Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,239   Online: 715
      
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6

    Ektachrome P1600

    Has anyone ever used this film? I'm generally find Kodak's color negative film too grainy from 400 upwards, I assume this would have much less grain. My concern is the lattitude. Anyone know how it fairs?

  2. #2
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    I've used quite a lot of it - I find it more grainy than Portra 800 though. It has decent latitude* for a 400 reversal film when pushed two stops (hence the P1600 description) but not as much as most normally-developed reversal films and nothing like that of a neg film. Contrast and graininess are its hallmarks for me. Portra 800 pushed two stops with the meter set to 1600 or 2000 gives me images with less graininess and greater latitude.

    I think that I only have one example of EPH on the web, here. It was taken in flat fluorescent lighting with a CC20M filter over the lens.

    Best,
    Helen
    *I'm using 'latitude' as being short for 'ability to cope with a wide scene brighness range'.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Hello afsmithphoto,

    I use shoot tons of P1600, at anywhere from ISO 800 to ISO 6400. I have since replaced this film with heavily pushed Kodak Ektachrome E200, which is substantially less grain. I tend to agree with Helen B on this one, in that Portra 800 works better.

    Ektachrome P1600 is more like older Ektachrome 400X, almost like colour TriX when judging the grain. It has also become quite expensive per roll, which makes me think it might be soon on the cut list from Kodak. The Kodak reps suggested I use Portra 800 pushed one or two stops, and even gave me a few rolls to try out. However, my preference is towards Ektachrome E200.

    The Kodak PDF on Ektachrome E200 only lists one and two stop push setting suggestions for E200. I have worked out additional push settings and exposure compensation for up to 4 2/3 stops push. This film does not push in a linear manner, so with each push step more exposure is required. There is also a blue shift, which is good under night shooting conditions and means a weak blue 82A or 82B works better for filtration than a much stronger 80A. I find the results from this are substantially better than anything I got with P1600.

    The only remaining advantage of P1600 is being able to shoot at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400. If you require anything below that, either Portra 800 pushed or Ektachrome E200 heavily pushed work better. I have numerous samples at a bands website:

    http://www.bigtimeoperator.com then click Gallery. When you look at the night images, the file name indicates the film used. There is a mix of P1600 and E200 shots there. I also have one ISO 3200 shot using P1600 on line at:

    http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/ad...wheels3200.jpg

    At smaller final print sizes the grain is not an issue, at least not for me. However, I think this shot might be better on the latest Portra 800 used at ISO 3200, even though that is quite a push. The main lab I use does not push C-41 films, so it remains a poor choice for my work.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6

    Thanks

    Thanks guys, I appreciate it.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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