Craig Sander , Nov 01, 2008; 08:08 p.m.
I went out to Samy's Camera in Santa Ana last night and picked up two rolls.
It was sunny down in San Diego, so I went down there and shot one roll almost entirely at the San Diego Mission.
The film is good.
Yes it has less grain than any other negative film I've seen, but it just beats out UC100 by a hair.
The color is saturated, but not much more than 160VC...at least that I could tell.
The speed? Thats the big issue I had with this film. I would easily rate this film at 80 or even 50. Shooting it
at 100 with my brothers recently serviced Canon F-1, with a 50mm f1.4 lens, using a tripod with the camera on
self timer, my shots leaned slightly towards the dark side. The best ones were the "overexposed" prints.
The underexposed test shots were just like you would expect. Dark and murky.
I think its a good film, but I don't know if I would need to shoot this being that my results make it half the
speed as 160VC.
Of course, I used to get my best shots of 160VC shooting it at 100. So go figure.
Les Sarile 
, Nov 01, 2008; 08:15 p.m.
How are you judging the results?
Craig Sander , Nov 01, 2008; 08:17 p.m.
Based on prints I have received from the same machine at the same store I've used for the last couple of years.
I realize its only ONE roll, but I've shot more than enough Gold 100, and 160VC in the last several years and I am quite familiar with those films.
Les Sarile , Nov 01, 2008; 08:23 p.m.
What size prints and what was the machine?
Craig Sander , Nov 01, 2008; 08:35 p.m.
Fuji Frontier something-or-other.
Prints were 4x6 so I could get a good look at the grain.
Here is a link to my Flickr page.
The Ektar 100 shots are the first 4 in my "collection".
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44301880@N00/
Les Sarile , Nov 01, 2008; 08:50 p.m.
Looks promising indeed!
Great looking pug too ;-)
Craig Sander , Nov 01, 2008; 09:05 p.m.
Thank you.
The film IS nice and I will definately shoot it again. I have an alternate shot of the mission that I will blow up to an 8x10 or larger, because I think it turned out really well ...which is unusual for me :)
John Shriver 
, Nov 01, 2008; 09:08 p.m.
I agree, an EI of 100 may be not be enough with this film. (See my posting an hour later than Craig's.) I certainly saw plenty of headroom in dense areas of the negatives, no odd color casts there, other than one sky that went white.
Arjun Mehra , Nov 01, 2008; 10:19 p.m.
Nice to read some impressions of this film. I've learned (today) that my local store has finally gotten its shipment of Ektar 100. I hope to try some soon.
Benny Spinoza 
, Nov 02, 2008; 02:54 p.m.
One really can't draw conclusions unless we know more about the scanning and printing process. Having it scanned
at a mass market facility (e.g. costco) will not do the film justice. In time, I plan to scan using SilverFast, and will
take pictures of a stepped grey card to create a custom film profile using the negafix tool of SilverFast. I look forward
to seeing other scans from do-it-yourselfers.
