Updated September 2026. This review was first published in 2021. I’ve updated the pricing and buying/developing information and expanded the Kodak Ektar 100 vs Kodak Gold 200 comparison. All of the sample photos are still from my original rolls.
Some of the links below are affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if you buy through them, at no extra cost to you.
Kodak Ektar 100 is a 100-speed color negative film with extremely fine grain, sharp detail, and some of the most saturated color you can get from Kodak’s current color-negative lineup.
For this review, I loaded a roll into my Nikon F3 and took it to the Wooden Shoe Tulip Festival in Woodburn, Oregon. If there was ever a setting built for Ektar, a field full of red, orange, yellow, pink, and purple tulips in bright spring light was probably it.
The short version is that I still really like what Ektar can do. But I also still don’t think it is the best Kodak film for most beginners or everyday shooting. It is slower, less forgiving in the way I personally shoot, and right now it costs noticeably more per roll than Kodak Gold 200.
If your priority is landscapes, travel, fine grain, and bold color in good light, Ektar can be incredible. If you want one roll you can leave in your camera and use in a wider range of situations, I would pick Gold 200 or Ultramax 400 first.
Kodak Ektar 100 at a glance
- Film type: Color negative, C-41 process
- ISO: 100
- Look: Very saturated color, high sharpness, extremely fine grain
- Best for: Landscapes, travel, outdoor photography, bright light, golden hour
- Biggest tradeoff: Less flexible for everyday changing-light shooting than Gold 200 or Ultramax 400
- My verdict: Excellent specialty film, but not the first Kodak stock I would recommend to a beginner
Kodak itself describes Ektar 100 as a daylight-balanced ISO 100 color-negative film with ultra-vivid color, exceptional sharpness, and its finest grain among current color-negative films. That lines up well with what I saw in these rolls.
Kodak Ektar 100 vs Kodak Gold 200
This is the comparison I think matters most for most people reading this review.
Both are warm Kodak color-negative films, but they behave differently enough that I would use them for different situations.
Ektar 100 gives me the punchier look. In my scans, the reds, oranges, greens, and blues feel more intense, and the grain is extremely fine. It is the film I would choose if I knew I was spending the whole day outside in good light and wanted the color itself to be part of the photograph.
Gold 200 is the easier everyday choice. It gives you an extra stop of speed, a warmer and slightly softer look in my experience, and Kodak specifically describes Gold as having broad exposure latitude. It is also substantially cheaper right now.
At the time of this refresh, Kodak’s own photo store listed a 36-exposure roll of Ektar 100 at about $15.49 and a 35mm roll of Gold 200 at about $8.99. B&H was in the same general range, with Ektar at about $16.99 for one 36-exposure roll and Gold 200 36-exposure film at about $25.99 for a three-pack. Prices change, but the gap is large enough that value is still part of my verdict.
One important note about the sample-photo comparison below: my Ektar and Gold examples were shot in different locations. Both were shot around golden hour, but this was not a controlled side-by-side test. I think the photos are useful for seeing the general look I got from each stock, but I would not treat the color difference as a lab test.
In my examples, the Ektar frame has much more color pop, especially in the orange tones. The Gold frame is warmer and a little flatter by comparison.
If I were choosing between them:
- Choose Ektar 100 for landscapes, travel, saturated color, and very fine grain in good light.
- Choose Gold 200 for everyday shooting, better value, more flexibility, and the classic warm Kodak look.
For a deeper look at Gold, see my Kodak Gold 200 review.
Why I still don’t think Ektar 100 is worth it for most beginners
My original review was pretty blunt about this, and my overall opinion has not changed much.
Ektar can produce some of my favorite Kodak colors when everything lines up. The problem is that I rarely shoot an entire roll in one perfect lighting condition. I might start outside in bright sun, walk into a shaded street, take a portrait, stop inside somewhere, and then finish the roll close to sunset.
That is where Gold 200 or Ultramax 400 makes more sense for me.
The other difference now is price. When I first wrote this review, I described Ektar as being around the mid-range of Kodak’s lineup. Today, the per-roll gap between Ektar and Gold is much harder to ignore.
PROS
- Extremely fine grain and sharp detail
- Beautiful saturated color in bright light
- Great fit for landscapes, travel, flowers, and outdoor scenes
- One of my favorite Kodak stocks around golden hour
CONS
- ISO 100 gives you less shutter-speed flexibility when the light drops
- In my own rolls, exposure mistakes became noticeable quickly, especially underexposure
- Can be trickier for portraits if the exposure and light are uneven
- Costs significantly more per roll than Gold 200 right now
Color
Color is the main reason I would buy Ektar 100 again.
Out of the Kodak films I have shot, Ektar gives me some of the strongest saturation. Reds, oranges, yellows, greens, blues, and pinks all have a lot of presence when the film is exposed well.
That is exactly why I liked taking it to the tulip festival. The scene already had huge blocks of color, and Ektar leaned into that rather than softening it.
To my eye, it is also the closest color-negative stock I have used to the punchy look people often associate with slide film. That is a visual comparison, not a claim that it behaves like slide film technically.
What happened when I missed exposure
One thing I liked about the original roll is that it gave me very clear examples of what happened when I did not nail the exposure.
In the better-exposed frame, the blue in Melissa’s dress stays vibrant and you can see the warm morning light coming through it. In the darker frame, most of that blue disappears and the color turns muddy.
The Silverton examples show the opposite problem. The properly exposed frame keeps the red-orange brick and green sign much more vivid. In the brighter frame, those colors lose some of the punch that makes me want to shoot Ektar in the first place.
