I have read this in many places, but I haven't yet found any source where Kodak themselves say this.
Originally Posted by alexfoto
(it is quite difficult to know what such optimisation would consist in)
The Ektar datasheet refers to it being "ideal for scanning" but doesn't make any stronger claim than that, and gives some general advice about scanning that is not specific to Ektar.
Have they stated anywhere else that it is somehow specially optimised for scanning?
Here's one from a recently developed roll. Yashicamat EM with the 4-element Yashinon in excellent shape + hood. No color filtration in camera, in date film, used in camera selenium meter for exposure. Don't remember what it asked for but probably f/8 or smaller aperture.
Developed + printed by Gaslamp Photo in San Diego, I scanned the print.
I'd say this is possibly the first attempt by Kodak's marketing department to read the market. More and more people (as a percentage of those who shoot film) scan it, so putting something noncommital like "ideal for scanning" is to try to capture that market, whether it has any scientific base is irrelevant to marketing blurb.
Originally Posted by pdeeh
I didn't like my first roll of 120 that I shot, very muddy and boring and nowhere near the saturation of Velvia that I was used to (I'll revisit to make sure it wasn't a scanning error on my part).
Last night I just started scanning my first in 135 and seeing how good that is, a lot better than the first 120 roll. Still not as good as Velvia for saturation, but it's got a whole lot more Range and doesn't just white the skies and black the shadows 1 stop out from the center like Velvia does.
Plus it's still better (for landscapes) than the other negs I've tried.
In a week or two (when i get my ass into gear) I'll do some RA4 prints and compare the lot to see whether it's worth continuing to use it (for scanning, printing, or not)...
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
Nope. Optimized for scanning largely refers to the surface quality of the film, and applies to current Portra films too. The distinction is especially
apparent in sheet film, where the surface almost behave like an anti-newton texture. Portra is not intended to be as contrasty as any kind of
chrome film, let alone Velvia. It is contrasty only in relation to traditional color neg films. If you want quality results, you can't just shoot from
the hip and do a few random darkroom experiments. Anything quality takes some dedication. You know the saying: garbage-in/garbage-out.
Don't judge a film by shortcuts in technique or compromises in equipment. If you understand it, Ektar is the one color neg products currently
available in a full range of film formats that will frequently allow you to replicate the look of a chrome. ... something I decided to learn to master, 'cause there just ain't many chrome films left to choose from!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-I like the last one, the first and second is contrast and lost shadows, that's the problem with scanning, start to play with photoshop and mess it up. I understand that before and i stop to scanning negatives, analog and digital is deferent world.
Cheers for this. Think that I'll try warming filter for Portra instead of trying Ektar - I like the muted colours of Portra but on some of the overcast days I've used this in Scotland, I feel it could do with a little more ooomph. Probably the issue is, as you point out, that the film needs colour balanced to allow all the dye layers to be exposed correctly.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
And thanks to others for posting Ektar samples - very helpful.
What I remember from Scotland is that the scenery has a lot of different subtle nuances of green. I think that would be quite difficult to reproduce with a scanned negative colour film. It's quite hard to bring out these nuances and very easy to kill them in scanning or post processing.
A positive slide film will have these nuances in the right place straight off the bat and is much easier to scan and process.
Colour negative film is great for portraits, street, documentary etc but for vibrant landscape photos, it's hard to beat slide film.
Last edited by Jaf-Photo; 02-25-2014 at 07:03 AM. Click to view previous post history.