Kodak Ektar might be the most
sophisticated color neg film we have ever seen, in my (and also others) view.
It was also the latest film emulsion being introduced (in 2008). No surprise
then if it incorporates very advanced features, borrowed mostly from the movie
film industry (2-electron sensitization from Kodak Vision films, for example).
In the 1990's we could only dream about such a (ISO 100) film. While I find
Ektar amazing, I never really made up my mind about it. Why? Because in some
respects it just »looks too good« to me. Yes, I do really like saturated,
contrasty films, but...Ektar's look sometimes almost reminds me of a (high-end)
digital photo-it's too "polished" in my eyes. For some people (or circumstances)
that might be a good thing, while for some not. Yes, all I have been dealing up
to now were scanned negatives (or Frontier-made prints, for that matter). Yes,
scanning Ektar is a breeze. I just think I need to make a decent optical print
from an Ektar negative to get a fair assessment-hopefully soon...That's the
story when your Ektar rolls undergo the standard C-41 processing. But what
happens when you push- or cross-process your Ektar rolls? Let's find it out!
Here we have 3 remarkable examples of cross- and push-processed Ektar from
Hannah, Will and Leo.
Hannah crossprocessed her Ektar
at home in E6 chemistry. The colors are a bit more muted, yet still rich,
there's a bit of bluish cast there, but nothing exaggerated. Probably, a light warming
filter will compensate the color cast (if you wish so). But most importantly,
the film gets an entirely new look. To me, it looks much like the old
trichromie photos. It's like we have a brand new slide film to choose from-who did ever say Kodak discontinued all slide films ? -:)
 |
| Hannah's Ektar processed in E6. Image retrieved from her photostream on Flickr.. |
 |
| Leo's 3-stop push-processed Ektar in C-41. Image retrieved from his photostream on Flickr |
Will and Leo, on the other hand,
push-processed Ektar in C-41 for 2 and 3 stops (ISO 400 and 800), respectively.
Yes, these negatives inevitably pick up in contrast (corrected after scanning),
but their color rendition changes very much as well. In fact, it's like you're
dealing with a completely different (uknown?) color-neg film! Another good
thing is, graininess remains reasonable. Will's photos remind me of earlier
Kodachrome versions, while those of Leo render a more pastel-like color
palette. I shall thank all 3 contributors to gave me the opportunity to show a
side-by-side comparison of different processing versions of Ektar. It's just
amazing how a "vintage" look you
can get from the most modern film! Ektar is definitely a film with
split-personality and it's worth to try all the processing variants shown (and
perhaps some more)!
Silver regards
Mitja
Mitja
Thx for this great post! Very inspiring!
ReplyDeleteI just experimented with cross-processing Ektar, some city night shots and a McBeth - Reflection Density chart. When exposed at 100 the colors are almost as accurate as the old Kodak Chrome films, the contrast is a bit harder, lots of black on the Density Chart. Overexposing it 1/2 stop adds some shadow detail without loosing hightlight, but the color starts to shift. For the night shots the dramatic color shifts really added an artistic touch, made the desired subject balanced about as good as chrome night shots and the highlights and shadows took on saturated colors, much more dramatically from similar shots on chrome. If you work Ektar right it is a fabulous substitute for the old Kodak Chrome filims, and you can get results that are very dramatic compared to the existing chrome films, very saturated colors that can shift but not in a bad way.
ReplyDelete