The smaller the film size the better the scan you need, not just due to the resolution problem, but much more with respect to statistically recording minor changes in dye curve shape, or else you will have signficant reproduction problems, at least for those of you who are still doing things the medieval way and are not using a real enlarger! And as I've hinted repeatedly, correct exposure includes not only the proper ASA but proper filtration for color temp. I agree
with shooting it at box speed if you want the most out of it. 99% of the complaints about this film would vanish if
folks simply learned proper technique. If you want to wing it, I'd try a different neg film. But it's no trickier to expose than a chrome film - you just can't evaluate easily on a lightbox; and judging on a screen from a less than optimal scan
tells you less about the film itself than the flaws in the workflow.
You left out the obvious advantage of Kodak Ektar - and generally most C41 over E6, is it's latitude.
Originally Posted by Henning Serger
I tend to agree with your comparison as generally speaking E6 surpasses C41 in terms of resolution and grain.
Are your test procedures and results published? And if so where?
"Statistically recording minor changes in dye curve shape" seems to be a bit of technobabble. Never heard this phrase before in my life!
Now I don't feel so bad about not understanding it either!
I think it just means that the better scan's higher resolution would pick up finer variations in color. But I'm not sure that's what it means.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Originally Posted by Les Sarile
test procedures and results were published several times so far in threads here on apug (just about two months ago for example in long thread concerning resolution of BW films, as we have not only tested color but also BW films), and several times in Germany at aphog.de.
Of course the presentation on forums is and have to be a bit compressed. In a separate publication we will go further into detail.
Furthermore some complete reports were given to some optic, film and photo chemistry manufactureres who were interested in the results.
We intend to publish the whole project online in the future, but there are some significant problems:
1. It is very expensive, and we have already invested a huge amount of money. We are financing it by ourselves, no support from others.
2. Time, it's a lot of work.
3. It is very very difficult to present high resolution via internet and computermonitors; so we have to test some methods for the best, most objective presentation.
Therefore it is still a long way to go, maybe next year.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Can you say who are the "we" you talk about? Are you a group of enthusiasts, a recognised institution, a company?
Not exactly a fine grain issue at all, but Ektar having steeper dye spikes than most other color neg films, combined with a less than ideal scan (esp will small film sizes) = more risk for placing the
sample on unequal geometry one curve relative to another (esp if not corrected for color temp
imbalances in the first place); so you end up with a certain amt of 'dirt'. Easier to demonstate than explain. But it's a major source of complaints on this film from people shooting format and doingcasual scans - they blame the film for the off color, but it's generally the scan that's the real problem. One of the ways in which old-fashioned enlarging is actually more advanced in practical
results. It's not the kind of problem one can clean up in Fauxtoshop.(Though contrast increase masks are often needed enlarging smalnegs). Don't have time to explain in detail here.
Drew; Look here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4046/e4046.pdf and here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4051/e4051.pdf for data on Portra and Ektar dyes. Same pages as before. You will see that there is little difference in the dyes in the two films. In fact, except for a slight edge in contrast and interimage, Ektar probably uses the same couplers (image formers) as Portra does. It is the difference in emulsions and coating design that differs between these two films and between these two and comparable Fuji negative films there is a huge gulf.
Of course, no problem:
Originally Posted by pentaxuser
Besides me, two other experienced photographers has been (partly) involved.
Test results were checked and confirmed by more than 15 additional photographers so far, and some experts from the photo industry (e.g. Mirko Böddecker from Adox has seen and checked results).
The scans for the scan tests (comparison to microscope, optical enlarging und projection) were made by three different professional scan services: One working with a Nikon Coolscan 5000, one with an Imacon X5 virtual drum scanner, one with a ICG 370 real drum scanner.
I don't like ektar's colour rendition one bit. For me it's reala, astia, and provia 400x to the bitter end.