Ektachrome 6121 dupe film as camera film - results
I acquired a box of Ektachrome 6121 film from a fellow member of APUG with the intention of using it as in-camera film.
I shot some, and I now have the results in my hand. I figured that some of you may have sheets of it laying around, so I'm sharing my results with you all.
It appears that with a Wratten 85B filter, this film's speed (in daylight) is approximately ISO 8.
Without a filter (in daylight), the film's speed is about ISO 40.
In daylight, with a Wratten 85C, the film's speed looks like it is about ISO 125. (I need to do more testing to be more confident about this)
I will soon post up some pictures of my results for you to see. All shots were at f16 at 1/100 on a Sunny 16 day.
In summation, this film looks like a pretty low contrast color slide film, but not too bad. However, it also has quite an impressive exposure latitude. If you have any of this film sitting around, give it a try.
My next go with this film will be cross-processing it in C-41 chemistry.
Last edited by EASmithV; 09-11-2009 at 06:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Is this any diffrent than the current Edupe?
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
Good Evening, EA,
I have also found that EI 8 is about typical for 6121, although I used it only for night shots without filter, so that's a guess. How can it have a higher EI (125!!) [I]with[I]a filter (85C) than without? I look forward to seeing some of your shots.
It is a totally different emulsion, from what I've been told. Exactly how different I'm not sure. Hopefully someone with the knowledge will enlighten us.
Originally Posted by Ektagraphic
Originally Posted by Konical
I'm really not sure. I want to try it again just to make sure there are no errors.
Shooting it in daylight without filter doesn't give as bad a color cast as I feared it would.
Tungsten film isn't as bad in daylight as you'd expect.
Originally Posted by EASmithV
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yeah, Just looked at them on another computer and they look terrible on the screen, but in reality, the color balance and detail is way better.
I just podded, stopped down, and lowered ISO on the D*gital re-shot some in an attempt to make them better. I also tried to match the exposures to look more accurate, and they do look much closer on the back of my camera, so I'm assuming that an uncalibrated screen is the culprit here.
85B. The reds/oranges are less saturated and more accurate in the actual slide.
85C. You can see the detail in the grass in the shade on the slide, not so much so here.
No filter. To reiterate, the slide looks better/less blue. I think I said that a million times lol.
And that, folks, is as good as I can get it to show you until I can get some sort of sc*nner.
Last edited by EASmithV; 09-12-2009 at 10:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Well, I'm glad you're getting the testing going. Make sure you post results when you get it down. I've got several boxes of this stuff left and I may just have to give it a shot.