|
|
|
-
GREAT RESULTS WITH KODAK EKTAR 100: balanced colors, wide latitude, super fine grain
-
Kodak ektar is my favourite too 
-
Not everyone has a drum scanner, but I'm sure if we did, we'd get similar or better results. I'm not sure what the point of this topic is?
Congratulations all the same.
-
Very impressive resolution, always cool to see what resolution is available in film if you've got the equipment to get the best out of it.
-
I just bought a 5-pack in 120. Can't wait to see how this does in my Mamiyaflex ... maybe a roll or two through the Holga.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
It's a superb film, I just wish there was an Ektar 400.
-
I've just been scanning a roll and was impressed by its supposedly limited latitude. A couple of shots were strongly back lit, with the sun in full frame, exposed for the shadows. I expected the sky in these images to be completed blown out, but there was nice detail and even a hint of blue.
-
If you want to see some results from Ektar 100 in medium format, I posted some scans of my Ektar 100 work in my gallery here - shot with a 1956 Rolleiflex that has damage to the coating on the taking lens. The photos were taken at twilight, with multiple light sources in the frame.
No sharpening or other filters applied - this is just a straight scan, with minimal exposure correction to get it where I wanted it. Scanned at 2400 dpi on an Epson V750, then re-sampled down to 72 dpi for web use.
Here's another from the same location. Details are the same - I just burned in the sky a bit.
-
I hate to burst your bubble OP, while the image looks fine and all, it's essentially out of focus on the scan, or very low resolving power. It is already soft at this size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castors...n/photostream/
IIRC, the summilux shouldn't have bad CA/fringing problems either.
-
Anthiril,
I am not sure if you are aware that this is 9000dpi, which is at least twice the linear resolution that is usually considered sufficient for color film. Naturally, details become soft at this scanning resolution at 100% view. Plus, the picture too bright, and not sharpened (no post-processing, as Bernard stated).
BTW, Ektar 100 is not the sharpest film around, anyway. But the lack of grain avoids the use of noise reduction in post-processing, which would always conflict with sharpness and easily produces a "digital" look.
Therefore, it is much easier to get a sharp, grain-free, good looking picture with Ektar than with a (theoretically higher resolving) Fuji film.
Georg
|
|
Adv Reply
