Ektar 100 is not E6 or slide film at all. It's color negative. Sigh..................
Originally Posted by gb hill
Many shot Kodachrome for reproduction, this is why Ektar is the best modern equivalent, but if you want a film for projection then Velvia 50 in many ways is better than K64 and closer to K25.
I'm sorry, but Velvia 50 is about as close as you can get to a polar opposite of Kodachrome.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
If you REALLY want to use a Fuji product to get something close to Kodachrome, I think Sensia is better than Astia. Now I know that ALOT of people claim that Sensia and Astia are basically the same thing, and that Sensia is just the consumer version of Astia. But my experience with both films leads me to believe otherwise.
Originally Posted by Krzys
Last edited by StorminMatt; 01-11-2010 at 03:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.
He didn't say that ektar was e6. Use your reading skills before being so rude.
Originally Posted by hrst
No, not true, I got new images in a few hours ago and just did a slide show for my girlfriend, so the images are fresh in my mind.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Velvia has a truncated color range and over saturates what colors it does represent while Kodachrome has a much smoother and complete range of color, but goes ballistic with reds. I have great KM-25 stock and the only difference I see between it and 64 is slightly finer grain and a tad smoother color range than 64. But they are so darn close that I could have easily passed on 25 and shot even more 64 for price and consistency's sake.
I have shots from New Years 2010 in Times Square that have outrageous color, but not funky and truncated like Velvia would have did, it is really neutral, but spectacular.
I shot it with a Hasselblad XPan and the 30mm aspheric, Nikon F100 and 14-24 2.8, M3 with 50mm 1.4 asph and a M6 + 35 1.4 asph. All did really well with the film, the Xpan having lower contrast that handled high contrast scenes better and the Leica having fantastic contrast and superb color saturation making it outstanding in low light.
I just projected the 24x36 images about 30 minutes ago using a Leica Pradovit RT with a 90mm Super Colorplan Pro lens, there is nothing that can touch Kodachrome, not even close!
Last edited by PKM-25; 01-11-2010 at 11:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
From my observations, KM25 and KR64 look VERY similar under some situations, but there ARE differences between the two. Perhaps the BIGGEST difference between KM25 and KR64 is the response to subdued, diffuse lighting. As you probably know, this is one situation where KR64 just falls flat on its face. Think of that drab look that a shot taken with KR64 has when taken on a cloudy day. KM25 performs significantly better under these circumstances. And KL200 performs better yet. The other difference is in saturation and contrast. KM25 has slightly higher saturation and slightly lower contrast. These differences are not huge. But they are there. And, as you said, grain is slightly finer and the color range slight smoother.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
The bottom line? In ALOT of situations, there is not going to be much noticeable difference between KM25 and KR64. This is particularly the case with low contrast, sunlit scenes. KR64 does BEAUTIFULLY under such situations. And, in these situations, you would be hard-pressed to see any difference between KR64 and KM25. But under more challenging lighting conditions (especially drab, diffuse light), KM25 generally gives MUCH better results.
I loved Kodachrome 25. Never got friendly with Kodachrome 64.
The difference was big enough for me.
I'll go with this, the first image ( Panoramic ) on 25 was in light I thought was toast, but I was surprised to see the color I did in this image.
Originally Posted by StorminMatt
The second one was 64 on a cold-a$$ winter day in waning flat light on the 2nd of this month, I thought it did fairly well.
The last is light that either film would excel in, fresh rain with incredibly even wrap around light ( thank you Times Square ), KR-64 on January 1.
I am starting to use more 25 now that it is 2010, so I bet I will get more of a feel for it as time goes on.
There is one concern I have with this film: longevity. Is it going to last over the long term? Who knows? Although the Kodak and Fuji E6 films may not look as close to Kodachrome as CR200, at least I know that both manufacturers have made significant improvements to E6 films as far as longevity. I'm not sure about CR200, which is (I believe) a rebadged Agfa product.
Originally Posted by Ektagraphic
I'm with StorminMatt, my last roll of Kodachrome 64 was on a gray cloudly day, and the slides were just dreary, worse than reality. Nice film with bright light, but you need that light. Since then the only Kodachrome I shot was 200 and 25, and I've used up my supply.
Velvia 50 as a substitute? No way. That's a special-effects film in my book. I liked E100GX (discontinued), I presume E100G with an 81A filter is pretty similar.
Given a good scan, one can get Ektar 100 to look more than a little like Kodachrome.