Kodak Ektar 100 Film Stock Review - Why not just buy Portra 160? 

The mountain peak with the clouds parted above it... bangs! Lovely shot brother.

Your videos are super educational and entertaining, huge fan of what you're doing! Melbourne Aus is in lockdown currently so I'm travelling the world vicariously through your videos lol

I also got a lot of magenta in my roll as well. Not one of my favorite rolls but I'd probably give it another shot. Beautiful photos!!

How did i not know about your channel! Subbed! Great to find another good film channel

Ektar is the hardest color negative film to scan right in my experience. I had a hard time on the epson V850 and Silver Fast. It scans beautifully with the Pakon F135 and the Noritsu HS-1800- I have used both and being really pleased with the results- I need to use correct developing temperature, time and chemicals in order to get acceptable results form Ektar.. I wouldn't ever use a press kit on Ektar, specially when it has been used before. I process it with fresh Kodak Flexicolor C41 chemicals (bleach and fix separated) on a Jobo or Filmomat processor for consistency. I would also shoot portra if I didn't have access to any of the above or a lab, así it is also more forgiving than Ektar in tricky lighting and exposure. - Keep the videos coming bro! I really enjoy them.

Some great photos there! 👍🏻 Good review. Thanks.

Some great shots there man

Love Portra when I shot weddings but tried Ektar 120 100 couple of months ago for landscapes and I really can’t fault it I’m constantly impressed with this film. I’ve never noticed the colour cast at all although I get the negs developed and scanned professionally as I also don’t do prints as I don’t have space in the van🚐😆 nice review mate gotta love the Lake District my fave is Ullswater 📷❤️

Shot a can of this in 35mm just recently, well there 6 frames left. Loaded in an eos600. In terms of camera: Trying auto after limiting myself to a fixed lens half frame medium format camera from that only has 1/50 and B... and a semi broken Zenit-E that chewed most of a roll the first time I used it. Really nice rundown of the stock, man. Much appreciated.

Hey my dude! Great photos! Are you based in New York? Because that photo of the blue car was in front of the Apple store I worked at in Williamsburg Brooklyn.

From what I have seen stick with porta 160.You gut feeling says alot.With Ektar and its magenta problem could be a chemical issues. Whether its the film or processing the true way is to compare the different batches of film and see if it was an anomaly with that batch.You work with them alot so you can see differences between the two.Good Video 🙂😎

Yep, I’ve got magenta tones on Ektar when it’s under exposed. I’ve shot a roll at 400 and forgot to push develop. Got images but they did have a strong color cast. That’s kinda on the extreme end, but similar results.

Your results from Ektar 100 looked beautiful Ribs! I would try scanning them on FujiFilm SP3000 Frontier scanner for different results! I shoot this film a lot and if you are ever curious on the different results in this film... Send the negatives to me and I will scan them on the FujiFilm SP3000 Frontier so that you can see if you would like it better brother! The only charge would be the mailing of the film to me and scanning would be on me! DM me if you are interested! Love the results as per usual my friend! Keep in mind that shooting landscape photography using Ektar 100 (120 film) will yield better results than your standard 35mm film roll. I feel that the 120 will give you better dynamic range in your color tones and depending on your subject matter... Ofter warmer tones but judging on the surrounding landscape with luscious green tones I would have used FujiFilm Pro 400H.

Very cool. I shot a roll at my local gardens but haven't had it developed yet. Two more rolls on the way for some landscapes in the next couple of weeks. I'm still new to film so do you recommend I just over expose by one stop? Perhaps I should bracket right on and +1 stop?

Enjoyed this one bro

I love the way it renders on older uncoated lenses - every shot feels like a slide from the 70s! BUT, I've definitely noticed the magenta cast more when underexposed on those older lenses. Could that be the issue you had?

Hey man, this is my favourite color neg film (love Portra 160 also) and I generally don't get that color cast in my shots, if anything there's sometimes a little blue cast, or oversaturated reds. It's usually more punchy than these examples for me. I don't necessarily think it's your process though, as Ektar is notoriously hard to scan! especially if you're doing it yourself.

Ektar is good if you really want to saturate reds and yellows and pinks. I ran this film through an old Kodak pony camera this spring. I took a picture of a stone Viaduct at sunset. That was about a 6 second exposure and the magenta really creeped in on the gray stone causing it to look more Rose Colored. If you're shooting the sunset itself you can really take advantage of the saturation. I had my film developed by a lab.

Have a roll of Ektar 100 in my closet. Will probably shoot it with my Minox GT. This is in my line of first rolls of films since 2002. What camera did you use (did I miss out on something when I got my cup of coffee?) Was it the Isolette?

I found out that the purple/blueish cast in the shadow comes from underexposure. Read somewhere that when not shot in direct sunlight, its more of a 50 iso film. So I suggest to overexpose this film by 2 stops and it will be completely different picture. the downside is that you need a tripod :) NLP struggles with this film. It does not scan easily as Portra. Frontier S-3000 and Nortitsu 1800 does not have problem color balancing this film. Try e good scanner with it.

