Bah, Humbug .... In certain ways, printing color and developing color neg film is even easier than doing black and white. RA4 paper is generally cheaper in a given size. And just how much film do you
need to shoot to get something worth printing? So film expense isn't necessarily terrible either. If
I need a scan (rarely) I simply pay someone with the right gear (typcially a fifty grand scanner). But if I need higher quality yet, I simply do it in the darkroom (routine). Process your images any way you please, and in whatever way yields YOU the best results. But I sure get tired of all this whining
and "the sky is falling" pessimism.
I agree. I think it's a great time to work with traditional methods.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
-While many beloved products are gone, those that are still here are of top quality.
-Being able to buy cameras, enlargers, papers, film, etc. at pennies on the dollar allow us the opportunity for experimentation, using materials which would have been out of reach not too long ago.
-Those still working with analog processes are now part of a brother/sisterhood, and I find them very charitable with their knowledge and experience.
-Instant gratification is now the way of the world. We work in a slower, more methodical manner, which (for me, anyway) yield much more gratifying end results.
I often wondered why "the sky is falling" contingent ever visited APUG. I haven't seen those I refer to recently, but, if I held their beliefs, this would probably be the last place I'd frequent. Unless, of course, it's the only way they can justify their own decisions.
I'm not Nostradamus. I can't see very far into the future. As such, I won't let the fear of all this ending paralyze me. Given a good deal, I stock up on film and paper. But, I still shoot, and print, as if I have an infinite supply of both, and as if my "masterpiece" is my next exposure/print.
Here's an image I took with Ektar with my RB and 50mm hand held. I like the subtle colors and grain structure. It's my "go to" film for color. It was scanned with a Microtek Scanmaker i900.
Ektar is very probably the best c-41 film for scanning ever made
I printed it in darkroom and I don't like it. It is okay on Fuji CA paper, but not on Kodak papers. Sounds strange, but it prints better on competitors paper.
Originally Posted by batwister
Actual Kodak papers, optimized for digital laser exposure are too high in contrast to give good results with the high saturated Ektar.
It depends a bit on the individual picture and what colors are in this picture. But I have many negatives, specially landscape, which aren't printable on Kodak paper at all.
If your picture has a limited range of colors, it may be okay. But if the picture has the full range of colors, specially high saturated blue sky, green, trees and some red, it is a pain to print this film. Brown and grey tends to magenta and if you filter it, your blue sky goes to green or cyan.
My experience is: Ektar is a pain for analog printing if the picture has many complementary colors. A portrait (warm colors) could be okay. Try a portrait with blue background and you will end in a desaster.
Even I liked the fine grain for larger prints, I don't use this film any more. Portra is much nicer for analog printing.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
JoJo - maybe it's time to learn about color temp corrections at time of exposure and about contrast
masking in the darkroom. Then you'll see just how good this film is. One obviously doesn't have any
option equipvalent to VC paper when working with color; and even if you did, you would still need to
have some way to keep saturation of the respective hues correct. People routinely did far more work
printing chrome film for decades. A few modifications to color neg printing workflow to greatly improve results isn't the end of the world. I hope there are a few folks out there willing to experiment
rather than just throw up their hands and blame Kodak once again for not inventing a self-printing
Agfarapid- this may be an issue with my monitor, but looking at the scan you posted, you've got several issues - it's overexposed (the roof of the conservatory is washed out), and you've definitely got magenta and cyan casts. Nothing that 5-10ccs/points of correction to each color filter can't fix. But I'd fix the exposure first, and bring your highlights under control, then re-evaluate for color balance.
Originally Posted by agfarapid
The only photographer I know of shooting Ektar 100 is Jeff Brouws. I'm pretty sure he has a digital workflow, going by the photographs in Approaching Nowhere. No doubt there are many other notable photographers shooting it. Brouws' images tend to be either very muted in colour or very bold, but naturalistic either way - and no cyan casts. I'd say his work is a good benchmark for colour reproduction of this film, being a celebrated straight photographer. No tricks or compromises. I think this is what people need to be looking at, proper photographs? Epson scans on Flickr or amateur tutorials are no standard to work to.
I'm also printing Ektar in the darkroom and the film is indeed fine. I've never had the sort of issues that seem to crop up when making scans. Here in the UK, I think the film does best on overcast days (that is, everyday).
Originally Posted by batwister
I think this is where the film shines too, and a lot of people say that. It might just be a British bias, but I've not been happy with my pictures in direct light. Jeff Brouws' work is mostly, if not all, shot on overcast days too. I've always felt as though Ektar is specifically neutral with overcast skies, as a great deal of big name contemporary work is made in flat light.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
Last edited by batwister; 10-04-2012 at 02:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.