Slide film with narrow exposure latitude?

[DREW WILEY]

Time to find some Prussian helmets from the 19th C and invade the Pyrenees, I guess, provided the soldiers wear face masks. Color film curves have to factor in a number of things besides just density, including how the dyes interact (or don't) at the extremes.

 

[138S]

Time to find some Prussian helmets from the 19th C and invade the Pyrenees, I guess, provided the soldiers wear face masks. Color film curves have to factor in a number of things besides just density, including how the dyes interact (or don't) at the extremes.

Hi Drew, in the post-covid you should come, you'll be welcomed. Bring your Norma... (Don't wear the Prussian helmet in the airport...)

 

[Sirius Glass]

If two light meters disagree, then one of them needs recalibration. Which one? Send both of them in to the same person and then you will have the accurate readings that are required for slide films.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh that would be a treat, visiting the Pyrenees, Pere. I'm getting older and lazier, so am about to shift to my lighter Ebony 4x5 folder for my next mountain trip. It's also more convenient for airline traveI, which I'm not going to be doing anytime soon. I prefer the Norma for day hikes, or else use an 8x10 folder. Right now I'm taking a break from my drymounting marathon in order to do some darkroom cleanup and touch-up painting, and trying to figure out how to squeeze in my dye transfer printing station, in case I finally do come up with a generous enough block of spare time for that kind of labor-intensive printing. Take care.

 

[ic-racer]

It is $104...
.

You are correct, this is what the web site indicates, so someone with access to the document can read it and only describe it on the forum here.

What can I do with the standard I have purchased?
If you purchase a hardcopy, you are allowed to share it with any person that wants to read it. However, you cannot copy the text by scanning it, photocopying it, or reproducing it in any other way. For electronic files, you can store them on any device, and you are allowed to print one copy for your own personal needs. However, you are not allowed to make copies or transfer the electronic file, or reproduce parts of it. For more information, please contact us at copyright@iso.org.

 

[138S]

You are correct, this is what the web site indicates, so someone with access to the document can read it and only describe it on the forum here.

If you are really interested then I'll make the effort to ask for the document, to read it and to explain you the details.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Patric,
as promised in our former conversation, here now more details:

That could be said for all E6 slide films, but which one has the narrowest exposure latitude? Or all they all the same?

No, they are not. There are significant and visible differences.
That is the ranking concerning latitude and max. contrast range in which details are recorded ("dynamic range") of the current E6 transparency films. From the best / highest value to the worst / lowest value:
1. Provia 100F
2. Ektachrome E100
3. Velvia 50
4. Velvia 100

The difference between the best (Provia) and the worst (Velvia 100) is in the range of 1.3 to 1.5 stops. That is a visible and significant difference in many scenes / shooting situations.
I have done both tests in my test lab, and also lots of comparisons in daily shooting situations. I am shooting slides for almost 40 years. And I expose 50 - 100 rolls of E6 films on average each year.

Important to know is that data sheets never tell you the whole story (there are many reasons for that; would lead too far here). E.g. Fujifilm data sheets are often quite "conservative", "cautious" and more on the safe side with a certain Japanese understatement. In all my tests over the years I found that the results in real daily photography are often better than expected based on the data sheet alone. On the opposite side some data sheets of other suppliers are just fairy tales, for example Maco / Rollei film is offering Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 in three different packagings and with three different data sheets......

In general the max. contrast range in which details are still recorded is higher with current E6 films than many photographers think. Often their opinion is only based on results with cheap, inferior scanners (amateur film scanners and flatbed scanners), but these scanners are simply not aible at all to record all the detail on the film. The problem and bottleneck is the imaging chain in these cases, not the film itself.
Photographers who do project their colour slides with excellent slide projectors with 250W light power and excellent high-transmission condensor systems know how much amazing detail current colour reversal films can capture.
And those who use real drumscanners for their scans do know this very well, too. Our member Tim Parkin (excellent landscape photographer, publisher of the photo magazine "On Landscape" and owner of a drumscan service) has done very detailed dynamic range tests with Velvia 50 and his Heidelberg Tango drumscanner: He has got about 10 stops of DR.
Another example:
Some years ago I had a little technical problem with one of my Mamiya 645 Pro TL bodies in a portrait shooting outdoors: The contact of the body to the prism finder with the light meter was interrupted. That lead to some strongly underexposed shots in a changing light situation. Some photographs were underexposed by 2 stops. Film was Provia 100F.
But despite this strong underexposure the film recorded lots of detail. Have a look here at this example, it is one of these underexposed shots, scroll down to the portrait of the young woman with the black hat:
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/
This is a drumscan with a Heidelberg Tango. This example both demonstrates that a transparency film like Provia 100F can record lots of detail in the shadows, and that a real drumscanner is able to save even massively underexposed shots.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[JPD]

Thank you very much, Henning! That drum scan did a very good job of finding the "hidden" information in the dark parts.