Very informative 👍

Tbh i had the opposite experience shooting with ektar, but i also shot it on a really, really sunny day. Also a lot of great pictures I see on ektar are very sunny, so maybe its more of the occasion rather than the film. I like the hues in your photos though. I don't see any issues. If I took them I'd be hyped about it.

Have you ever shot some portraiture on it? I heard that it is particularly good for darker skin tones

Ektar definitely has a magenta cast if you underexpose it. It also has much more saturated colours which is another reason it is popular for landscapes. It can really make colours pop. I used to shoot alot of it years ago and here in Canada it used to be the cheapest pro film you could buy for colour film. I don't shoot much colour film anymore so I haven't used it much recently but Kodak prices keep going up here.

I think this film is good for doing straight prints, because of the saturation with the colors. It makes it easy to make a print without having to do much editing unlike portra which is a more editing friendly film.

Hi there, it's said that under the digital process, ektar renders smoother than portra while the latter resolves better, just wondering what do you think about it in terms of darkroom workflow?

we need to go hiking next time!! forget the city haha!!

I like this film stock, I've used it in the past but I've never had a magenta cast. I've used it also on medium format, I like the fine grain.

I definitely had a strong magenta cast in my images when i shot with this film stock. Ektar is between $15-20 in Canada.

Love Ektar. Only negative what i heard is it brings out red in portraits, which might not be do flattering. Havent seent it myself, shooting in sunlight. And yes, with sharp lenses it gets super crisp

I have definitely noticed that Ektar is not great for overcast days. It's amaaaazing in sunlight though. One of my favorites.

The magenta caste is what put me off Ektar but I will try it again.

I LOVE Ektar 100. It’s got the most beautiful colours. I love it for just my general use film

Portra 160 has beautiful colours when there is a lot of light. With overcast the pictures tend to be desaturated. This is weakness of many colour negative films and is an area where Ektar shines. No matter if you have fog, overcast, etc., the colours will always be excellent. With the autumn colours there is also no match. They are beautiful with Ektar. For city landscapes I prefer Portra (Ektar goes sometimes over the top) and I would never use Ektar for Portraits because of its weird skin tones.

Ektar is my go to emulsion, I do tend to shoot it in bright sunlight with lots of bright colours so that's probably why I like the results BUT I can definitely see why it might not be to everyone's taste

i just bought 10 rolls of Ektar for some landscape shots in Cornwall soon...hope it turns out good!!! I did just burn a roll for shots of my daughter and have to say the colours pop and are full of contrast so maybe it's a film that needs strong colours to shine. Perhaps Autumn is where this film could come to life

I also found ektar to have pinkish tones. Especially in skin tones it's very hard to correct for them

NLP has issues with Ektar, it’s a known thing. I would recommend either using the LUTs provided by Nate (or use the beta) or try out something like Grain2Pixel which is free :)

I haven't had much experience with Ektar, but it seems it is a highly saturated and contrasty film compared to Portra. I think you will find the film's colour cast on overcast days is that the colour temperature is not daylight balanced. Next time you photograph on an overcast day, try using a slight warming filter, such as the 81series of filters, EG 81b 81c. Same applies for working in the shade, regardless of film stock.

How do your prints look Streight from the developer?

Ektar is a high saturation, higher contrast film. Porta 160, aand in general, is a low contrast, low saturation film, designed for portrait work (dah!). Why do many folks, particularly on YT, prefer Porta? Because you can deviate from the technical norms of film shooting and make corrections in contrast and color balance when digital processing the images more easily with Porta. Porta is universal with all those "one stop over box speed" guys who actually plan to abuse their film. I suppose in that context, Porta is "better". For the minority who shoot film to make wet prints in a darkroom, both films work well because you have very little control over contrast or saturation when printing with that technology. You have to match the film characteristics to the subject. That also answers the question,"why does Kodak make both films".

Shot a roll of 135mm Ektar 100. Expired 5 years. Still got the magenta even rated it as 50.

Hm... In Denmark, Ektar is 7,89 pounds a roll, while portra 160 is 10,43 pounds a roll. Nice pictures you made!

I personally don't use NLP because it doesn't give accurate colours of I compare them to my prints. silverfast's negafix is a million times better. I have compared them side by side with some really high resolution scans and to get to the colours I like NLP takes a lot of work after scanning, while with silverfast it's just so much faster and much more accurate

I kinda agree. It’s pro-level film stock but it’s not actually that versatile. It’s pretty unusable for portraits. Makes skin tones look weirdly red.

Ektar is no good on overcast days, try shooting it in golden hour sunlight, then its amazing. Very tricky film.

Lake district 😍

Personally I am bit mixed with Portra but again it depends what for. Street photos Ektar portraits hmm portra but I prefer a Fuji C200 or Ektachrome. I somehow think portra makes people look pale and a bit sick 😂😂😂😂

Maybe it's the scanner and software at fault and not the film.

Try shooting Ektar 100 during sunset or sunrise. I think you might change your mind!

Gotta be honest, your corrected images feel too green. I'll take the magenta over green any day of the week.

Lets talk about how bad film photography is for the environment

I think it's especially great with reds and greens. I love it for cityscapes and wide street scenes. But it's definitely a fair question whether its worth getting over Portra 160. I tend to keep Ektar in the fridge and occasionally grab a roll for casual shooting.