At $18 a pop? Even at half its price it would be a hard sell given what I have seen from it so far.
Lack of contrast from current Ektachrome?
-
H
- Thread starter George Mann
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold Fujichrome Velvia 50 120 - 20 Rolls
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
-
Want to Buy WTB: Shen Hao or Ebony 6x17 camera
- Started by djdister
-
Sold Black Paint Nikon Fe2
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica 90mm f2.5 Summarit-M
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
At $18 a pop? Even at half its price it would be a hard sell given what I have seen from it so far.
MattKing
Moderator
If you can find someone who:
1) is skilled at scanning;
2) uses good equipment and software to create very faithful to the original scans;
3) uploads scans to a site that accurately displays scans in a manner that doesn't distort them (Photrio isn't one of them);
4) has uploaded to that site good quality transparencies exposed under similar lighting conditions from both old and new versions of the film;
then you may be able to make reliable comparisons on the internet.
The reality is that most of the results you see on the internet have been heavily manipulated. That manipulation is necessary in order to present those results in a pleasing way, but it makes comparisons of the films difficult.
All I can say is that when I put two slide-filled Printfile sheets side by side on the light pad - one the older film and the other the new film - they both look very nice.
I've yet to mount any of the new slides to project them.
1) is skilled at scanning;
2) uses good equipment and software to create very faithful to the original scans;
3) uploads scans to a site that accurately displays scans in a manner that doesn't distort them (Photrio isn't one of them);
4) has uploaded to that site good quality transparencies exposed under similar lighting conditions from both old and new versions of the film;
then you may be able to make reliable comparisons on the internet.
The reality is that most of the results you see on the internet have been heavily manipulated. That manipulation is necessary in order to present those results in a pleasing way, but it makes comparisons of the films difficult.
All I can say is that when I put two slide-filled Printfile sheets side by side on the light pad - one the older film and the other the new film - they both look very nice.
I've yet to mount any of the new slides to project them.
If you balk at spending $18 for your first roll, you are probably not Kodak's target market. I admit I'm not. I am not even happy with my Kodachrome scans, and I have a decent scanner. I have shifted to digital for color work.
Since they stopped making Kodachrome, I would say that you are right!
I personally don't see the point of scanning slide film.
What’s the point of asking these questions if you’ve already decided you won’t use the film anyway?? Jeez Louise.
I'm in total agreement. Seems like you already made up your mind here. Don't buy it. Stick to Provia. Shit, if you want saturation shoot Velvia. I dunno what'll float your boat.
Contrast is fine. Less contrast than Velvia for sure, but enough contrast that you still need to shoot for the high-lights. Very natural colors, pretty much what you see is what you get colorwise. I'm very happy Kodak made a less contrasty color slide film compared to all the current other offerings. Plus, here in Europe it is priced a bit under any Fujifilm color slide film on the market. I've noticed Noritsu scanners have great results in scanning this new Ektachrome.
Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions. My whole point of the post was to find out where the problem lies, and whether or not there was a problem with the film itself.
Not prejudiced. Just let down by what I have seen from it so far. I believe that price should equal performance.
There is no chrome like Kodachrome!
I'm not sure why that wasn't obvious to some.
Care to say why? I like most all of them just fine.
I'm glad to see a lower contrast film available, and to me it looks quite similar to the old E100G. I'll use this over Provia this spring.
If you want the Velvia look, shoot Velvia. If you want a film contrastier than this, go to Provia 100 or Velvia 100.
How do you have an opinion if you haven't tried it?
Over the years Kodak has produced Ektachrome films with lower contrasts and some with higher contrast. Ditto for color saturation.
I haven't tried the new stuff yet,
The only time you can trust a scan of a film is when the person scanning the film shows you direct comparisons of other films scanned and processed under the same conditions. There are so many things that can be done to a scan that can effect it, some that the user may not even be aware of, that a scan in isolation is useless for making and judgements.