That is why I try to expose Ektar carefully. If I am paying extra for the color, I want to actually get that color.
Film speed
Ektar 100 is an ISO 100 film, so compared with Gold 200 it is one stop slower, and compared with Ultramax 400 it is two stops slower.
That does not automatically make it a worse film. It just means you have fewer options when the light starts disappearing if you are hand-holding the camera.
Bright sunny days are easy. Cloudy days are still completely possible, but you may end up using wider apertures or slower shutter speeds. Indoors, I would want a lot of window light, a fast lens, a tripod, or some combination of those things.
The photo of Sushi next to the window is a good example of the kind of indoor situation where I could still make Ektar work.
Exposure latitude: what I would change from my original review
I want to correct one explanation from the original version of this article.
I used to write that Ektar had limited exposure latitude because it was ISO 100. That is too simplistic. Film speed and exposure latitude are not the same thing.
What I can say confidently from my own rolls is that Ektar felt less forgiving to me than the Kodak stocks I usually reach for. Underexposure gave me muddy color quickly, and too much exposure reduced some of the saturation I liked.
So I still shoot it more carefully than Gold, ColorPlus, Ultramax, or Portra. I just would not explain that difference by saying “ISO 100 equals low latitude.”
Beginner’s note: Exposure latitude is simply how much exposure error a film can tolerate while still giving you a usable result. It is separate from the ISO number printed on the box.
Grain and sharpness
This is where Ektar really earns its reputation.
Kodak markets Ektar 100 as its finest-grain color-negative film, and my scans match that description. The grain is very subtle, even in areas where I would normally notice texture first, such as skies, soft backgrounds, and shadows.
In my Mount Rainier Ultramax 400 example, the grain is much more visible in the sky and darker areas. In the Ektar sunrise frame, the image looks noticeably smoother.
That does not make one objectively better. Sometimes I like visible grain. But if I am shooting a landscape where I want small details and clean color transitions, I would take Ektar over Ultramax.
How I meter Kodak Ektar 100
Short version: I start at box speed, ISO 100, and pay close attention to the shadows and mid-tones.
For the tulip-field image in this article, I set the Nikon F3 to ASA 100 and used its internal light meter. I metered around the darker part of the tulip field because I did not want those shadows to go empty.
That gave the shadows enough light while still letting the bright sky run hotter.
My own preference with Ektar is to avoid meaningful underexposure. If I have to choose, I would rather give the film a little more light than too little, but I do not intentionally rate every roll at a different ISO. I start at 100 and meter the scene in front of me.
If your camera does not have a meter, a phone light-meter app is an easy way to get started. I have used one successfully, although I still like using a dedicated Sekonic meter when I have one with me.
Is Ektar 100 good for portraits?
You can absolutely shoot portraits on Ektar, and some of the photos in this review are portraits of Melissa.
I just would not make it my first choice if portraits were the main reason I was loading a roll.
In my experience, Ektar’s strong saturation can push skin tones more than I want when the exposure or lighting is uneven. If I am shooting people for most of a roll, I would rather use a film like Portra 400. If I want a cheaper Kodak option for a mix of people and everyday scenes, Gold 200 or ColorPlus 200 is easier for me.
Alternatives to Kodak Ektar 100
Kodak Gold 200
Gold is the first alternative I would look at. It is ISO 200, less expensive right now, and much easier for me to treat as an everyday walk-around film.
I still get warm Kodak color, but with a softer and less aggressively saturated look than Ektar in my scans.
Read the full Kodak Gold 200 review.
Kodak ColorPlus 200
ColorPlus is another 200-speed consumer Kodak film. I like it when I want a flatter, less saturated look than Ektar.
Read the full Kodak ColorPlus 200 review.
Kodak Ultramax 400
If the biggest problem with Ektar is speed, Ultramax is the obvious opposite direction. It is ISO 400, easier to use as the light changes, and still gives you the warm, saturated Kodak look.
The tradeoff is more visible grain.
Read my Kodak Ultramax 400 review.
Kodak Portra 400
Portra 400 is the one I would pick when portraits and skin tones matter most. It also gives you ISO 400 speed, which makes it much easier to use across changing light.
It costs more, so I would not call it the budget alternative. It is the “I care more about flexibility and people than maximum saturation” alternative.
Where to develop Kodak Ektar 100
Ektar 100 is standard C-41 color-negative film, so you do not need a specialty E-6 lab like you would for slide film.
If you are new to film, I still think having a good lab develop and scan your first rolls is the easiest way to start. It gives you a consistent baseline before you decide whether you want to get into home processing or scanning.
A few labs I have used or recommended in the past are:
Where to buy film
Film prices change enough now that I would compare a couple of stores before ordering.
Places I usually check include:
- B&H Photo
- Freestyle Photographic Supply
- Adorama
- Amazon
- Local camera and film stores
So, is Kodak Ektar 100 worth it?
Yes, if you are buying it for the thing it is actually great at.
Ektar 100 is still one of my favorite films for landscapes and outdoor photography in good light. The fine grain is beautiful, the colors can be ridiculous in the best way, and a scene like the Wooden Shoe Tulip Festival is basically the ideal use case for it.
But I would not call it the best value Kodak film for a beginner.
If I were carrying one camera around all day without knowing exactly what I would shoot, I would take Gold 200 or Ultramax 400. They give me more flexibility, and Gold currently costs a lot less.
If I knew I was heading somewhere colorful, outdoors, and bright — especially for landscapes, flowers, or golden-hour travel photos — I would happily load Ektar 100 again.
That is really the point of this film for me. I would not use it for everything. But when the scene fits it, very few color-negative films give me the same look.