Lack of contrast from current Ektachrome?

[George Mann]

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?

 

[ericdan]

It's slide film. Just look at the film not the scan to determine if the contrast is off.

 

[George Mann]

It's slide film. Just look at the film not the scan to determine if the contrast is off.

I need to know before spending $18 a roll for it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's fine, I've processed a few rolls for people & there was nothing concerning at all. It looked like E6 Ektachrome should. What people choose to do in the digitisation process is their own prerogative.

 

[ericdan]

I need to know before spending $18 a roll for it.

You are considering to buy it, obviously you can afford it. Why not just get one roll and test shoot it?
See if you like it, then get more.

I don't think any scan will ever look like the actual slide.
I don't think any monitor can reproduce the colors of slide film.

 

[MattKing]

I've shot and had processed one roll so far. It looks very good to me.
The film has been described to me by a very reliable source as being a subtle improvement on the film that was discontinued in 2012.
As I posted in another thread:
"When Kodak undertook the process of bringing back Ektachrome, there were a significant number of changes made necessary by the changes that had occurred in the interim in the industry. The work they did re-engineering (essentially a complete rebuild) to take into account changes in what suppliers could supply as well as taking the opportunity to make small but meaningful improvements to the new film - slightly better acutance, adjustment of the film’s sensitometric position so that the whites were whiter, and the colors more accurate, more stability in keeping and improved cold store keeping of the emulsions".
With the roll I shot, I was looking to see how the film performed in lower contrast light - because that is the sort of light I prefer. I'm very happy with the slides, which were developed by a local high quality professional lab that still does at least one run a day in their dip-and-dunk E6 machine.
Scanning issues add immense variability - in most cases you really can't rely on what you see on the internet.
That being said, here are three shots from the roll that have suffered through my scanning and Photrio's file size limitations. Only one of the images started out with contrasty light, so I don't know that they will give you much help with your question:

 

[George Mann]

Matt's pictures are better than the others that I have seen, but I going to stick with Provia until the price of this film drops to something more reasonable.

 

[guangong]

Some Brazilian folks conducted a very thorough test of Ektachrome D100 Super8 that is available at cinematography.com. The film has a wide latitude for exposures along with better color rendition and contrast than the previous version. Also compare with Fuji, etc.
I haven’t shot any yet, but have my Nizo 800 loaded and ready. Also some Ektachrome 100 going into my Leicaflex SL.

 

[George Mann]

Can anyone link to some good scans of it?

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

George, Flickr users "Pali K" and "John Carter" have new Ektachrome images with lighting in varying degrees of contrast.

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

 

[George Mann]

Sorry, but nearly all of these images have the same fuzzy, low contrast look to them.

 

[guangong]

May I ask why you don’t use one of the many color negative print films. Slide films are meant for projection.

 

[ericdan]

May I ask why you don’t use one of the many color negative print films. Slide films are meant for projection.

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.
In the scan you could also always bump up the contrast if the scans are what you’re interested in or print from.

 

[Mackinaw]

Sorry, but nearly all of these images have the same fuzzy, low contrast look to them.

If you want increased contrast in any film, just bump the contrast while scanning or in post-processing. Easy peasy.

Jim B.

 

[George Mann]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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

What a waste of film. I only saw two images out of the whole lot that I wouldn't have pitched in the bin.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[George Mann]

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.

Just search Flickr for Ektachrome G. It is the general lack of acuity that I find most troubling, followed by the lower than usual dynamic range of contrast.

To put it in simple English, it has a fuzzy, washed-out look to it.

 

[faberryman]

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.

 

[removedacct1]

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.

 

[George Mann]

That's probably just lousy scans.

Maybe. But I have seen precious few scans that even begin to show better including from Kodak themselves.

 

[faberryman]

Maybe. But I have seen precious few scans that even begin to show better including from Kodak themselves.

The Kodak scans on Facebook were terrible, and Kodak even apologized for them.

 

[George Mann]

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.

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

If you want to evaluate a film, the only way to do it is to get a roll and make some images for yourself.