Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,576   Posts: 1,646,769   Online: 1119
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by tim_walls View Post
    Interesting post, but I had to pick up on the reference to E100VS having an amber/purple colour shift; I've never noticed this with a properly exposed and developed roll of E100VS.
    If you scan E100VS/EBX with the Coloraid Ektachrome IT8.7 ICC calibration profile, you get this amber/purple tint in the neutral greys. Since Kodak offers only one Ektachrome target for all films, I assume that the results will be similar.

    I observed an unpleasant shift to the green with Fujichrome Provia 400X calibrated to the Coloraid Astia 100F/Velvia 100/Velvia 100F IT8.7 target, although all these modern Fuji slide films are obviously based on the same color couplers.

    Dedicated calibration profiles would ease the choice of the specific film type - then E100VS/EBX would be an interesting and economical alternative to Velvia 50 or 100.

  2. #22
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,359
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stever View Post
    I guess its time again for someone to bash Kodak.

    Keep it up and Kodak will never respond to APUG.

    Steve
    Maybe that is the strategy behind this!



    PE

  3. #23
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,359
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Care to produce any evidence that EK has made money on Azo at any point in the last half-century?

    Didn't think so.
    Not only that, but they lost money on all B&W papers for several years before they quit the market.

    PE

  4. #24
    tim_walls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Croydon & Leeds
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,037
    Images
    48
    I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.
    Another day goes under; a little bourbon will take the strain...

  5. #25
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,359
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by tim_walls View Post
    I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.
    I think that this is a very very important point.

    If someone bases his results on scans of slides or negatives, then the original may be fine while the scan is poor.

    I've got many many scans of Kodak and Fuji slides and negatives. I find some are good and some are poor while the originals may all be fine. A digital tweak in scanning parameters usually brings the scan up to par.

    PE

  6. #26
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,090
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by tim_walls View Post
    I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I think that this is a very very important point.

    If someone bases his results on scans of slides or negatives, then the original may be fine while the scan is poor.

    I've got many many scans of Kodak and Fuji slides and negatives. I find some are good and some are poor while the originals may all be fine. A digital tweak in scanning parameters usually brings the scan up to par.

    PE
    If you guys are correct, and I suspect you are, then the entire premise of the OP is flawed - since he is comparing the capabilities of his scanner to how IT processes different films.

    That simply speaks to the qualities and limitations of his scanner - and reveals nothing about the qualities and limitations of the films.

    Not only that, but it means the entire thread really belongs over at Hybrid - doesn't it?

    BTW, Ron, on the other point - sadly I think you're correct. There seems to be a cadre of folk here who will bash Kodak at any opportunity to do so - in part knowing it will keep anyone from the Company from every visiting here (much less becoming a sponsor). It's both sad and stupid.

  7. #27
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,005
    Images
    117
    I fear the day that Kodak comes on publicly. I have seen how 'brave' people can be online -- no mater how impolite, ignorant or ill-advised.

    *

  8. #28
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,359
    Images
    65
    It is correct that many scanners cannot 'duplicate' otherwise good transparencies and negatives due to one limitation or another. We have seen how even recently Kodak improved the scannability of their films and advertized the fact.

    This depends on a number of factors such as the support itself which can contain materials deleterious to scanning. One example is the gray carbon that Kodak uses in some supports as an antistat. It could cause problem. Other Kodak films have 'retouching' matte on the back which could cause a problem. IDK, but I can use up all of my fingers listing impediments to a good scan from a good original from either Kodak or Fuji.

    I would say personally from analysis and talking to quite a few pros, that the best that I know use Kodak negative films and Fuji reversal films. Both companies are actively engaged in improving their deficient areas.

    As for complaints or problems. How come no one ever 'rants' that Fuji is not posting here or advertizing here?? How come no one ever really speaks to the BIG difference in the quality of the Kodak and Fuji databases on their respective web sites. We have seen lately though that Fuji's database lacks certain information whereas Kodak's does not and includes much more than anyone elses.

    Therefore, I would say (in spite of my EK bias) that Ilford wins B&W, Kodak wins negative color, Fuji wins reversal color, Kodak wins web site quality.
    Kodak and Fuji lose representation on APUG and PN. Kodak and Fuji win advertizing on PN.

    You see, from my POV, there is no clear winner and it is certainly divisive to keep this up! Everyone should use what works for them!

    PE

  9. #29
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,090
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    It is correct that many scanners cannot 'duplicate' otherwise good transparencies and negatives due to one limitation or another. We have seen how even recently Kodak improved the scannability of their films and advertized the fact.

    This depends on a number of factors such as the support itself which can contain materials deleterious to scanning. One example is the gray carbon that Kodak uses in some supports as an antistat. It could cause problem. Other Kodak films have 'retouching' matte on the back which could cause a problem. IDK, but I can use up all of my fingers listing impediments to a good scan from a good original from either Kodak or Fuji.

    I would say personally from analysis and talking to quite a few pros, that the best that I know use Kodak negative films and Fuji reversal films. Both companies are actively engaged in improving their deficient areas.

    As for complaints or problems. How come no one ever 'rants' that Fuji is not posting here or advertizing here?? How come no one ever really speaks to the BIG difference in the quality of the Kodak and Fuji databases on their respective web sites. We have seen lately though that Fuji's database lacks certain information whereas Kodak's does not and includes much more than anyone elses.

    Therefore, I would say (in spite of my EK bias) that Ilford wins B&W, Kodak wins negative color, Fuji wins reversal color, Kodak wins web site quality.
    Kodak and Fuji lose representation on APUG and PN. Kodak and Fuji win advertizing on PN.

    You see, from my POV, there is no clear winner and it is certainly divisive to keep this up! Everyone should use what works for them!

    PE
    Ron,

    You sum up many of my observations perfectly.

    One of the reasons why I said I'm coming to love Portra as color neg film is its scannability.

    I don't want to stray too far into "forbidden territory" but in one of my own threads here not too long ago I noted that I was pleasantly "surprised" that after scanning a roll of 135 Portra negs (I used my Nikon 5000D) and did a quick "Auto Adjust" in PS - there was not adjustment at all! [http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/4...tal-film.html]

    This is as opposed to using other films, both negs and chromes, where there is a definite "lightening" and, I suspect "color shift".

    Having given up on Kodachrome (because there is a time when you just have to "move on") I haven't tried any of Kodak's newer 'chromes so cannot opine on them. But I do very much like Fuji Velvia (both the 50 and even the much maligned 100).

    But even Velvia scans, as well as those of other color negs such as Superia or Kodak's equivalent will "shift" when you use the PS "Auto Adjust". Then, you have to decide if you "agree" with PS! [DISCLAIMER: I never post "adjusted" pics to The Gallery here!]

    But the fact is, as Tim first noted, the color shift is not a function of the film - it's a function of the scanner. And this is why the OP would have had an interesting item of discussion on Hybrid but is advancing an irrelevant point here.

    Oh, yes JD, I doubt we'd ever be able to host a Kodak rep here. Would more likely turn into a roast.

    Although there is a way it could be done - via a "screened" Q&A - but that would really rankle some people.

  10. #30
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,359
    Images
    65
    Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.

    PE

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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