Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,978   Posts: 1,523,692   Online: 1112
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    A.Colden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14

    Kodak Ektar vs Fuji Reala Comparison

    We recently did a comparison between Kodak Ektar and Fuji Reala in 35mm.
    Here are some images of the results, for those interested:


    Kodak Ektar
    Nikon FM3A
    Nikkor 45mm 2.8 Ai-P lens


    Fuji Reala
    Nikon FM3A
    Nikkor 45mm 2.8 Ai-P lens



    Kodak Ektar
    Contax 139Q
    Contax/Zeiss 45mm 2.8 Tessar lens


    Fuji Reala
    Nikon FM3A
    Nikkor 45mm 2.8 Ai-P lens

    These sets were taken within minutes of each other, around 1pm on a sunny February day.
    To view them side by side, please see here. The negatives were scanned using the same settings.

    The most obvious difference to me, is the magenta cast in Reala.
    The colour of the water you see in the Ektar shots is true to life; that is how the water looked on that day.

    Also, note that we did not get the "cyan sky" effect with Ektar that some complain about.

    What do you think?

    Thanks,
    A. Colden
    Last edited by A.Colden; 02-10-2010 at 09:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    Hi and thanks for the comparisons. However, each film has its own corrections for scanning. How can comparing two different films with the same corrections be relevant. Sorry if I've missed something.

  3. #3
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Nice to see them side by side. They both look like themselves.

    Maybe Reala doesn't have a magenta cast. Maybe Ektar has a green cast that just happened to be neutralized with the particular scanner settings you used.

    My point is that each image should be color balanced before comparison. Since you are scanning, you don't even need a good eye for color balance to do this. Just put a grey card in the shot, and tell the computer that it is grey.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    ^^^ A Gray scale would be better. And a color chart with gray scale better still. If you have PS you can roll over each patch and record the RGB readings. Corrected color profiles should be used with each film during scanning.

  5. #5
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Of course a MacBeth chart is ideal. However, most people have a $5 grey card (if not several) already lying around, but will probably not go out and purchase a $70+ MacBeth chart. For an informal test using quickly and cheaply obtained materials, it'll work.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    ^^^ Then a simple gray scale will suffice... much better than a gray card.

  7. #7
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,932
    Images
    65
    They were taken with different lenses which might have different UV capability. There appears to me, to be a difference in the UV getting to the two films. Might be the lens, might be the UV overcoat.

    That is why we always tested films with identical lenses. Sorry, but this test does not work for me. A test chart will not help enough if we don't know the UV sensitivities of the lenses and films. A heavy UV filter over both lenses might have helped.

    PE

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    PE is correct but only one image was taken with a different lens.

    All variables must be eliminated and proper scanning profiles used or the test is moot. Sorry if this seems ungrateful but its true. There are just too many variables unaccounted for.

    It is nice of you to post your results though.

  9. #9
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    How much is the "simple" grey scale that is dead neutral and appropriately segmented? Where is it? How long will it take to get it? I think you missed the "practicality" point of my "simple" grey card suggestion. Of course a MacBeth chart is ideal. Of course a proper grey scale is better....however, in terms of a test method that any Joe Photographer can do quickly and cheaply, a grey card will do the job just fine. All we are trying to do is quickly (and digitally) balance the images, not do an exhaustive comparison of the two films.

    ...and, yes, it is a given that all shots must be taken with the same lens. I didn't notice that one of the lenses was different.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #10
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,932
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    ...and, yes, it is a given that all shots must be taken with the same lens. I didn't notice that one of the lenses was different.
    And they show a striking difference in the sky. So, that is an important point.

    I saw the difference in the fur collar in the first 2 comparisons. I recognize that but the second two show what might be a typical UV problem.

    Remember, even with the same lenses, if 2 films differ in UV cutoff, you will see somewhat similar differences and that is why I suggested a UV filter over the lens.

    PE

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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