Caucasian skin is generally Zone VI. So simply meter the skin at box speed and then open it up one.
Originally Posted by ymc226
This was shot that way on Ektar:
I love the way it renders skin tones.
And Ektar also isn't "garish" at all... people seem to be copypasta'ing what they read on the net from someone else and not putting their money where their mouth is.
Originally Posted by hrst
A photo of skin tones next to a red object will reveal that the film isn't "garish" or overly red (and in fact does very well for subtle gradiations in red objects itself) but their work flow/reproduction method is what is "garish".
No, I base my thinking on my experience of shooting a lot of both films and comparing the results, I don't dispute that Ektar is a wonderful general purpose colour neg. film that can be used for portraiture at a pinch, but is not the best film for producing natural skin tones in various different lighting conditions that Kodak Portra or Fuji Pro 160S films that were specifically devised for portrait work do.
Originally Posted by Athiril
Last edited by benjiboy; 03-22-2011 at 05:55 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I agree. Even though I like the look of Ektar in certain situations, Portra yields the most natural skin tones among currently available films, and even it can't hold a candle to many of the discontinued Kodak color films. (Pro 100T,Vericolor III, Ektachrome 64T). I would've used Portra 160 NC to make the picture I posted above had I had any at the time.
Originally Posted by benjiboy
The photo posted above was made at sunset with flash fill, so it's probably not a good benchmark for color rendition.
Last edited by c6h6o3; 03-22-2011 at 12:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.