Roadkill at the time of exposure is still roadkill. Putting it in a food processor (scanner) isn't going to
make it any better. It's still roadkill. I wonder how many folks even know how to do an OBJECTIVE
film test for color in the first place.
When someone says the film is producing lousy colours, and they are going from a specific technology, then it's questionable whether it's the film, or something else in the work flow. You then need to verify that the work flow is correct. That's really all that is being done here. Some scanning discussion is valid, because there is no possible way to take an analog negative, slide or print, and make it available here for sharing without scanning.
Originally Posted by Andy K
See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com
The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....
I was wondering the same thing Andy. Ten pages of scanning discussion....this crap make me want to vomit.
Originally Posted by Andy K
I think the mention of scanning is relevant for the simple reason that nowadays more newcomers are going to scan and inkjet print Ektar than actually print it analog, and I hate in any manner to discourage new film purchases, that is, if we really want color film to stay alive. Of course, I wish
more folks would try to print it the traditional way in the dkrm, but not everyone has the facilities to
do so. That being said, this particular venue should not be used to teach the basics of scanning.
Maybe patching up a chuck hole here and there ... which is a lot better than ignorantly badmouthing
a film and discouraging potential new purchasers in that manner.
Man you should read the entire thread again. This is not a discussion about scanning. This is a discussion about Kodak Ektar.
Originally Posted by BradS
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Nowadays photographers need an improved scanning technique for keeping color film alive. Digital is raising the bar (his bar) of colour accuracy etc. Analog photography should be more flexible and technically flawless to survive.
So film and scanner are "allies among enemies". :-)
Perhaps those discussing this digital technique missed this on APUG's front page on their way in:
Originally Posted by Bernard_61
APUG is for discussion of analogue photography and processes. Scanning is a digital process and has no place on APUG. If people want to discuss scanning there are millions of digital sites they can go to. There is only one APUG.
Welcome to the Analog Photography Users Group,
APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes
. We are an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes.
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
Please don't patronize the hybrids! I would NOT be able to afford (money and time-wise) analog photography if it wasn't for the shoot-process-scan workflow.
I consider myself an analog photographer, though it's been 35+ years since I did any tray-processing.
Please consider this viewpoint! The thread, as is, provides valuable insight to all!
The fact is that we cannot discuss the property of any colour material (film, paper, process) on the internet and "back" it with concrete examples without a proper understanding of scanning tecnique. The point of contact between analogue photography and an internet forum inevitably is a scanner.
If this was a pub conversation of photography passionate people dedicated to analogue photography I would understand scanning to be considered off-topic. But this is an internet conversion between people discussing analogue photography and placing scans on the thread (or on the gallery site) and it is all too natural, if we want to discuss Ektar qualities, to discuss scanning technique to "depurate" it from the result shown to be able to judge Ektar.
It's as if people would discuss here the sharpness of a print shown through a dirty glass without other people being able to raise the point of the dirty glass because the site is not about glass cleaning. The glass is there between you and the print and it is never irrelevant in the discussion.
Drew, maybe you could tell people like me a bit more?
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
You wrote: "Folks should just study the tech sheets and learn how to correctly interpret them". When I compare tech sheets of Ektar and for example Portra, I see differences in the curves. But what exactly is this telling me for practical work? Do you look into the tech sheet and say "oh, I must do this and that to get the result I want", just by watching the curves?
It would be great for a "Greenhorn" like me to know more. I do color printig since 2 years only and I am far away to be experienced. I got very good results with Ektar, but on the other side, I also got very bad results depending on the light conditions. It would be interesting for me to learn how to handle this.
Numer of people doing analog color printig is low, so who should I ask?
Guys, please open another thread "how to scan Ektar and calibrate scanning equipment".