Am I the only one who thinks that the current batch of Ektachrome is noticeably lacking in contrast, or is this just a scanning issue?
It's slide film. Just look at the film not the scan to determine if the contrast is off.
You are considering to buy it, obviously you can afford it. Why not just get one roll and test shoot it?I need to know before spending $18 a roll for it.
I agree. If the final result desired is a scan or a print a negative film would be much better and easier to work with. But then even Ektar is not nearly as contrasts as provia or Ektachrome.May I ask why you don’t use one of the many color negative print films. Slide films are meant for projection.
If you want increased contrast in any film, just bump the contrast while scanning or in post-processing. Easy peasy.Sorry, but nearly all of these images have the same fuzzy, low contrast look to them.
What a waste of film. I only saw two images out of the whole lot that I wouldn't have pitched in the bin.Here is a search for "Ektachrome" with uploads after November 1, 2018. There are lots of new Ektachrome images, and also some older version Ektachrome images that need to be weeded through.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=new ektachrome&min_taken_date=1541044800&max_taken_date=1545973199&media=photos
Have you had the film in your hands? If not, your opinions are entirely based on other people's scanned interpretations. I have seen the film alongside various other transparency films on a light table & there are no obvious problems. Nearer comparison in terms of contrast behaviour etc is Fuji Astia.You guys have me all wrong, as I never have a need to scan my slides. This is only about how poor the scans of the current batch of Ektachrome looks. 64, G and VS all look noticeably superior.
Can you post a link to scans of the older material that appeal to you?You guys have me all wrong, as I never have a need to scan my slides. This is only about how poor the scans of the current batch of Ektachrome looks. 64, G and VS all look noticeably superior.
Can you post a link to scans of the older material that appeal to you?
I ask, because I'm not sure that we use "contrast" in the same way.
That's probably just lousy scans.It is the general lack of acuity that I find most troubling, followed by the lower than usual dynamic range of contrast.
That's probably just lousy scans.
The Kodak scans on Facebook were terrible, and Kodak even apologized for them.Maybe. But I have seen precious few scans that even begin to show better including from Kodak themselves.
Judging the inherent properties of a film by looking at scans on the web is like evaluating the quality of a bar of chocolate by licking the label.
If you want to evaluate a film, the only way to do it is to get a roll and make some images for yourself.Not when you are comparing the last and current batch of the same film! Even given the fact that I would be the first one to tell you that there isn't likely to be a digital capture device in existence that can capture what film looks like under a loupe, the comparison still holds a usable amount of validity.
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?