literally rolling up my first roll of Ektar 100
Made your pick in the Film Feb contest?
Is this the Oregon coast?
Yeah really interesting i prefer portra 400 on medium format but ektar 100 just has really fine grain and makes 35mm look great, over expose about a stop and skin tones do okay.
Mic volume is so low. That lo-fi music blasts then can't hear what you're saying
Ektar is not my favorite either . I really like Kodachrome. I haven't shot any color reversal film since starting back with film, but back in the 90's-2010 both were something I played around with. Never purchased any slide film unless the rolls were expired. Filco Superstore on Fulton Ave, Sacramento, CA would have a sale on gently expired film. So a roll of 35mm or 120 would cost anywhere from $3-7 as a posed to the $10-11 dollars. Also liked FujiChrome - Provia, Velvia, Astia, Sensia.
Oh you hating on my favorite stock? It’s ok, I can respect that
Ektar is light hungry, doesn’t work well on overcast scenes because it’s very sensitive to blue.
Your images with Ektar100 were great. 👍
I love it when using with 135 cameras format (nikon fe and minolta p). However, I don’t like it when using with medium format cameras.
It's the best for landscape...Specially on 120 film stock Jonathan! I need to get out here myself! Too busy working and not exploring when I was your age! Hahaha! Great views!
Try out ektar on the streets +1 stop man, insane colors, check out the results from sir robin in his latest vids
chinatown sf would be cool, with the reds of the buildings/lanterns and so on!
bro when where you there?! I am from East Tennessee and came and visited that area not even like 3/4 days ago was about to message you and ask if you were randomly in the area lol I was shooting with the Minolta X700 with some portra 400 at that bridge lol
kind of a dumb question though cause technically if you have these developed you shot it awhile back lol. dang. this area was beautiful to shoot though!
I love Ektar 100. It's my favorite film stock! I love the colors and flexibility in editing it. My local camera store just got a bunch in and I may have to pick up a few more rolls lol.
Try overexposing the film! Shooting it at 50 or even 25 can make it look a lot more "natural" looking and less saturated
You were shooting 100 speed film when it should been more like 400 or 800
Over exposed Ektar 100 (carefully tho) has brighter colours and a looks more spectacular.
Yes Sur.
Bro shoot it at night, it’s fucking amazing
Just watching this makes me feel sick of the height 😅. But as usual, I love your videos and photos. I learn a lot from it.
Ektar for the street, Portra for the beach.
maybe shoot digital bro, for a neat realistic and dull output ;)
I love ektar so so much more then Portra. I find the dreamy flat Portra look to be really boring. Punchy colors are great man
The SUN was missing. Thanks for your video.
Ektar is gorgeous, has fine grain and true to experience saturation. Hipsters hate beautiful things: that's why distopian films like portra are so popular.
Hmmm... commented earlier, but it appears YT immediately deleted it.
Ektar is my #1 FAVORITE! Love Ektar!
However, IF your white balance is off!, Ektar will BOLDLY PROCLAIM your white balance ERRORS!
I always shoot Ektar at 64. I likes the extra light.
Ektar looks like it handles earthy tones better than most. In fact, I am planning on going to The Badlands this summer and I am thinking about bringing some Ektar with me because I think it will enhance the red tones in the rocks.
#MinoltaGang
Do it. Ektar would be legit sick with the badlands.
We can still be friends, since you like coffee 🙂
😝😝 miss you bro!! Still have your coffee print up on my wall
so dope seeing this as a local lol
We need to stop debating this film: either use it or don’t
Ok
Ektar is better in sunlight.
My man space bar stuck
Ektar the GOAT.
Amazing photos 📷 👍🏻
Love your vids man ❤️❤️