I have been reading forum discussions and reviews of these transparency films for the last hour, and they seem to fit well with your ranking. What I am thinking now is maybe the high saturation of the Velvia films might make it more difficult to evaluate the test results. Highly saturated colours could deceive the eyes as looking "too dark" even when the exposure is correct. Then maybe the Velvia films wouldn't be the best alternatives. Perhaps the Ektachrome is the better choice, if it has more natural saturation and the Provia has "too much" latitude? Buying Ektachrome would also be a nod to Kodak for reintroducing the film in an updated form.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you very much, Henning! That drum scan did a very good job of finding the "hidden" information in the dark parts.

Patric, no problem at all, you're welcome.

I have been reading forum discussions and reviews of these transparency films for the last hour, and they seem to fit well with your ranking. What I am thinking now is maybe the high saturation of the Velvia films might make it more difficult to evaluate the test results.

No, that is not a problem at all.
Both Velvias have higher saturation than Provia and Ektachrome E100, but not at all a kind of saturation which would make an evaluation difficult. I have never had any difficulties in evaluating the Velvias (or the higher saturated former E100VS / Elitechrome Extra Color).
For your scenario, a test series of the precision of light meters, Velvia 100 would be the best choice.
For other cases your and my choice would / could of course be different. I generally prefer Velvia 50 to Velvia 100, because I prefer the Velvia 50 colour rendition (which is visibly different to Velvia 100).

Buying Ektachrome would also be a nod to Kodak for reintroducing the film in an updated form.

You could also use Velvia 100 and appreciating Fujifilm that they have saved colour reversal film. They have done it alone, no one else. Whereas Kodak has stopped all E6 film production in 2012, Fujifilm has continued with a whole transparency film programe, the continued production of E6 chemistry, and the continued support of E6 labs around the world.
Without that support which has kept the medium and the whole worldwide E6 infrastructure running, Kodak would have never had the chance to reintroduce Ektachrome.
If Fujifilm would have behaved in the same manner als Kodak, E6 would be dead now. And new E100 would have never been introduced because of a meanwhile collapsed E6 lab infrastructure.

And E100 is not a general update to its forerunner E100G. E100 is better in one parameter, but unfortunately worse in some others. But that is a completely different topic, not fitting this thread.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Black shadows are good.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Again, "dynamic range" means little if you've just got a bottomless pit of gritty blue dye, which much of the basement of Velvia actually is. Might as well print it black. Scanning won't salvage a thing that isn't reasonably there to begin with, unless you want to see all the little cockroaches and earwigs at the very bottom of the can. So yes, Velvia does have more range than most people think, but it doesn't do you much good. The realistic working parameters are still going to be a somewhat more confined than other chrome films. There are certain hues Velvia handles quite well. But Fuji dropped their most neutral scale and accurate film line, which was Astia. It didn't sell very well for general usage; but if you needed something for repro purposes or with a little more realistic latitude than other chrome films, nothing has ever been better. The EDupe series of film was basically tungsten-balanced Astia. But my best duplicates ever were on Astia 100F, which at that point was coated on stable polyester sheet film base instead of miserable triacetate. I believe Velvia 100F is also still on polyester, as is E100 and E100G. That fact alone would steer my choices. I went through hell trying to keep tight register with Provia products for over a decade, when I didn't have a choice. Now Kodaks CN sheets are polyester too. Fortunately, I made a number of 8x10 master dupes from older chrome with all the masking values and color corrections integrally in place. Otherwise, I'd have to start all over again and hope for stable humidity or the damn acetate would dimensionally shift. I'm certainly glad that nearly all black and white sheet films have long been on polyester. It makes a difference in sharpness too. Acetate films are not as stiff and more prone to sag in a sheet film holder. I use adhesive holders to tame that, but it's one of the most overlooked problems among LF photographers I can think of - and then they blame their lenses!

