Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,337   Posts: 1,537,575   Online: 1088
      
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    In the Kodak Ektar 100 Exposure section for Daylight. Bright hazy sun on light sand or snow: 1/125th - f/16
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4046/e4046.pdf

    In the Fuji Velvia 50 Exposure section: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/125th - f/16
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bi...elvia50PIB.pdf

    For comparison in the Fuji Velvia 100 guide: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/250th - f/16
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-202E.pdf


    Ektar 100 shows the same exposure recommendations as Velvia 50 but is rated as ISO 100. I have gone as far as contacting Kodak about this but they offered no response other than they received my comment and would look into it. Probably too busy with looming bankruptcy issues at the time..... For what it's worth I find Ektar works better for me shot at ISO 64 or 50 but I only scan.





    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    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.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,593
    Look folks ... I'm not all that smart. I learned all this the hard way, and when you shoot 8x10 color film, mistakes are costly, and when you've already invested hundreds of hours printing and analyzing,
    then you start asking the right questions and get results. You can either just argue based on a whim or you can learn from my mistakes and advice of others. Film doesn't do everything on its own. It won't
    automatically correct a sloppy scan, and it won't necessarily forgive significant mistakes in color balance
    any more than being way off in a shutter speed or f-stop setting. This isn't Kodak Gold in a disposable
    one-shot cardboard camera! You need to treat it with the same degree of care as you would a chrome film, and hopefully understand in which way it differs too. But sloppy technique will bag you mediocre
    results. If you don't care - fine. But don't blame Kodak for your own mistakes! This is a very high quality product, but due to its relative saturation compared to other color neg films, will tend to exaggerate color error. Correctly exposed, it's one of the most accurate color films I've ever worked with. And I've got the equipment and experience to accurately make that kind of statement. All I'm
    doing is giving a few simple tidbits of advice which can make a very big difference in the quality of your shots with Ektar. Take it or leave it. I don't care. But I do care about people badmouthing a very very
    high quality product and potentially impacting film sales at a time when it needs all the support it can
    get. And this is a home-run product for Kodak. Maybe not ideal for everyone or every shooting situation,
    but something which does potentially give film a new lease on life now that E6 lines are getting scarcer.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,456
    Quote Originally Posted by noacronym View Post
    Personally, I'm not jumping on this Drew fellow's case. For the photographic knowledge value of what he's got to say seems more plentiful than my own. And it's always been my policy when I'm around people smarter than me; to be all ears.
    +1
    - Bill Lynch

  4. #84
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,300
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamar View Post
    In the Kodak Ektar 100 Exposure section for Daylight. Bright hazy sun on light sand or snow: 1/125th - f/16
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4046/e4046.pdf

    In the Fuji Velvia 50 Exposure section: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/125th - f/16
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bi...elvia50PIB.pdf

    For comparison in the Fuji Velvia 100 guide: Seashore or Snow Scenes under bright sun: 1/250th - f/16
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-202E.pdf


    Ektar 100 shows the same exposure recommendations as Velvia 50 but is rated as ISO 100. I have gone as far as contacting Kodak about this but they offered no response other than they received my comment and would look into it. Probably too busy with looming bankruptcy issues at the time..... For what it's worth I find Ektar works better for me shot at ISO 64 or 50 but I only scan.
    Now I see where you are coming from.

    FWIW, Kodak's "Sunny 16" recommendations for Portra 160 are exactly the same, whereas their recommendations for Ektachrome E100G and E100GX are for one stop less exposure.

    Their recommendations for metered exposures are to use the ISO speeds instead.

    This tells me that the the "Sunny 16" recommendations are weighted to protect shadow details for negative films, and highlight details for transparency film.

    Which makes a certain amount of sense, if you assume that correctly metered exposures are likely to be more accurate than "Sunny 16" exposures.
    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

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    749
    "And this is a home-run product for Kodak."

    Amen to that. Ektar 100 is really a great film. I can excuse most of Kodak's other film discontinuations in light of them bringing out Ektar 100.

    Ed

  6. #86
    BrendanCarlson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pasadena, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    139
    "And this is a home-run product for Kodak."
    --- Agreed.

    I'm a sucker for Ektar 100, I love the tone, even though it is a bit strange for skin. I've shot only a few rolls and every picture came out really nice, if not a little too warm. I'm a hybrid person though, so that doesn't bother me.
    Everybody has a photographic memory, some just don't have film.
    My Website and Gallery is at www.bcarlsonmedia.com
    My Twitter is @brendancarlson

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    That sounds right. When I first shot Ektar I had the issue with the shadows shifting purple or blue and excessive grain showing in those shadows, I thought it looked underexposed. When I read the spec sheet exposure recommendations I just started shooting it at ISO 64 or sometimes 50 and that seemed to cure my Ektar issues. It's interesting because the Portra 400 exposure recommendations for unmetered is two stops higher than Ektar or Portra 160 which is on the overexposure side by a stop vs metered. That supports your theory perfectly and it makes sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Now I see where you are coming from.

    FWIW, Kodak's "Sunny 16" recommendations for Portra 160 are exactly the same, whereas their recommendations for Ektachrome E100G and E100GX are for one stop less exposure.

    Their recommendations for metered exposures are to use the ISO speeds instead.

    This tells me that the the "Sunny 16" recommendations are weighted to protect shadow details for negative films, and highlight details for transparency film.

    Which makes a certain amount of sense, if you assume that correctly metered exposures are likely to be more accurate than "Sunny 16" exposures.

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,593
    I started printing some Ektar negs last nite taken under deep blue high-altitude shadow conditions, a frosty meadow just after dawn. If I had simply overexposed the film, I would have gotten the scene, but all the deep area would have had a general blue case. Of course, the scene was relatively blue, but by exposing at 100 and using the correct filter, I not only got the realistic overall effect, but very cleanly differentiated nuances of green foliage, cyansish evergreens, yellow-greens etc. This degree of quality in the reproduction would have been impossible with just a generic exposure adjustment. Of course, if you're going to wing it, it's better to SLIGHTLY overexpose Ektar rather than underexpose it, but you won't get the same result. And post-correcting the shot will merely adjust the overall balance in part of the curve at best, and not recover all those subtle nuances that this film is actually capable of.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,593
    To follow up on that ... just study the dye curves on the published tech sheet. If you grossly overexposure you do indeed get more exposure on all three layers, but at the same time, force the
    shadows down onto the lower part of the curve where's there's an overlap, hence contaminating one
    dye with another. Once this happens, you're not going to clean it up. This is just basic sensitometry,
    and was well known in prinicple to color photographers for a long time. But lots of things which were
    once standard have now been forgotten because people think they can accomplish anything afterwards
    with a few Fauxtoshop tweaks. That's simply not the case, any more than one can restore a clean primary hue to paint once you've intermixed two ingredients across the color wheel. Basic color theory.
    Once you create dirt (or cowpie, or a complex neutral) you're not not going to easily fix it.

  10. #90
    kintatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    350
    Images
    2
    I just wanted to chime in, without instigating any other angles etc, that I like this film in MF. The colors are nice, the range is sweet, and the images have a crispness that so many other films seem to lack. I've shot some in 4x5, but not developed it for color yet.

    I developed a couple shots for Black and White, which turned out incredibly nice... except the orange mask. Contact printing in my place is next to impossible, but I'll keep trying, as I love the incredible detail that the mono film seemed to lack, and the range of tones in the negative was impressive. Every bit as good as XP-2 developed in B&W instead of C-41, except the mask washes out in XP-2.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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