Ektachrome Needs MORE Warmth

[Brad Deputy]

The bottom row, 2nd from the left is a good example of the blue-ness I think a lot of people encounter when using this film. Some other exposures are certainly on the cool side of things, but that one stands out. It is probably related to filtration AND exposure (and first development), thus an interesting thing to investigate.

I've got long suffering rolls of E100 and Provia 100F in 35mm that I'll probably run through my F80s w/ exposure imprinting for reference but even then perfect chromes are elusive.

Yup, that's definitely in the shade -- good catch.

 

[Brad Deputy]

Here's a crop of that image, as I tried to color balance it. The sun peeking thru to the concrete looks correct; this was nearing sunset.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

I understand. I'm still new with this film, so i'll need to run some more tests; i was hoping to standardize on a color film then buy 400 feet of it and process myself.

My "lightbox" is my monitor, which is color calibrated to 5400 white (tested ~100 degrees). The full sun shots have the blue haze, but then I'm always trying to filter out blue from my Fuji 100 / 200 shots..too much blue for me, I guess.

I had it developed by that large west coast film processor who shall not be named (until they sponsor us). There is a large Lab in Seattle I plan to try next ($6 cheaper, also dip-and-dunk). It could also be my scanner (Plustek 8200ai). I only have the scanning target for Provia 100; Haven't seen any for E100 yet.

View attachment 344156
(cell phone camera poor white balance...)

I have a Plustek too and you definitely need a E100 calibration slide for it. The Provia profile does not look the same for E100.

I got mine here: http://www.targets.coloraid.de/

 

[DREW WILEY]

For objective testing, you need to start with a calibrated target to begin with. Get ahold of a MacBeth Color Checker Chart and take a shot of it PRECISELY at 5500K color balance using a color temp meter and if necessary, the correct filtration. No goofy CFL or LED lighting, with their discontinuous spectrums. Diffuse sunlight is best. Preferably do this with large format film so that you have something big to examine, but slides will have to otherwise do. For correct exposure, read the middle gray patch on the Chart with a properly calibrated spot meter. That is a more accurate neutral gray than any typical gray card.

After proper E6 processing, examine the result over a comparably correct light box (Hint - you probably won't find one of those at any typical camera or art store; even the interior paint has to offset the yellowishness of the diffuser plastic; and the bulbs are quite specialized). Sound like too much? Not if you're a trained color professional.

But once you start jumping through additional hoops like scanning or screen evaluations, you have all kinds of additional weak links in the chain to contend with, and then might end up blaming the film for something which is not its fault at all. Get on first base first.

If you do this, you'll discover just how well-balanced a film E100 is. No, it's not the gold standard - Fuji Astia was that, but was discontinued because most photographers wanted something less objectively realistic, and more gussied up.
Then the nuclear option came along - Photoshop - which melted the whole earth into bizarre irradiated glowing colors. Now are eyes are still blinking; and some of us are barfing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never used skylight filters with chrome film except at high altitude to control UV. But the precise filter involved varied depending on the specific chrome film. Since I spent so much time at high altitude, I tested all of this to the Nth degree.

Your experience, Sirius, seems somewhat Pleistocene. Back that far ago, I was too busy pissing my pants when barely hanging onto some crumbling cliff with my little Pentax H1a dangling from my neck, loaded with Kodachrome, to be thinking about technical complications. But I rarely botched an exposure.

It was from the 1960s to 1981. At your age you should consider wearing Depends. They will help you keep your feet dry.

 

[Brad Deputy]

I have a Plustek too and you definitely need a E100 calibration slide for it. The Provia profile does not look the same for E100.

I got mine here: http://www.targets.coloraid.de/

I did not know this -- thank you!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I still have Cibachromes on my walls made with 4X5 Ektachrome 64 in the early 80's, some as big as four foot width. It was a wonderful film on stable PET base, and could capture certain greiges and sage tones, and muted greens, like no other chrome film. That was due to a bit of red contamination in the green sensitive layer. But the same thing prevented it from rendering clean vivid spring greens, or deep true reds. Dye transfer printers found a workaround to that; but that was obviously a complex expensive printing process. I could go into details; but what's the point?

