Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,483   Posts: 1,571,190   Online: 1113
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: Ektar 100

  1. #21
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Ektar looks quite real and not unreal to me. I've seen it put to good use to beautiful indoor portraiture in controlled lighting, (unsuitable for uncontrolled/natural lighting though imho), I'd follow Kodak's recommendation for the film, Kodak know's better than 2F/2F what their film is good for imho.

    Calling it innaccurate in colour reproduction is like calling Reala or other C-41 films more colour accurate than E-6 films, when they cant even reproduce certain colours -at all- let alone accurately, while E-6 can.
    The color gamut of any color negative film is superior to a reversal film simply due to the masking.

    If there is a color that cannot be reproduced by a film (and there are such, particularly those of some aniline fabric dyes), neither a positive nor a negative film will reproduce them well.

    PE

  2. #22
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28
    Barring Ektar, how is purple and sunset colours going for colour neg these days?

  3. #23
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Barring Ektar, how is purple and sunset colours going for colour neg these days?
    Quite well actually, as long as the scanning or printing process does not remove the color. You see, that is the basic problem with most printing and scanning, and it gives one a false impression of poor color.

    So, color neg does as well or better than a slide film but the "beauty" can be filtered out. Also, reversal films tend to exaggerate the color via high contrast. Even Ektar is more natural in contrast when printed than most color slides when viewed.

    PE

  4. #24
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28
    I haven't found Astia to exaggerate colour in my personal opinion, but I find it to still reproduce the richness of a brilliant sunset.

    I have yet to take a colour negative sunset image that hasn't had a loss of colour and shifted or inserted colours that dont seem correctable as it throws the rest of the image out of whack doing so, Ektacolor 160 (Portra?) and Reala was the absolute worst for this I've encountered, other films doing much better, regardless if it's been scanned or printed.

    Ektacolor took post-sunset purple sky and pink clouds, and made them into a simply dull, overcast sky, dull pale blue and grey clouds. While I didn't try optically printing it, I couldn't correct it or get the slightest hint of colour from it.

    The negative is only an in-between product.


    The best results I have, have had muted colour, and is flat, it lacks the original vibrance of the scene, which I can capture with digital or E-6.

    I generally try exposing the highlights as midtones, ie: spot metering them, and taking that as my exposure, rather than adjusting them up to highlights like I would on digital or E-6.

    If you could suggest a method of best reproducing sunset on a C-41 film, I'll try it. I would like to be able to do that, even better if it doesn't involve underexposing.
    Last edited by Athiril; 05-16-2010 at 05:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    I generally try exposing the highlights as midtones, ie: spot metering them, and taking that as my exposure, rather than adjusting them up to highlights like I would on digital or E-6.
    This may be your problem. Just the opposite works with color negs; expose for shadows, even if you overexpose the highlights a bit. I'm not surprised that you get dull, grey darker colors if you underexpose.

  6. #26
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Use a bit of overexposure for best results. I often use 1/3 stop. Then when printing or scanning, tweak the color to your satisfaction. That is the advantage of color neg. You can "tweak" saturation or contrast by exposure without losing anything in your image as opposed to reversal.

    PE

  7. #27
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28
    hrst: normal exposure (not underexposed) gives me less colour in the highlights, 'underexposing' has given me the best with C-41, ie: exposing the colourful highlights as midtones instead of highlights, exposing them as highlights tends to wash them out.

    Overexposing C-41 gives better midtones and shadows (so Im sacrificing the quality of those for the highlights when I expose them as midtones), but doesn't increased exposure give lower and lower and lower highlight contrast as density rises also? I imagine that would be counter-productive, as I imagine the density of all colour layers gets closer together instead of having more separation?, becoming more neutral looking, at least that is what I think from looking at normal exposure and bracketed shots.

    I could try another roll next time there is going to be a pretty sunset and overexposing it from a 'normal exposure', like I would for anything else I shoot with C-41.

    Photo Engineer: I'll try that on something that isn't Ektar, Portra, or Reala, I'll come back with another thread with comparisons when I get the chance.

  8. #28
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    I've posted examples of Portra VC at 100 and at 160 both. That is rated speed and about 1/3 stop over. The scans and the prints were both posted here on APUG not too long ago when discussing a similar subject.

    PE

  9. #29
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28
    Ektacolor 160 is Portra 160 NC right? Which is what I meant I'll avoid.

  10. #30
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Ektacolor 160 is Portra 160 NC right? Which is what I meant I'll avoid.
    IDK if these are the same films.

    Check the Kodak web site.

    PE

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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