How Would You Compare Velvia 50 to Ektachrome 100 ?

[sunhouwang]

How about the Provia 100f? is it more suitable for landscape?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Has nothing to do with that. Once one has mastered a suite of films, they know how to choose the right one for a particular set of color relationships, or the degree of scene contrast anticipated, or just personal preference per look. Any chrome film can be used for landscapes; and I've used nearly every one of them at some point or another. Provia 100F is reasonably good choice because it's a middle-of-road chrome film and relatively versatile. But who knows how much longer it will be available? Switching over to Ektachrome 100 if necessary wouldn't be difficult, although it is a little more cool in terms of its color balance than Provia.

 

[KyleMika]

I saw it mentioned a few pages back-- does anyone actually enlarge transparencies still? I was under the impression its not really possible anymore (in a darkroom anyway)

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are a number of ways it can still be done. There is no direct positive paper like Cibachrome anymore; but even that required supplementary masking. Type R paper is also long gone, though a number of people are experimenting with reversal processing of ordinary RA4 chromogenic papers. There are multiple routes to print from black and white RGB separation negatives made from chrome originals onto alternative hand-coated media, which is more involved, but frequently done. How I do it, now that Ciba is extinct, is via Portra 160 internegatives. In principle, that is easy to explain, but in practice a bit fussy.

The end result, printed on premium RA4 media, can be superb - certainly superior in my opinion to digital printing options. But I'm highly equipped to do it well. I don't do it often - it's finicky work keeping film completely clean in the dark during each step. But for those extra special original 4X5 and 8X10 chromes still laying around, it's the ticket.

 

[KyleMika]

Oh interesting, so you contact print the E6 image onto a color negative, and then enlarge that once developed? I guess it makes sense, the colors of E6 should match real-life so that you would not need to do anything special. I have to ask then, what is your process for doing the contact printing (I am mostly curious how you align it and expose it properly). Thanks for the info it's nice to see people are still doing it-- I would love to do it at some point

 

[koraks]

does anyone actually enlarge transparencies still? I was under the impression its not really possible anymore

It's doable, but a bit of a chore if you ask me. The most straightforward way is to reversal process RA4 paper. There are some websites and YouTube videos on it, as well as a thread or two here on Photrio.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Kyle, that is the general idea, whether you generate the intrenegative via contact like with large format originals, or enlarge a small original chrome onto a larger sheet of color neg film. But a lot lot more goes into doing it right. For one thing, the contrast level of the original has to be tamed to match the characteristic curve of the internegative film itself, which requires specific supplementary masking technique, which I won't describe here. It's not that simple to do right.
Traditionally, flashing has been used in commercial operations to reduce contrast in the internegative, using special internegative films now no longer available, at least fresh. But masking is more precisely targeted and flexible. And as I already mentioned, it's fussy work. You have to be dust-free every single step.

But otherwise, it is capable of a very high level of color reproduction, far better than even old school R prints or the best of what we former Ciba printers ordinarily achieved. Experimenting with reviving reversal processing might be easier and certainly would be less expensive, just like Koraks just implied; but so far, I've never seen it producing the same kind of quality, in terms of hue reproduction itself - not even close. But that shouldn't discourage those attempting that particular route from further refining it as best they can. Just depends on whether you just want some kind of "look", or really need more analytic control over the exact outcome.

Tricolor separation negative approaches are a whole other thing. Even dye transfer printing can be DIY revived, and has been in a few instances, but at considerable effort and expense, and decades worth of practice. Tricolor carbon, a UV process, currently has a number of practitioners. But more often, people experiment with far easier gum or casein techniques. Hints concerning all the above can be found somewhere on this Forum. But there are also dedicated forums elsewhere for these various options.

 

[koraks]

I've never seen it producing the same kind of quality, in terms of hue reproduction itself

I'm also rather skeptical about the possibilities. Color reproduction is one thing; coating irregularities are another. They tend to pop up rather strongly on reversal-processed RC papers due to minor irregularities in the paper base.

 

[JParker]

+1

This ISO 80 thing was widely spread on various photo forums by certain posters only soon after the re-release of the film. It has no foudation whatsoever.

How many E100 films do you have exposed by yourself?

I have used meanwhile more than 100 since its introduction, from different batches. And in the same time lots of Provia 100F and Velvia. And photographer friends of mine have also used dozens it of.
And we have all made the same experiences.
Furthermore the reports in the numerous photography groups with the same results have been published there not only after the introduction, but continously.

 

[miha]

How many E100 films do you have exposed by yourself?

Whats the point of this question? I have exsposed quite a few. Does it lose the speed after certain number of rolls?

What is more important I have consulted Photo Studio 13 (you know them well, they were one of the biggest German pro labs before they were swallowed by another company in 2022) soon after I read your posts on ISO 80 and they advised against it, bellow you can read their answer from 2019:



Hello Miha,

I asked my colleague from laboratory and he said he cannot confirm the 80 ISO.
He says that there are so many different opinions and personal preferencies on how a slide should work out, so maybe one finds it really only 80 ISO, but the other not…
He would recommend to expose with 100 ISO and then you should find out for yourself how you like it best.
I hope this information may help you

Also a nice weekend and greetings.

Andrea

 

[faberryman]

Apparently some people like to overexpose their Ektachrome by 1/3 stop. Maybe their meters are off. Maybe their metering skills are off. Maybe they think Ektachrome scans better that way. Maybe they read that was the cool thing to do on a forum. Maybe they are rebels and like to do things differently. Maybe a lot of things, none of which change the sensitivity of the film.

 

[Film-Niko]

The major differences between Velvia 50 and Ektachrome are:
- Velvia 50 has higher colour saturation
- Velvia has a warmer colour rendition
- Ektachrome has a neutral to slightly cool colour balance
- sometimes shadows with Ektachrome can get a bit green colour cast
- Velvia is much sharper
- Velvia has higher resolution, especially at lower detail contrast
- Velvia works fine at box speed, Ektachrome looks best at EI 80
- in 120 Velvia has the much better film converting with Fujifilms Easy Loading System, Easy End Seal and Barcode System.

That is a very precise and correct description.
I can 100% agree as a long-term, very experienced color reversal film user.

 

[Film-Niko]

Of course they can do: E.g. in a landscape secene by turning the pol-filter you get more intense (more blue) and darker sky in relation to the ground. Depending on the direction of the sun and your wanted result you can often decrease the contrast between the blue sky and the ground by 1-2 stops. I am doing that very often for years with excellent results. And here again, I am definitely not the only one .

Of course you are not the only one. Because that is very well known by experienced landscape photographers for decades.
I am using that helpful technique, too.

That is right, but in lots of other scenes it works perfectly, e.g. people in shade in the foreground. That technique has been used for decades in professional fashion photography. And it is still used there, now with digital imaging, because it improves the results.

Yep, fill-in flash is one of the best working techniques to manage high-contrast scenes with the main object in the range of up to 20-25 meters.
But unfortunately the huge majority of film photographers has absolutely no knowledge about it. And most of them have completely missed the huge technological advantages in flash technology in the last 30 years.

Gradual filters are very successfully used for decades by countless professional landscape photographers, with film and digital. Used by excellent photographers who are doing their living by selling their pictures. And no, their results don't look cheesy and fake. They know how to use it (and I know, too ).

Correct. They are a useful tool. That is the simple reason why they are popular.

 

[Film-Niko]

Whats the point of this question? I have exsposed quite a few. Does it lose the speed after certain number of rolls?

What is more important I have consulted Photo Studio 13 (you know them well, they were one of the biggest German pro labs before they were swallowed by another company in 2022) soon after I read your posts on ISO 80 and they advised against it, bellow you can read their answer from 2019:

Please.......
No, you have not contacted Photo Studio 13, because they have stopped their operation already at 31.12.21.
So very long before anyone here in this thread discussed that topic.
Photo Studio 13 simply does not exist anymore. Their lab closed, the machines stopped. The most experienced employees retired. Period.
And Prolab in Stuttgart had just taken a part of the PS 13 customers, as recommended by PS 13. But Prolab always has been independent and established before, a complety different lab.
Saying that as fomer long-term PS 13 customer.