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Drew,

Scanning won't salvage a thing that isn't reasonably there to begin with, unless you want to see all the little cockroaches and earwigs at the very bottom of the can. So yes, Velvia does have more range than most people think, but it doesn't do you much good.

I have to disagree here in a practical sense and based on my experiences. I've never had visible "little cockroaches and earwigs" with Velvia, neither with scans, nor with the prints from these scans, nor in projection.
As direct colour prints from transparencies are currently not possible anymore because of the lack of direct colour positive papers, we have to look at alternatives. I have found the best alternative for direct prints from transparencies in using real drumscans, and then printing these files on silver-halide RA-4 paper. Like the new Fujifilm Maxima premium paper for exhibitions and archives. Best quality RA-4 paper ever. Amazing quality and colour stability of more than 100 years. The prints from transpaprencies made with this workflow are first-class.
We have excellent possibilities, we just have to use it.

But Fuji dropped their most neutral scale and accurate film line, which was Astia. It didn't sell very well for general usage; but if you needed something for repro purposes or with a little more realistic latitude than other chrome films, nothing has ever been better.

I agree that Astia was an excellent film. I have used it very much in the past. And fortunately I still have some dozen rolls in the freezer for projects when I can fully exploit the capabilities of this wonderful film and benefit from it (mainly outdoor portraits and fashion).
But Fujifilm didn't dropped it, the market dropped it. The demand was just too low. And that also because of Kodak's long year marketing campaign against transparency film. They started it at Photokina 2008. I well remember my talks with Kodak at that fair. They didn't hide at all that they have no interest anymore in colour reversal film. Two years later the last Ektachrome coating runs were done, two years later after that the official discontinuation announcements by Kodak.
And Kodak then started advertizing against transparency film. In their biggest reversal film market before discontinuation - Germany - they even did printed adds with promoting their negative films as replacememts for reversal film. For years. The Kodak fanboys unfortunately copied the strategy and bashed slide film, too. As well as Lomography in their marketing. Of course all this combined marketing power did hurt the color reversal film market severely. It's a real shame what happened at that time. And the same people which bashed E6 and hurt the market, than bashed Fuji when they must stop films like Astia because of too low demand.

Provia 100F is by far the closest film too Astia now on the market. Difference in DR is only about 0.5 to 0.7 stops, resolution is the same, sharpness of Provia is higher due to higher MTF at low spatial frequencies. Astia has had a bit warmer tones. But that can be adjusted with Provia by either using a Skylight or slight warming filter, or a lens with a bit warmer color transmission.
My transparencies on Provia made with the Zeiss ZF 2/50 look really very similar to the slides of Astia made with the (more cooler) Nikkor 1.8/50.
E100 is very different to Astia 100F: Much more cooler, tendency to green shadows, much less DR, lower resolution. For Astia 100F users E100 is not an alternative at all.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

Provia is worthless for what Astia did. I've shot and printed lots and lots of it. By contact, Astia would handle third generation dupes without a color shift. Provia can't handle even one. Not that lots of people still make dupes, but it does speak for the superb balance of the product. No, not glitzy on a light table. And no, E100 is not a substitute for Astia either, but it's a far superior product to Provia. Remember, I'm talking about optimal quality repro, not slide projection. Not long ago I pulled out a Provia 8x10 original that involved ten masking steps to produce an optimal Astia dupe, which I previously used for printing big Cibas, but more recently made yet another contact from the master dupe - an interneg onto Portra 160 8x10, then printed both onto RC Fuji Crystal Archive II as well as Fujiflex Supergloss. That was more cumulative work than most images, but multiply that by the hundreds, and you can imagine why I might differ from certain of your evaluations. I'm not qualified to discuss all the internal politics of Kodak. As far as I'm concerned it was just too big for its own good, with the right hand never understanding what the left was doing. But that kind of thing is more common than you might think. Lots of big publicly-traded US corporations have unnecessarily failed due to poor oversight. But you gotta admit, Kodak has come up with some of the best color neg films ever, while Fuji dropped the ball on that end. We should be happy that some of each category have survived.
But thanks for that Maxima tip. I'll have to try some next round and see how it compares to Fujiflex, which also has a superior DMax and better saturation compared to regular CA RC papers, but is obviously unique in being a true full gloss surface. No RC paper can replicate that kind of 3D depth and extreme detail when it is wanted. I take ALL marketing estimates of image life (permanence) with a grain of salt. If you are willing to stick around another hundred years to see if it's true or not, and want to let me know, I might have a different address by then!

 

[Henning Serger]

Dear Drew,
I have the greatest respect for your printing work and your enthusiasm in this field, being a "lab rat" which enjoys optical enlargement so much by myself .
But I think we should keep in mind that most probably 99.99% of todays colour reversal film shooters don't do optical prints or dupes from them in their labs. And the OP isn't doing it either.
Today transparency film users are using this film type for
- enjoying the slides on a light table with a slide loupe (outstanding quality if an excellent loupe is used)
- enjoying the slides in a slide viewer
- enjoying slide projection (unsurpassed, breathtaking and unique quality with an excellent projection lens; this is an area in which digital ist not competive in quality and costs)
- scanning the slides and viewing them on a monitor (often the worst quality option)
- scanning the slides and making prints from theses scans (can deliver outstanding quality by using the rights tools and materials, see my post above).

And when I report from my tests and experiences in my daily shooting I have that in mind.

Provia is worthless for what Astia did.

Maybe for your work with dupes. But certainly not for all the (former) Astia users looking for an alternative for their daily shootings (see above). For them Provia 100F is currently the best and only option: The two main differences between Astia and Provia are
- Astia is a bit more warm in color rendition
- Astia has less contrast / higher DR.
The first parameter can be changed with Provia by using a Skylight or slight warming filter, or by using a lens with a warmer colour rendition. For example my transparencies on Provia made with the Zeiss ZF 2/50 look really very similar to the slides of Astia made with the (more cooler) Nikkor 1.8/50 or 1.8/85 AF-D.
The second parameter can be successfully changed by pulling Provia by 2/3 to 1 stop. Then you have the same contrast and DR like Astia. Provia has excellent pulling characteristics.

Not that lots of people still make dupes, but it does speak for the superb balance of the product.

Making dupes is today one of the tiniest niches in photography. We may complain or be sad about that, but it is just the reality we have to face. And for the huge majority of reversal film shooters the film characteristics are most important and relevant, which they see in their daily shooting, and in their daily workflows (see above).

No, not glitzy on a light table. And no, E100 is not a substitute for Astia either, but it's a far superior product to Provia. Remember, I'm talking about optimal quality repro, not slide projection.

Yes. And I am talking not about this current tiny niche, but about the 99.99% of the other shooting situations, which transparency film users are facing daily. And in these Provia 100F is surpassing E100 in the following categories:
- higher resolution (I've done the tests with my standardized resolution test; Provia has about 10% higher resolution)
- better sharpness (also confirmed by Kodak in its data sheets,see MTF)
- less contrast, higher DR
- no color shift to green in the shadows
- a bit better flexibility in pulling and pushing
- correct ISO sensitivity (the first E100 batches were only ISO 80/20°).

Provia is a bit warmer than E100, E100 is a bit on the cooler side (the only current Kodak film with that characteristic at the moment). It is a matter of taste, and / or a matter of the subject which one is preferred.
What I like at E100 ist that it finally has real, true sky blue (like all Fujichromes). A problem with all current Kodak colour films so far, with their tendency to Cyan in the skies.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[ic-racer]

If you are really interested then I'll make the effort to ask for the document, to read it and to explain you the details.

I was able to view Emulsion Speed Rating Systems, 1990, G.S. Albright through my library at work, which cites ISO 2240 and explains it. BTW the graph I presented in post #11 is essentially the same thing, from an old paper with expired copyright.

 

[138S]

I was able to view Emulsion Speed Rating Systems, 1990, G.S. Albright through my library at work, which cites ISO 2240 and explains it. BTW the graph I presented in post #11 is essentially the same thing, from an old paper with expired copyright.

Yes... those standards do not change much the basics over the decades. Single great change was (for negative film) in 1960, when they doubled box film speed with no change in the manufacturing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Henning. Let me just qualify the discussion a tiny bit by stating this is in fact the "Analog" section as the forum, or as I would prefer to call it, the "Non-Digital" half,
which certainly doesn't preclude film and development advice which might help the hordes of digital printers (meaning mostly inkjet among amateurs), but does perhaps give people like me some leverage to highlight or promote full darkroom workflow, and how it is not only still entirely possible, but capable of exceptionally high quality results. But there are still a few points I'd disagree with you on. 1) Provia hasn't pulled well since the generations I & II of it, and even then highlight crossover was a distinct risk (which I sometimes deliberately induced for creative effect); it does push a bit. 2) So far, I'm finding E100 sharper than Provia, but that was based on careful 35mm testing; I'm fooling around with 120 at the moment, but probably won't get around to sheet film for quite awhile since I still have some E100G 4x5 in the freezer. (I sold off all my 8X10 chrome film since I converted over to CN after Ciba died, and have plenty of extant chromes on hand to choose from for interneg or DT purposes). 3) Astia 100F was the finest grained E6 film ever, although "sharpness" involves contrastiness too. But in large format work that's a minor detail. With MF it comes more into play. 4) So far I've found E100 speed spot on, and the color balance also spot on at 5500K. Perhaps Kodak ironed some thing out before I tried the E100 emulsion. Fuji's balance has always been controversial, but at least consistent; it's seems to be more around 5200K.
5) I have never experienced any "green shadow" bias with late Ektachromes that you claim (per a very high quality true 5000K viewing system), and I do my control targets very precisely as well, but will continue to monitor results. 6) I'd agree that Provia is warmer than the last 3 generations of Ektachrome (E100S, E100G, and E100). That's an option I happened to like, just like I love more than one brand of coffee-flavored ice cream. But if necessary, it's easier to warm Ektachrome with a basic warming filter than to cool a warm film. 7) Cyan skies? You'd be surprised how much of that is due to actual changes in the sky itself in recent decades. True deep blue skies are getting rarer even at high altitude. It's remarkable, however, the extent they've temporarily gotten bluer even here at sea level with the dramatic reduction in airline traffic due to the virus. But as per film bias, cyan contamination is the Achilles heel of Ektar in particular. I know how to filter for it. But it affects both ends of the curve. That same bias has delivered the the true turquoise of tropical waters in a manner better than any previous film. But I don't want to derail this chrome film discussion that direction.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I should have also added that high-quality internegs are not really more difficult than many other darkroom tasks, provided each step along the way is properly calibrated. Quite a few people own simple punch and registration contact frames for sake of unsharp-masking black and white workflow. If not, it can be acquired. That can easily be adapted to handling chrome film contrast control when generating color internegatives. The other key piece of equipment is a decent colorhead. Many people own those too. A bit of practice, just like learning a few chords on a piano, but really not tricky at all in concept. Portra 160 sheet film is excellent for making internegs if a slight mask is added to the original chrome; or some might prefer flashing it instead. RA4 printing and development are easy to learn. It's all relative. Trying to figure out any new cell phone seems far trickier to me.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wonder if the green shadow bias issue and the 1/3 stop speed loss actually relate to a simpler problem that might be expected: poor process controls on the part of the lab - specifically first developer time. If you look up some older technical information documentation, Fuji films are usually recommended to have a slightly longer first development than Kodak (no longer the case with Fuji Hunt E-6 at least) - and it isn't a big stretch to see someone reacting to receiving Ektachrome by running it for 30-60s less time in the first developer than the Fuji materials. A 1/3 stop speed loss and some degree of crossover would not surprise me if that was the case.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Drew,

Hi Henning. Let me just qualify the discussion a tiny bit by stating this is in fact the "Analog" section as the forum, or as I would prefer to call it, the "Non-Digital" half,
which certainly doesn't preclude film and development advice which might help the hordes of digital printers (meaning mostly inkjet among amateurs), but does perhaps give people like me some leverage to highlight or promote full darkroom workflow, and how it is not only still entirely possible, but capable of exceptionally high quality results.

as I have often explained here on photrio, proved by my test results, optical enlarging with APO enlarging lenses delivers by far the best results in detail rendition / resolution compared to scanning, including the best drum scans. I have done several tests in this regard over the years. But drum scanners have the unsurpassed capability to record/extract (deep) shadow and highlight detail.
I am an optical printer myself. And I always try to encourage (young) film photographers to start optical enlargements in the darkroom.
But my point was that the market reality today is - as all direct colour papers are unfortunately gone - that optical colour printing does not play a significant role anymore for current reversal film shooters. And that therefore the evalution of reversal films should be based on the workflows the photographers really use. That is simply what they are interested in.

But there are still a few points I'd disagree with you on. 1) Provia hasn't pulled well since the generations I & II of it, and even then highlight crossover was a distinct risk (which I sometimes deliberately induced for creative effect); it does push a bit.

Well, my test results - and the results of lots of other photographers I have talked to - are different: Provia 100F pulls very good by 2/3 to 1 stop. I have never had any problems with it. You get lower contrast / higher DR as intended and excellent colour rendition.
It also pushes very well by 1 stop: Only a slight/minimal increase in contrast and grain, which is so low that you only see it in direct 1:1 comparison with the exact same shot without push (I have done lots of these direct comparisons). It gets slightly warmer with 1 stop push. Even a two stop push is possible. Of course then the quality decrease is visible and significantly bigger, but in situations where the question is "having a picture with not optimal technical quality vs. having no picture at all" it is a no brainer.

2) So far, I'm finding E100 sharper than Provia, but that was based on careful 35mm testing; I'm fooling around with 120 at the moment, but probably won't get around to sheet film for quite awhile since I still have some E100G 4x5 in the freezer.

I have done lots of direct 1:1 comparisons under perfect, ideal and identical test conditions: Same camera, same lens, same aperture, focus bracketing. Provia 100F is definitely sharper. This is also to be expected if you look at the MTF curves in the data sheets of both films.
I have also talked to other experienced photographers who have done direct comparisons, and they have got the same results: Provia being sharper than Ektachrome. You will also find lots of discussions online in other groups where photographers has come to the same conclusion.

3) Astia 100F was the finest grained E6 film ever, although "sharpness" involves contrastiness too. But in large format work that's a minor detail. With MF it comes more into play.

Yes, Astia (and its amateur derivate Sensia III) has been the finest grain E6 film. But grain with all current E6 films is so extremely fine today that it isn't an issue with any film. I can project 35mm slides on huge screens of several meters width and will not have a grain problem. Prints of poster sizes from 35mm transparency films are no problem at all. And with MF grain is absolutely no point to think about anymore at all.

4) So far I've found E100 speed spot on, and the color balance also spot on at 5500K.

I've shot dozens of rolls from the first batch (first coating run, different converting batches) which have been only real ISO 80/20°: I have done direct comparisons:
My two F6 bodies with identical metering, same lenses. One body loaded with Provia, the other with E100. Provia was spot on with ISO 100/21°. E100 at ISO 100/21° was 1/3 stop underexposed. Those with ISO 80/20° metering were correct.
Then I have done direct 1:1 comparisons in the studio, metered with a new Gossen DigiPro F2 handheld lightmeter. Same results.The E100 shots metered with ISO 100/21° were all underexposed, the Provia 100F under the identical conditions were spot on at ISO 100/21°.
Then I went outdoors also in addition with my F5, F100, F4s. Also all with correct working meters. Shot Provia and E100 in direct comparison. Again the same result: E100 underexposed when metered at ISO 100/21°, correct exposure when shot at ISO 80/20°. Provia 100F was always spot on at ISO 100/21°.

I have also talked to other experienced photographers who have done direct comparisons, too, and they have got the same results. You will also find lots of discussions online in other groups where photographers has come to the same conclusion and complained about underexposed E100 when shot at ISO 100/21°.

I have shot recently two E100 which performed better. Probably a new coating run. I will continue to examine that problem. Maybe Kodak has a batch consistency problem here.

5) I have never experienced any "green shadow" bias with late Ektachromes that you claim (per a very high quality true 5000K viewing system), and I do my control targets very precisely as well, but will continue to monitor results.

A friend of mine - very experienced, a quality fanatic and owner of a drum scanservice - has first pointed me to that and showed me his results with this slight green cast in the shadows. I have then searched online and found further examples (Alex Burke and Ben Horne reported about it as well if I remember right). I have then started a "shadow series" with E100. My result was that it doesn't occur always, and isn't to 100% predictable. I have got it mainly with portraits in shadows: The skin tones then shifted a bit to green. And that doesn't look very flattering, of course. Therefore I will use a slight fill-in flash in shadows with E100 in the future, which solves the problem (E100 generally has very good skin tones, so has Provia).

