Ektachrome 6121 dupe film as camera film - results

[EASmithV]

I acquired a box of Ektachrome 6121 film from a fellow member of APUG with the intention of using it as in-camera film.

I shot some, and I now have the results in my hand. I figured that some of you may have sheets of it laying around, so I'm sharing my results with you all.

It appears that with a Wratten 85B filter, this film's speed (in daylight) is approximately ISO 8.

Without a filter (in daylight), the film's speed is about ISO 40.

In daylight, with a Wratten 85C, the film's speed looks like it is about ISO 125. (I need to do more testing to be more confident about this)

I will soon post up some pictures of my results for you to see. All shots were at f16 at 1/100 on a Sunny 16 day.

In summation, this film looks like a pretty low contrast color slide film, but not too bad. However, it also has quite an impressive exposure latitude. If you have any of this film sitting around, give it a try.

My next go with this film will be cross-processing it in C-41 chemistry.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Is this any diffrent than the current Edupe?

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, EA,

I have also found that EI 8 is about typical for 6121, although I used it only for night shots without filter, so that's a guess. How can it have a higher EI (125!!) witha filter (85C) than without? I look forward to seeing some of your shots.

Konical

 

[EASmithV]

Is this any diffrent than the current Edupe?

It is a totally different emulsion, from what I've been told. Exactly how different I'm not sure. Hopefully someone with the knowledge will enlighten us.

Good Evening, EA,

I have also found that EI 8 is about typical for 6121, although I used it only for night shots without filter, so that's a guess. How can it have a higher EI (125!!) witha filter (85C) than without? I look forward to seeing some of your shots.

Konical

I'm really not sure. I want to try it again just to make sure there are no errors.

Shooting it in daylight without filter doesn't give as bad a color cast as I feared it would.

 

[nickandre]

Shooting it in daylight without filter doesn't give as bad a color cast as I feared it would.

Tungsten film isn't as bad in daylight as you'd expect.

 

[EASmithV]

These pictures don't really give you the right idea, as the digishots give no where near the full detail of the tranny, and the digicams white balance was probably a little off. Nevertheless, you can see that it not only works, but you can see exactly what kind of latitude this film gives, in 1 stop increments.

The digicam makes everything look more contrasty and saturated and blue than it actually is, just a heads up. If it helps any, all the following pictures were taken with the same exposure on the light table.


Wratten 85B

Wratten 85C

No Filter

 

[EASmithV]

Yeah, Just looked at them on another computer and they look terrible on the screen, but in reality, the color balance and detail is way better.

I just podded, stopped down, and lowered ISO on the D*gital re-shot some in an attempt to make them better. I also tried to match the exposures to look more accurate, and they do look much closer on the back of my camera, so I'm assuming that an uncalibrated screen is the culprit here.

85B. The reds/oranges are less saturated and more accurate in the actual slide.

85C. You can see the detail in the grass in the shade on the slide, not so much so here.

No filter. To reiterate, the slide looks better/less blue. I think I said that a million times lol.

And that, folks, is as good as I can get it to show you until I can get some sort of sc*nner.

 

[wildbill]

Well, I'm glad you're getting the testing going. Make sure you post results when you get it down. I've got several boxes of this stuff left and I may just have to give it a shot.

vinny