Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,735   Posts: 1,670,356   Online: 982
      
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 101
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Sarile View Post
    Link to an example of what I think shows off the impressive qualities.
    All I can say is WOW!!!

  2. #72
    heterolysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hamilton
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    I think the film does best on overcast days.
    Completely agree. I've used it in 135 and 120, but any shots I have taken in daylight looked awful. I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of Ektar, but I could see its merit if you took the time to get really familiar with it.


    Here are two shots of my dog on very overcast days (ah, winter in Vancouver). The red in my dog's fur is not accurately captured, and things aren't this blue in real life, but that seems to be common for this film. Shot on Nikon F80 / 50mm f/1,8, scanned Epson V500 1200dpi (these are the compressed jpegs, the actual files are on a different HDD). No photoshop, etc.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	469150_10100262965357837_1717715859_o (1).jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	226.9 KB 
ID:	58133

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	464754_10100263399946917_1172016887_o.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	337.2 KB 
ID:	58134

  3. #73
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Sarile View Post
    Link to an example of what I think shows off the impressive qualities of Kodak Ektar 100. Password is "lily". If you hover over the image, you will have the option of viewing the full res file.

    Properly executed - capture to display, I believe that most any film can deliver.
    Beautiful images and proper scanning technique, but filtration is still not right and, again, cannot be taken as a measure of the film colour qualities.

    The sky behind the locomotive has a yellow tint and the sky behind the picture with the woman and the feet-up child has a magenta cast for my eyes. So it's not monitor calibration here, rather the fact that when different filtrations are put near each other the eye cannot "adjust" and the differences strike. The yellow cast in the locomotive shot is evident also in the gravel on the left. The magenta cast in the other picture is not a sunset effect I would think based on the height of the sun.

    With all due respect for this evidently valid photographer I agree that any colour negative film can give colour results, in scanning and printing, which are better than those shown because ultimately there always is a problem of "filtration" with negative material and the final colour depend much more on the filtration ability of the photographer/printer than on the film qualities.

    It's no point debating the colour quality of Ektar 100 when we judge it from scans showing opposite casts in the same light conditions!

    I suspect that the definitive and fast solution to this colour mess is colour profiling the negative. That would sadly be outside the scope of APUG, while judging film products from randomly mistaken scan filtrations seems to be well within it

    Hatchetman seems IMAPO (in my awfully presumptuous opinion) to be the only one so far who got his filtration right. A comparison of the same scene with two different films made by him would be meaningful because that would exclude random filtration variances and leave us with the differences in film response.

    Before somebody asks the moderator to expel me from this thread , I would like to state that, for personal circumstances, I do have faced this kind of problem years ago, and at first it seemed insurmountable to me. When I begun scanning in 2007 two shots taken at the same time would not come out with the same colours, and I was working from slides! Now my filtration abilities and my workflow have improved considerably. Yet, I still find filtration differences sometimes between shots which in theory should look the same. (Mind you: when put one near the other. I consider a filtration good enough when the image, seen on its own, has realistic colours). Filtration by sight IS difficult.

    A consistent and natural filtration is not easy to obtain until one applies a certain amount of technique and experience to his scan (or print) even when using slide film.

    Colour negatives multiply the problem by 10 times. IMO there is no alternative solution, with colour negative, than film profiling and proper colour management. After all this is done, we can compare colour films. Otherwise we are just comparing different prints/scans/filterings and attribute their qualities to the film, and really IMO it makes no sense.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,075
    Actually I was only referencing the one shot that I provided the link to of the little girl - Lily face.

    BTW, not my images.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    20
    many people here seem to mistake its own inability to make good prints/ good scans from Ektar negs with some problems intrinsic in this color film.

    you're on the wrong way, guys; Kodak made another great film, and you have just to improve a lot your weak technique!

    The link above using "lily" as password shows just quite bad amateur scans; they're bad and casted scans from optically good shots.