Ektachrome was never as contrasty as Velvia. If contrast is your desire, I'd stick to Velvia. I wouldn't worry if new Ektachrome is as contrasty as old Ektachrome. Since old Ektachrome isnt around anymore (and there were several iterations) any comparison is a waste of time. It would be like comparing dinosaur meat to beef.
Ektachrome was never as contrasty as Velvia. If contrast is your desire, I'd stick to Velvia. I wouldn't worry if new Ektachrome is as contrasty as old Ektachrome. Since old Ektachrome isnt around anymore (and there were several iterations) any comparison is a waste of time. It would be like comparing dinosaur meat to beef.
I exposed, developed and scanned my first roll of E 100 today so I don't know much yet, but the contrast looks like what I would expect from E-6, which is to say noticeably more contrast than C-41, and so requires careful metering. It's a challenge to scan, but so is every film, at least for me. I think this may be an iso80 film for me as iso100 looked a bit dark.
You can't tell much of anything from scans, but here are mine anyway. No art in these images, just pointing the camera at colorful things to see what the color looks like. As for color, it looks pretty saturated to me (out of gamut warnings in VueScan), but probably not as saturated as Provia.
You can't tell much of anything from scans, but here are mine anyway. No art in these images, just pointing the camera at colorful things to see what the color looks like. As for color, it looks pretty saturated to me (out of gamut warnings in VueScan), but probably not as saturated as Provia.
I have seen examples of the new film mounted ready for projection in a photography outlet in London. To my eye in a quick look they were amongst the best I have ever seen with regards to contrast - not too high. Saturation not quite on the same level as Velvia 50 and the sharpness when looked at very closely very good indeed. I know that these were probably exposed by specialists for advertising purposes so they will technically be the best of the best, so there is no reason why a photographer using it should ever get something markedly diferent.
As for cost, I remember when I started out with photography in the very early 1960's the price of a 36 exp cassette of the original Kodachrome which was only 10 ISO was around the equivalent of £1.60 in UK. Converted to the same price in $'s would be around 2.24$ at the rates of the time. But change the price allowing for infaltion over the intervening 50 years the price doesn't seem so bad.
I have just compare an on-line inflation calculator with a base line of 1962 and the price of a cassette of the new Ektachrome in the US is about 26 dollars. In UK it is significantly more and using the same criteria the price comes out at just under £34
As for cost, I remember when I started out with photography in the very early 1960's the price of a 36 exp cassette of the original Kodachrome which was only 10 ISO was around the equivalent of £1.60 in UK. Converted to the same price in $'s would be around 2.24$ at the rates of the time. But change the price allowing for infaltion over the intervening 50 years the price doesn't seem so bad.
I have just compare an on-line inflation calculator with a base line of 1962 and the price of a cassette of the new Ektachrome in the US is about 26 dollars. In UK it is significantly more and using the same criteria the price comes out at just under £34
Last edited:
This thread has done nothing but increased my anticipation to process the two rolls I shot in Miami over Christmas.
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.
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.
Last edited:
And speaking of price B&H has Ektachrome for $12.99/roll and Provia at $11.99 (close enough that is makes no difference considering how much I shoot). But they have short dated (expires this month) Provia for $5.99/roll if you buy five rolls, a good deal IMO. The short dated film I've purchased from B&H has all been perfect.
Last edited:
I completely agree.
By using a scanner you are confining yourself to a limited range of colours dependant on the D max of the scanner and the contrast ratio of the screen of the monitor you are using to view them. There is absolutely nothing to compare with a good, well exposed and processed colour slide. The brilliance will knock a print and for that matter a projected digital image back into yesterday.
If you are using a flatbed scanner then you are working with one arm tied behind your back. Even the the last range of the discontinued Nikon scanners only had a D max of 4.3. Flatbeds generally only manage about 3.6 or 7.You are loosing so much visible information.
The only way to view a slide is using a projector.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |