This is part 2 of my review of the new Kodak Ektar 100 film- click HERE to read part one. In this test I decided to compare the same scene photographed side by side, one shot with the new Kodak Ektar 100 and one with Kodak 100UC.
Camera: 2 Olympus XA cameras both just calibrated and shot at F8, focused at infinity.
Film: Kodak Ektar 100 rated at box speed (100) and Kodak 100UC also rated at box speed (100).
Scanned on an Imacon scanner (dry) at 3000 PPI so around a 68MB 16 Bit RGB file.
Color Space: sRGB
No sharpening applied in the scan or in Photoshop. All scanner settings were set for Standard RGB Negative with full auto applied.
In Photoshop only AUTO settings were used (levels, contrast and color)- no additional image manipulation was applied. Test files were then down sampled to 8 Bit and reduced to 10″ x 6.5″ for faster download- saved as a JPEG, Level 10.
Please only download the sample files if you have a high speed internet connection as they are around 3MB each compressed.
The Kodak 100 UC has a better exposure latitude, especially at box speed than Ektar 100 does but the grain is a bit more pronounced and the color is somewhat muted whereas the new Kodak Ektar 100 at box speed is a bit thin but has nice saturated colors and somewhat finer grain. Exposing the new Kodak Ektar at an EI of 50/ 64 will make this film very hard to beat.
Overall both films are quite nice but I tend to like the look of the Ektar best, especially when exposed at an EI of 50/ 64. I find scanning the new Kodak Ektar film quite easy and possible enlargements from a good sharp capture lens and a good quality scanner with a bit of work in Photoshop can produce some amazing quality prints even at sizes up to say 20″ x 30″… remember this is 35mm!
Note: If you want to try this film be sure to rate it at an EI of 50/ 64 otherwise your shadows will be thin and you will not be seeing all that is possible from this new offering. Yes, I like this film!
Please note that the sample files are for personal use only and are Copyright Stephen Schaub, 2009.