Concerning real sensitivity of E100:
I belong to that significant amount of experienced users who also get best results at EI 80.
And no, my meters are not off!! And no, I am not a stupid beginner, or someone who likes his slides slightly overexposed!!
Same subject, same camera, direct comparison:
Provia 100F at EI 100 and E100 at EI 80 look identically exposed. Did that test with several cameras.
Discussed that topic with lots of other photographers. Almost all made similar experiences.
Talked to labs, too: The same.
There is a reason why there are so many reports of E100 users exposing it at 80 for best results.

If you or anyone else get best results with your camera / meter at 100, fine, be lucky.
But please don't bash other experienced photographers who have made different experiences.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Apparently some people like to overexpose their Ektachrome by 1/3 stop. Maybe their meters are off. Maybe their metering skills are off. Maybe they think Ektachrome scans better that way. Maybe they read that was the cool thing to do on a forum. Maybe they are rebels and like to do things differently. Maybe a lot of things, none of which change the sensitivity of the film.

OR the light meters are not calibrated with a calibrated standard source.

 

[faberryman]

OR the light meters are not calibrated with a calibrated standard source.

That's what I meant when I said:

Maybe their meters are off.

But I can see how maybe you thought I meant maybe their light meters were turned off even though that's not what I said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's what I meant when I said:

We violently agree! I was supporting your post.

 

[koraks]

And no, I am not a stupid beginner

And even if you were a beginner, this would not imply 'stupid'

Which is to say: kindly remain respectful in your posts. Thank you.

 

[faberryman]

We violently agree! I was supporting your post.

Then there is the possibility that they prefer to use Sunny 14.

 

[miha]

@Film-Niko I'm attaching a print-screen from my google email account.

 

[Film-Niko]

@miha:
The response you have posted is from 2019.
Our discussion here is from August 2023.

 

[miha]

@miha:
The response you have posted is from 2019.
Our discussion here is from August 2023.

Are you suggesting the film (E100) changed from 2019 till now. Please re-read my post. This ISO 80 thing stared at that time by certain vocal forum members over at the RF forum.

 

[Film-Niko]

Are you suggesting the film (E100) changed from 2019 till now. Please re-read my post. This ISO 80 thing stared at that time by certain vocal forum members over at the RF forum.

What may have been posted on Rf forum is completely irrelevant for our discussion here. We are on photrio here.
I have seen reports of users getting best results at EI 80 all over the place, in many forums in many different countries, in facebook film photography groups (there are dozens of that on fb alone), on instagram, reddit.....and so on.
And we also had photrio members who had reported that results here in the past.

 

[faberryman]

Concerning real sensitivity of E100:
I belong to that significant amount of experienced users who also get best results at EI 80.

First, "real sensitivity" is determined by the ISO standard and not what you think looks best. You are free to think E100 shot at EI 80 looks best, but that has nothing to do with real sensitivity.

Second, what are your criteria for who qualifies as an "experienced user", and how many "experienced users" do you think constitutes a "significant number" of "experienced users"? How did you determine whatever you think is a significant number of whatever you think are experienced users think E100 looks best when shot at EI 80? Did you actually vet the experience of the "experienced users" on social media? Have you ever seen any of these "experienced users'" E100 slides shot at EI 80?

It seems to me you are relying on the logical fallacies of appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) and the bandwagon fallacy (argumentum ad populum) to support your argument. Use of logic fallacies render your argument invalid, so I would stick with just saying you think E100 look best when shot at EI 80. You really don't need to say more. Adding arguments based on specious reasoning erodes your credibility.

A bit of history: way back when before there was the internet and social media, slide shooters would frequently underexpose slide film by 1/3 stop to get better saturation and avoid blowing out highlights. It was a tip they read in Popular Photography magazine or wherever. They never said that the "real sensitivity" of Ektachome 64 was 50; they just said E64 looked better underexposed by 1/3 stop. Just an observation of the then and now.

 

[miha]

Film-Niko, What is relevant for me and should be for the great majority of users here is to trust KODAK. In 2019 when I first learned about it I consulted one of the most experienced pro lab in Europe and posted their reply above. I started shooting E100 as intended and never looked back.