Kodak Ektachrome 320T: A Survivor


There was a range of ultra-low ISO slide films for artificial Tungsten light from Kodak that delivers all kinds of color-nuances and shades. These films were quite durable and stable, so they were actually quite suitable for many kinds of weather conditions and photojournalists, that always had to be sure that they can deliver results whenever it's needed. One of my favorites in this row must be the Kodak Ektachrome 320ET, a true survivor.

It gets confusing sometimes when you give films to the lab and when they are returned, there is often only a number and a code on the negatives. How often did I ask my friend, the interweb, to help me out to understand which film I had used? Note to me: the 320T uses the coding of EPJ 5042. I recall at least two times when I used it, it happened on different continents and both times were completely different weather and light conditions. The first time was in Tampere, Finland. I tampered through the city from the seaside to the Olympic stadium.

Credits: wil6ka

The weather was dull, almost a little cold. It called for cross development, and on top with long expired slide film, I would also recommend it. But it would be worth trying it as E6, too. I even read some interesting notes, that the 320T was great for projecting slides. As it was shot with Tungsten light, it was very suitable to be projected under 5000K artificial light, too. I think that sounds plausible, and still far away from now, as we are more likely to project pictures with a beamer, than with a projector. But well, I will leave that to you.
What I like is that it creates this very retro feeling with earthy washed out colors. But still the grain is very small and it is a joy looking at the sharp pics. Compared to The Kodak EB or Agfa CT Precisa, it is lacking the sharp contrast and crazy colors. But it really delivers a great down to earth feeling, less excitement – more contemplation.

Credits: wil6ka

The other time I used it was on my trip to Australia with Stéphane and Katoun. I used it quite a bit indoors and I must say I am very impressed by how it reacts in very low light conditions. Considering I barely use flash, it is most impressive how bright my indoor shots turned out. Honestly, the results are better than most 400 or 800 ISO CN would do. I think I faked the ISO on my LC-Wide and pushed it to 400, to have a quicker snap, and even more so, that is impressive.

So you see, you can’t really go wrong with this film if you like the retro feeling of its colors. Here you got a beast, that can be used wherever you are. May it be winter or summer. May you be on an island or on land. This film won’t fail you.

Credits: wil6ka

This film review was written by Lomographer wil6ka. Pair up your favorite Lomography camera with this film, available in the Online Shop or Gallery Stores.

written by wil6ka on 2013-05-02 #gear #review #light #colours #retro #x-pro #small-grain #low-contrasts


  1. wil6ka
    wil6ka ·

    There is an E too much in the first Block at "Ektachrome 320 ET".
    This film is extraterrestian...

  2. istionojr
    istionojr ·

    I've tried 64T and 160T, don't know that 320T is exist.
    when I compare the result from 64T and 160T to this 320T I prefer alot on 320T. the cyan tonal is so mild and agree with your explanation that it really delivers a great down to earth feeling.

    nice article indeed, thanks for sharing. wait for more to come. ;)

  3. gatokinetik-o
    gatokinetik-o ·

    :O i got a lot of these... recently i've purshased it from a old film store in Santiago :D i'm anxious to try it!!! thanks for sharing!

  4. vicuna
    vicuna ·

    I think I have a roll of 320T left and another of 160T, and just shot one 160T during our latest sailing cruise... but x-processed...still not scanned but results are looking great! :)

  5. stouf
    stouf ·

    Wonderful film! And it goes great with the spinner (I'll add a link here when I'll have uploaded the proof)... Great review again herr Willie

  6. lomoseb32
    lomoseb32 ·

    He-hey! Michaels camera shop! Such an awesome place with the camera collection.

  7. ditchbitch
    ditchbitch ·

    great review! i'd like to try this film

  8. sebastienbate
    sebastienbate ·

    Can I ask How did you exposed it ? i mean I hâve an expired roll of 2004 , did you overexposed 2 stops ? I did only one stop more , like shooted at 125 iso … is this Maybe wrong ? Thx for your help :)

  9. wil6ka
    wil6ka ·

    hey @sebastienbate I would rather underexpose a little. My experience is that you on the one hand should expose it in situations with light (so I wouldn't do too much of indoors), but then rather underexpose, if that makes sense. So the film effect is rather a light imprint, so you try to get the most contrast out of it.

More Interesting Articles