When Fuji chromes came out, that helped solved the clean green issue. But their sheet film was on unstable triacetate, and it couldn't reproduce the same off-color sages and avacado hues as Ekta 64. No film is perfect. The most idiosyncratic chrome film available in sheets was the old highly-grainy pre-E6 Agfachrome 50. It was the only film I've ever used which could accurately record the colors of fluorescent algae or lichen. No one shoe size fits everyone.

No. I don't wear Depends. Sometimes I wish my cats did. Before I retired, the owner's son brought his retriever to work, and often dressed it in a diaper. Vinyl floors get slippery, and every now and then someone would yell, Biohazard! - meaning bring a bucket and mop. Three routine customers came in with pet wolves - beautiful animals, one deep black with vivid yellow eyes, another a white wolf, and yet another a beautiful classic gray wolf. But they're shy sensitive creatures, and would often pee on the floor. No problem when someone spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year there. They needed to make good money to afford a wolf like that, or even feed it. Amazing animals, and way more cerebral than domestic dogs. But pooping pets - nope. Unwelcome there.

 

[DF]

The warmed-X versions oif Ektachrome sold comparatively poorly when they were available. Besides, it's a easier to warm the look of a film with a supplementary filter than remove built-in artificial warmth when its not desired. If you seriously test it, the current E100 is spot-on its rated color temp of 5500K.

Fuji chrome films seem to be balanced a little warmer, around 5200K.

Old blue-biassed Ektachrome 64 was a long time ago. It had issues with red and green saturation. Then the tidal wave of Fujichrome 50 arrived, with vivid greens. But no color film does it all.

I really liked the 'ole 100GX (formerly 100SW) back in mid 90's. 'Never knew they sold poorly. Kodak gave us a choice possibly because of image degradation from filtering. Adding a warming filter and a polarizer is just too much.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I never used polarizers. All but the best polarizers are not neutral, but have a slightly greenish tinge, so that should tell you something about this whole warm vs cold topic. Otherwise, yeah, the old days are over and Kodak has to concentrate on supplying a lesser selection of films, and therefore what remains needs to be particularly versatile. Just be glad they reintroduced a chrome film at all.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I never used polarizers. All but the best polarizers are not neutral, but have a slightly greenish tinge, so that should tell you something about this whole warm vs cold topic. Otherwise, yeah, the old days are over and Kodak has to concentrate on supplying a lesser selection of films, and therefore what remains needs to be particularly versatile. Just be glad they reintroduced a chrome film at all.

I don't know about the green from the filters. But polarizers will remove the light reflecting off of leaves and grass saturating the greens. You have to be careful though not to overdo it otherwise it kills the colors and makes them look dead.

I try not to set it on full Max. About halfway polarizing is enough.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yep. Less is more. But many people just want to go hog wild, whether with a polarizer, or with some Fauxtoshop toy.

 

[faberryman]

Yep. Less is more. But many people just want to go hog wild, whether with a polarizer, or with some Fauxtoshop toy.

Or something else. Everyone has a hobby horse to ride.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know about the green from the filters. But polarizers will remove the light reflecting off of leaves and grass saturating the greens. You have to be careful though not to overdo it otherwise it kills the colors and makes them look dead.

I try not to set it on full Max. About halfway polarizing is enough.

Polarize only as needed and no more. I have seen that some friends were using the polarizer for everything and they had to learn to take the polarizer off. Not just off. Off most of the time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have high quality cross-polarization options for the copy stand in the lab. Never liked what they did in the field. I love natural sheen and complex reflections, just as I see them. I don't even like what they do to color at the copy station; but it's often the only way to photograph large shiny prints like Cibachromes, or glossy varnished paintings.