What I really wonder is how it differs from Reala, 160C, and 160VC, not Ektar 25.
Also, any differences would be purely out of curiosity for me until it is released in a larger format, as I would only perhaps want to use the film in medium or large format. In small format color, I use Press 800 probably 75% of the time, and Provia 400 for most of the rest. Occasionally I use Fuji 64T, and I am very happy with Reala on the special occasions where I put a 100 color neg film in my 35s.
#pragma rant_on
Makes you wonder about the photo magazines though, I was in Chapters a week ago, yeah was last Friday, opening day for Quantum of Solace, which I thoroughly enjoyed..... Flipped through the photo magazines, and it's like film never existed, except in the abandoned equipment classifieds. It's sad though, because I know of only one magazine that still talks about techniques and composing and all that stuff that allows you to shoot one image and be happy with it. The rest of them are more like computer magazines with cameras as a sideline.
I think that one image is a forgotten ideology. Let me explain it, the concept is that of a guy with an 8x10 camera, who comes upon a scene, sets up his tripod, puts on his camera, composes on his ground glass, slides in a film holder and trips the shutter. Puts away the film holder, takes off the camera, breaks down the tripod, and moves on. Versus the guy with the digital camera and superzoom lens, who comes upon the same scene and machine guns everything in sight, hoping against hope itself to get at least one image that isn't complete crap. I was out shooting with a friend, he had one of the latest fancy DSLR's, I had my trusty Konica FC-1, yeah I know it's a quarter century old. I took 50 photos, he took around 500 images. I got twice the number of keepers though.....
#pragma rant_off
Bringing this back on track, when you need to spend real money on film and chemicals, it forces you to conserve the resource, because in the back of your mind is the £0.25 (sometimes a lot more) that image is costing you (between film and processing or chemical costs), so you take a little longer to compose, and make sure that when you trip the shutter you know that what is on the film is going to be a keeper, even without a LCD display and a histogram.
I often think if I had $5,000 to spend on camera gear (come on lotto numbers), I would buy a nice MF kit.
I'm a bit tired of this ridiculous idea that persons who shoot digitally are careless machine-gunners who spread their cameras almost perpetually on auto-.-mode around the field, to later sit down at their desktops and discover the twothree images that aren't terrible; whereas the bearded pro., with his dusty T.L.R. or Leica or Brownie or some such, takes just about four pictures, and frames them all.
I admit that one is more likely to take more shots with digital, as the medium offers so much more capacity than any roll of film, but that can be as good as, it's claimed it can be, bad. Bad photographers don't turn goods just because they're handed a view-camera and told to "take their time," and good ones don't become glaze-eyed twits with more memory cards than sense simply because they're given an EOS 40D for Christmas.
The issue with this comparison is the difference. If you had done a clip test to find the speed loss the film had sustained, it would be easier to compare.
Plus you can't compare grain on a 20 year old roll of frozen film to a nice fresh roll of film. It doesn't work. The only way to truly know would be to find a frame of color chart shot on the old ektar in 1992, processed then. That would provide more accuracy, but the film could have faded. As you can see this is not easy to assess.
.doesn't fit with the claims of exaggerated saturation posted in this thread
.
I think those that have reported the exaggerated saturation have been over exposing the film by 1/2 to 2/3 stop. The prints I've looked at have normal contrast and neutral color.
I think comparisons to Ektar 25 are definitely valid and needed. There's some of that around if you look hard enough. I just shot some last week and it came out stunning, no long-term effects of freezing at all that I could see. Lost a bit of speed but that was it. I have a few bricks of it and I am sure others do too, so it's definitely worth comparing it to ektar 100, esp. since Kodak themselves do in their materials.
Nonetheless, I'll definitely stock up on ektar 100 as the extra stop or two of speed is nice to have.
-Ed
Which new scanner do you have?My new film scanner does 10,000 dpi. I wonder if I rescanned those Ektar negs, if the results would be anymore telling then before? I know its not a drum scan, but its surely better then the 3200 dpi I was getting out of the Minolta film scanner at the time. The Noritsu scanner could only do 3000x2000.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?