6) I'd agree that Provia is warmer than the last 3 generations of Ektachrome (E100S, E100G, and E100). That's an option I happened to like, just like I love more than one brand of coffee-flavored ice cream. But if necessary, it's easier to warm Ektachrome with a basic warming filter than to cool a warm film.

E100S and E100G have both been warmer than Provia 100F and E100. The colour difference between E100S, E100G and E100 is very obvious. You are the first and only person I have heard saying that E100S and E100G have been cooler than Provia. Astia and E100S, E100G have always been the films chosen by photographers who wanted a bit warmer rendering than Provia 100F.
Provia is neutral to slightly warm in comparison.
And E100 is neutral to slightly cool in direct comparison.
In comparison to all Kodak CN films, which are generally all on the "warm(er)/yellowish" side (has been a wanted, intended policy by Kodak), E100 offers a real alternative with its cooler tones. Which I think is good in general. Alternatives are important and good for us photographers.

7) Cyan skies? You'd be surprised how much of that is due to actual changes in the sky itself in recent decades. True deep blue skies are getting rarer even at high altitude.

No, it has nothing to do with changes in the sky itself. Over all the years I have shot Kodak and Fuji films side-by-side, at the same time and identical conditions. And the Fujis have always had the better, more natural /real blue sky colour, whereas the Kodaks have had this tendency to lighter blue and cyan (fortunately, new E100 finally don't has it anymore). Talked about that with lots of other landscape photographers, and they all said the same.
Some years ago I have talked with Ron Mowrey about that topic, and he confirmed my results. He explained to me that this shift to cyan has to do with the colour couplers Kodak is using.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I wonder if the green shadow bias issue and the 1/3 stop speed loss actually relate to a simpler problem that might be expected: poor process controls on the part of the lab - specifically first developer time.

Lachlan, I can exclude that. Because
- I have seen it with development by myself (with a JOBO processor), and I am really accurate with my quality control
- I have seen it with E100 developed by the leading E6 lab here
- I have seen it with E100 and Provia 100F developed at the same time in the tank, E100 underexposed, Provia 100F correct
- I have seen it with results from other photographers, who have either developed it themselves, or have used other excellent labs with very good reputation.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have seen it with development by myself (with a JOBO processor), and I am really accurate with my quality control

Which kit are you using for the Jobo - Fujihunt E6 6bath?

I've thought about attempting to put together a 'resource page' for the colour process products, as aside from Kodak the other manufacturers seem to hide their PDFs away.

Tom

 

[Henning Serger]

Which kit are you using for the Jobo - Fujihunt E6 6bath?

Tom, I am mainly using the Fuji Hunt kit for my personal work, and the Tetenal kit for my E6 workshops (well, workshops of course are currently not possible because of Covid19).
For the tests described above I have used both kits.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you, Henning. I'll stick with my own comments, however. I done some massive testing of my own, at least with previous films. There is also a bit of philosophical difference. You talk about scanning 35mm for sake of several-meter-wide prints. That's commendable. I just don't call those prints - more like spray paint graffiti to me, mush. Fine if someone believes in that "normal viewing distance" nonsense of driving past a freeway billboard at 70mph viewing it from 200 yards away (you can convert that into metric if you wish). High end scanning is available to anyone if they are willing to pay for it. I've turned down being outright given an excellent drum scanner. I've turned down an entire major photo lab worth of gear for free upon someone's partial retirement. I have enough to do already, have no place to put it, and certainly don't want to get involved with industrial quantities of chemicals. I have plenty of true apo enlarging lenses already. I'm by no means expert in E100 yet, and am simply speaking from rather limited very careful testing so far. But as far as portrait shades going greenish-bias (??), I'm curious what kind of specific lighting was involved. Was a color temp meter on hand at the time? Something just sounds fishy there. As far as Provia vs earlier Ektachromes etc, 99% of my experience is with large format sheet film. One simply can't afford to guess about the characteristics. But I will nonetheless continue to respectfully read your own opinions.

 

[unityofsaints]

Very interesting discussion on the differences between the two film stocks. I'm considering importing some 8x10" Ektachrome to try out out as a replacement for the expired Velvia I typically shoot. i am now, however, more terrified than ever to shoot the 15 sheets of Astia hiding out in my freezer.