The problem is, that if a specific dye layer is underexposed, you won't be able to post-correct it. Deep
blue shadows need something like an 81C filter. Now here again, the Fauxtoshop crowd will state that
by merely futzing around a few evenings, they can correct something like this. No. They might be able
to tweak the balance or contrast, but underexposed blues and blue-inflected tones will not differentiate
because the base of the dye curves are starting to overlap. This actually occurs with other color neg films too, but is more noticable with Ektar because of the greater contrast and saturation, and because
the shadows aren't artificially warmed. Correctly exposed, and the cast of shadows is actually more
accurate than in most other films. It's just so much easier to spend fifteen seconds in the first place
to screw on a filter than to futz around for hours afterwards just for the bragging rights of how good
you are with fix-a-flat-tire programs.
Is it me, or is it Ektar?
Ektar is a superb film. While I'm "just a practical tinkering amateur photographer" without the time, equipment or knowledge to verify Drew's technical points I completely agree with his conclusions - beautiful film but takes more care than, say, Portra. I concur that a bit of overexposure from box speed tends to help portraits. It's almost impossible to overexposed modern C41 in the sense of producing poor prints as a result.
The nice thing about being old and senile is that I forgot about how, back in the good ole days of great
color neg films, how yellows always became pumpkin orange, and greens were always poisoned with cyan, and how lots of other things came out looking like the backdrop to the Mars scenes in Total Recall, or otherwise resembled the apocalyptic sludge of a Los Angeles sunrise. At least the skintones
were realistic, but that's about all. Everything else tried to become a skintone! (Hyperbole perhaps, but partially true sensitometrically - those dye curves did overlap a lot). But if one is used to printing those
kinds of film, the much steeper dye spikes of Ektar require a lot more care as one homes in. But when
you land, you really land! And with the reduced availability of E6 films, and no direct positive paper left
on the market, Ektar provides a much needed bridge between the ease of RA4 printing and a relatively clean unmuddified gamut.
Or maybe you fall into one of my categories?
Originally Posted by polyglot
Ah yes.... gotta calibrate a new batch of paper to a second enlarger tonite, using an Ektar master
because it's the most precise one. Hmmm ... guess I could drive out of town and find a fresh cowpie to smear on the neg or over the lens to simulate that classic old Vericolor look. That's the hard thing about analog printing. You can't just click on the automated cowpie layer like in Fauxtoshop.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It's not a problem of colour temperature, it's a problem of global underexposure, a filter would make it worse and would have given me even less density and less of a picture. Correct exposure would end up the same with or without a filter, a warming filter would only reduce yellow density on the neg.
Drew, your attitude makes APUG a less pleasant place to visit overall.
I wouldn't say it's hyperbole perhaps, I would say the majority of your states are complete hyperbole, and an embarrassing.
Last edited by Athiril; 04-02-2013 at 06:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Athiril - you need to do your homework before making a rebuttal like that. Simply globally adding to
exposure will improve part of the issue, but potentially introduce another. Under a blue cast it's a particular dye layer which is most affected, which needs to be addressed with the correct color temp
filter (and appropriate filter factor). Lots of pros know this - nothing new here. And contrary to color neg
stereotypes, there is not unlimited range at the top for overexposure. Ektar will blow out the highlights
at a certain point in real world circumstances. And the key to clean hue differentiation throughout the
whole range is to keep to dye spikes from overlapping - which is the risk if you significantly overexpose.
If you like the look of more cross-contaminated colors, fine. That's what traditonal color neg films do,
though with less contrast. Ektar is capable of something different if it's correctly balanced in the first
I just posted a postscript on the wrong adjacent thread per RA4 explaining my "cowpie" analogy. It
pertains to how most previous color neg films were deliberately muddied by creating complex neutrals,
and how Ektar partially differs.
Drew, I'd appreciate it if you would stop with passive aggressive assertions and assumptions, and tarring whole groups with the same brush. You consistently have something negative to say about someone.
An 81C is a 1/3rd of a stop difference. I don't know what situation you're advocating it's use. But in my situation, crossover becomes moot, as reciprocity failure wont be identical across all layers. It doesn't stop you from getting a neutral grey scale (Though a neutrally balanced grey scale may not necessarily be desirable) via balance. Delta E will change, but it's going to no matter what you do in the situation, you're not going to get the same Delta E you're used to in regular scenarios.
The most needed thing in my situation if I wanted a more 'normal' image is more exposure, not filtration. More exposure would do far more good then filtration, the amount of improvement would be a -lot- more then what filtration brings to the table, the improvement with filtration would be very minor in comparison, but still requires more exposure anyway, which could not be given at the time, so would only cause more damage, and a thinner image in my situation.
I sometimes use an 85 series filter in forests, once compensated for with exposure vs without filter (At normal non-compensated exposure), the same balance (as in neutral grey scale in each) gives more saturation for me.
Hear, hear. The "I'm smarter than everyone else here" attitude is really grating.
Originally Posted by Athiril