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?
There are many reasons to post scans, but comparative evaluation of products isn't one of them.By the arguments presented here, there's really little point in anyone ever posting scans of anything online, or identifying what product they scanned. That its not the same as seeing the print or slide in person is a no-brainer. But to claim you can't derive any meaningful visual information by which to evaluate and compare the product from a scan seems illogical and defensive. Is new Ektachrome the only film to suffer from this limitation? Because I've never seen the argument so strenuosuly presented in defense of any other film or print product.
Until you’ve shot a roll for yourself (is that really expecting too much??)
then you’re attempting to form an opinion based on poor derivatives.
Give it up Paul. It is too much to ask. He is not serious. He doesn't want to spend the money to buy and process a roll of film to decide for himself.
I don't think I have seen any other threads in which a poster was making a decision on whether to try a film based on scans.
Any reasonable person (and any reasonable person giving advice) would think the best way to evaluate a film would be to try it yourself.
Remember, the OP is also asking whether he should use Portra or Ektar, as if someone else can make that decision for him.
I don't think I have seen any other threads in which a poster was making a decision on whether to try a film based on scans. Any reasonable person (and any reasonable person giving advice) would think the best way to evaluate a film would be to try it yourself. Remember, the OP is also asking whether he should use Portra or Ektar, as if someone else can make that decision for him.
My vastly superior intellect drives me to such eccentric behavior. Besides, I have no personal experience with Portra outside of a studio setting.
One can learn immeasurably from studying the experiences of others.
Happy new year george you crazy diamond x
But the point is that you haven’t SEEN anything yet, just derivative representations on a screen, using software that delivers a severely reduced gamut. Until you’ve shot a roll for yourself (is that really expecting too much??) then you’re attempting to form an opinion based on poor derivatives.
Since they stopped making Kodachrome, I would say that you are right!
I personally don't see the point of scanning slide film.
You can now get better prints from slides than you can from negatives because the image quality is already there in the original. There is no need to try and compensate for the orange mask or futz with the low contrast and other characteristics that negatives require for traditional printing.
Erm, no. A scanned, correctly inverted (mask sampled & divided out) negative will outperform an equally well scanned transparency on many fronts, precisely because of the neg/pos process benefits rather than the shortcomings of pos/pos processes. Quality of scan & competence of inversion matter & if done well, the colour quality of scanned negs is astounding.
We'll agree to disagree. The quality of slides reproduced via the technology that dare not speak it's name blows away any negative I've seen. And I am referring to professionally scanned negatives vs. slides that I've done at home with an assortment of devices.
If you are still lamenting the loss of Kodachrome, perhaps you should consider a new hobby.
Moved to the scanning subforum.
I feel that this is a mistake on your part as the thread is about the performance of the film in question, not the scans used to compare it.
If you’re interested in how the film looks on the light table, how it projects, how well it makes analogue tricolor separations for three-layer gum prints, how well it works for RA-4 reversal prints, or contrast as measured on a densitometer, that’s for the analogue forum.
I feel that this is a mistake on your part as the thread is about the performance of the film in question, not the scans used to compare it.
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?