Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,205   Posts: 1,531,715   Online: 1093
      
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 97
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    If you read the exposure recommendations in the Ektar spec sheet that used to live on the Kodak site they are for an ISO 50 film. They read the same as Velvia 50.


    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post
    I guess I could try shooting it at ISO 50. But then I could use Vision3 50D instead, also virtually grainless but I've had a lot of luck with the ECN-2 stocks. Contrast can be managed upwards in RA4 printing (by adding hydrogen peroxide), but regrettably, not downward.

    I'm also wondering if Ektar is intolerant of even the slightest processing error. Maybe it is a film that should always be sent to a professional lab, or at least always only Kodak developer used.

    As for Fuji, how different was the Pro C film from the Pro S? I have lots of Pro S, but I'm not sure if I like the grain.

    And as for the Ektar, I have been printing it on Crystal Archive C, which I get good results on with Portra; maybe I should try printing on Portra Endura, which I also have on hand.

  2. #72
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,233
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamar View Post
    If you read the exposure recommendations in the Ektar spec sheet that used to live on the Kodak site they are for an ISO 50 film. They read the same as Velvia 50.
    Here is a link to the spec sheet for Ektar on Kodak's site: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4046/e4046.pdf

    No reference there to EI/ISO 50.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #73
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,539
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamar View Post
    If you read the exposure recommendations in the Ektar spec sheet that used to live on the Kodak site they are for an ISO 50 film. They read the same as Velvia 50.

    Ektar specs read as for RVP 50?
    Come again??
    I don't see similarities.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  4. #74
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,539
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    Hear, hear. The "I'm smarter than everyone else here" attitude is really grating.

    +1
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  5. #75

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    498
    Images
    11
    This whole thread has kind of turned out how I thought it would: Ektar is great; no, it sucks; Ektar is easy to print; no, RA4 can't handle it and it is best scanned; Ektar is wonderful but only if you are really clever (the implication being that I am not). The most I can glean from this is that Ektar is only to be handled by really, really smart people; which is indeed an odd invention for the last gasp of a dying company. You'd think that Kodak might have wanted to turn out something capable of use by mere mortals like me, if profit motive were at all relevant.

    Many of the scans posted prove that the film can be used effectively; but then again some of the scans posted are not brilliant, and some are but only with the admission that the scans are manipulated.

    Well I brought only two rolls of Ektar with me. The comment that most resonated with me is that it is best used with high gamut, low dynamic range subjects, and I will reserve it for that. When people talk about scientific testing and densitometers and color accuracy (even where accuracy produces sucky results because Ektar does not have the interpretative failings of the mere human brain), I am left cold. For me, that is not what practical photography is about, although in saying that, I am not being condescending; I am merely admitting that there is an aspect to the art to which I do not aspire. There are plenty of good films that even mortals can use effectively.

    If I am rambling, blame it on jet lag.

  6. #76
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,539
    Images
    15
    How about we put a new spin on this, hmm?
    How about we all just go out and shoot more film, rather than rumble in the jungle. Ektar if you like — or anything, who cares? Have fun and enjoy it.
    Just remember this: it's days are numbered.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  7. #77
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,825

    Is it me, or is it Ektar?

    You're making it sound worse than it is, maybe by taking Drew's obvious (to me) humorous exaggeration literally. One doesn't have to be all that clever to be successful with Ektar but probably can't treat it like Portra (depending on how you've been exposing Portra.) I tend to agree with Athril that a bit more exposure is the easiest way to excellent results (and perhaps the processing - mine has all been done by Dwayne's with no apparent issues.)

    I will concede Drew's point that it will blow out highlights "at some point" of overexposure but that point must be pretty high because so far I've not hit it.

    I tend to expose all C41 generously but not ridiculously so (meter at box speed but expose for shadow detail, in B&W terms I put shadows where I want detail on zone V not the B&W III or IV) and send it to Dwayne's. I'm quite pleased with the results but maybe I'm just not discriminating enough.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    127
    Drew backs up his assertions with facts. How dare he expose the empty and hollow opinions thrown about by others! This is THE INTERNET! Any unsupported whack-jog theory or opinion *MUST* be respected!

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,183
    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post
    I am merely admitting that there is an aspect to the art to which I do not aspire. There are plenty of good films that even mortals can use effectively.
    As a fellow mortal and one who doesn't even understand some things written in this thread I can say that Ektar makes nice pictures for me when it is overcast. It's fairly sunny in this part of the UK and I wouldn't choose Ektar today, but if it clouded over...
    Steve.

  10. #80
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,213
    Images
    225

    Is it me, or is it Ektar?

    Well neither of the two if them are saying anything bad about me, which confuses me, usually I'm the one on the forums making people upset and getting scolded for being an ass, man I'm loosing my touch

    The LAB scans had less blue cast than my own however the reds were duller, so they may have manipulated them without my knowledge. I can't recall which version I wet with and my scanning technique has improved since then so I will have to re-check to see but I do remember the dark rocks having a blue hue, but it wasn't terribly unpleasant.

    Skin tones aren't great for normal portrait but my work wasn't supposed to be normal so I wasn't disappointed with it, however I'm an E-6 guy so I don't really like C-41 to begin with, so even thinking it's "ok" is a compliment haha


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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