  6. #76
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by heterolysis View Post
    Completely agree. I've used it in 135 and 120, but any shots I have taken in daylight looked awful. I wouldn't say I'm a big fan of Ektar, but I could see its merit if you took the time to get really familiar with it.


    Here are two shots of my dog on very overcast days (ah, winter in Vancouver). The red in my dog's fur is not accurately captured, and things aren't this blue in real life, but that seems to be common for this film. Shot on Nikon F80 / 50mm f/1,8, scanned Epson V500 1200dpi (these are the compressed jpegs, the actual files are on a different HDD). No photoshop, etc.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	469150_10100262965357837_1717715859_o (1).jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	226.9 KB 
ID:	58133

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	464754_10100263399946917_1172016887_o.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	337.2 KB 
ID:	58134
    How do you know it's the film? It could be your scanner, it could be your monitor, it could be the software rendering the image, it could be your video card driver, it's not always the film that is at fault. The best you can do is make an optical print, if you can't remove a cast in an optical print with a reasonable filtration, then blame the film. The best thing you can do, if you need it on the computer, is use the white balance feature in software and pick something white to balance on. If it can't correct the cast without making something else look weird, then blame the film.
    Paul Schmidt
    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....

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    20
    Theese scans of that poor too cyan-too red dog are just weird garbage, technically speaking

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    It's nothing like Velvia 50, which has around 4 and a half stops - normal contrast - and more naturalistic & rich colour. I have a few shots in my APUG gallery which weren't scanned, but photographed on a light box with a DSLR. Even with this idiosyncratic workflow, I haven't had any problems processing Ektar negs for reference purposes and uploading to the web. Every problem with this film, without exception, seems to come down to people's laziness with processing. You HAVE to do some colour correction, but this is the creative side of colour work. If you want instant, lifeless results for Flickr, shoot digital. You don't need a drum scanner to see that this film, like all others, is indeed made up of grain and relatively neutral colour. Nothing has been revealed to me with the 3,000,000 DPI scan in the OP, other than this person's disposition relating to photography. If you're promoting a cheap drum scanning service however, sign me up!

    That it isn't as 'malleable' as other colour films (at least where scanning is concerned) does appear to represent certain emulsion compromises, but all this 'Ektar is shite' hysteria online seems just an excuse to whine about the demise of film. Live with it or shoot digital. It's a unique film best suited to creative photographers, not number crunching.
    Velvia 50 was the closest thing I could think of to describe the mind set needed to work with Ektar. It certainly does have a broader latitude and less contrast than that film, and it does not display some of Velvia's nastier behaviors to broad lighting ranges or incorrect exposure, although it does have limited exposure range and latitude. But it is still somewhat fussy, and it has a different character than Portra. For a mind used to the way Portra handles a scene, some real adjustment is needed. That brings up an interesting idea - I wonder how a good transparency shooter will handle this film, with its somewhat lesser contrast and somewhat broader range? Someone noted that Ektar is quite good a differentiating subtle hues that other negative films would not handle well. I can see that this indeed might be the case and could be useful in some situations. I find Ektar quite easy to scan. Some color adjustment is sometimes needed, but it is quite straightforward. I haven't made any darkroom prints from Ektar, but I wouldn't expect any surprises. So far, my experience with Ektar is limited to about 8 rolls. I know of some places where I think I would like to shoot it to use its unique characteristics, but mostly I think I'll stick to Portra for the moment.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernard_61 View Post
    The link above using "lily" as password shows just quite bad amateur scans; they're bad and casted scans from optically good shots.
    Since I happen to know that you would not know what that shot would look like optically - first hand, evidence would suggest you have quite a few things out of whack to lead you to that conclusion.

  10. #80
    Andre Noble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    241
    I tried to fix the doggie:Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ektar cyan correct.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	973.3 KB 
ID:	58151
    Andre Noble, Beverly Hills California http://andrenoble.com/

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin