Can't say I've found the same to be true with scanning 120 negative film. I've never been disappointed with ink jet prints made from scanned negatives. In fact, just the opposite.
I've always been a fan of Reala, which should be quite mild compared to the new Ektar. Reala seems to have an almost unlimited amount of detail and contrast when post processed accordingly. That said, I did like the old Ektar's, and still have quite a few rolls of Ektar 25 sleeping in the fridge.
I'm a little concerned that the contrast and saturation of the new Ektar 100 might be too much from what the advertising is advocating.
I do plan to buy a brick of Ektar 100 for landscape work with my 40mm lens, where it loses its wide edge with the CFV.
However, I have a feeling I might still be resorting back to Reala for negative shooting. Reala is very easy to scan, and yields much detail, sharpness, and contrast if you know your way around good post processing. Whether or not Ektar 100 can provide the same is yet to be seen.
It's much easier, in my opinion, to boost a somewhat flat film than it is to tame a high contrasty, super-saturated film. When it comes to accutance or sharpness, I don't see how any film can get any sharper than my Reala prints. Who knows, maybe Ektar 100 will raise the bar.
Michael H. Cothran
