Lack of contrast from current Ektachrome?

[warden]

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 the scanning and post processing. It's better to have the film in your hand to tell if you like it. Here are two scans of the same slide. Neither drops more hi light or shadow than the other but the contrast is quite different. You could look at one of them and decide something about the film but neither are accurate.

 

[MattKing]

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.

There are many reasons to post scans, but comparative evaluation of products isn't one of them.
I've certainly said this or something similar on many occasions, and others have done so as well. It may be that this thread just has more people posting than some.
It is possible to make an informed judgement about how film behaves, and then to prepare and upload a scan that is intended to illustrate one's observations, but generally the image displayed will be as much a product of the manipulations used to display the observations than a product of the film's characteristics themselves.

 

[BMbikerider]

The difference may depend upon may reasons. The quality of the scanner. The contrast ratio of the screen. The skill of the person operating the scanner. The skill of the peron working the software (adobe etc). Like Matt above it is very difficult to compare like for like when there is a 3rd or 4th party involved in one of the legs. I am talking about the scanner and the screen.

I also belong to a forum dealing with mono film images and comments such as lack of contrast, too light/dark arise occasionally but if they are viewing on a laptop when the origoinal was on a high quality screen attached to a desk top there will be obvious difference.

 

[George Mann]

Until you’ve shot a roll for yourself (is that really expecting too much??)

I have been let down by products too many times in my life to want to continue taking chances, so yes!

then you’re attempting to form an opinion based on poor derivatives.

Perhaps, but getting to the truth of it is what this post is about.

 

[George Mann]

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 am serious, and the latest posts are pushing towards the purchase and use of it.

 

[George Mann]

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.

I am a unique individual.

Any reasonable person (and any reasonable person giving advice) would think the best way to evaluate a film would be to try it yourself.

I am not foolish enough to piss away money on questionable products!

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.

 

[Wayne]

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.

No, the OP never mentioned Ektar or Portra

Oh I seem you're now talking aboutr a completely different thread. Nevermind....

Anyway it all seems like a perfectly reasonable question, given the limitations of the d**** medium its being asked on

 

[monkowa]

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.

Can't tell if serious or not. But if you are then ew...

As for the film, try it if you want, be disappointed or not. Seems like you just needed to vent about something on here.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Agreed. This clod is unusually irritating and has thus accomplished his goal in starting this thread to begin with. And yet I am sucked in....

In my opinion, any chrome film not used solely for projection inherently cannot be lacking in contrast.

Sure, 13 bucks (not 18) is very slightly expensive for 35mm when compared to the past. However, not being willing to spend 58 cents, including processing, per image to at least test and know what you're talking about is ridiculous. As an 8x10 shooter this is particularly humorous to me. Does he have so few successes in his roll that 58 cents is not worthwhile?

The variables of scanning, arbitrary image processing performed by strangers, and his monitor (which cannot be any good if he can't spend 58 cents to make a photograph) indeed render all online representations utterly, utterly useless. This is obvious to even middling "intellect." Ahem. The beauty and singularity of chrome film is that you have an absolute standard: just put through chemistry and hold the the results side by side with the sole variable being the film. What a unique and wonderful opportunity to compare films objectively in the purest form. Why turn that down?



Why did I entertain this...this thread is such a waste of time....ugh... now the self loathing....

Jarin

 

[Craig75]

George is a troll - check his posting history and you will see exactly what he thinks of everyone here. Treat only as an object of extremely mild amusement.

 

[macfred]

George is a troll ...

We don't know what he is but we know what he's not ...

I am not a photo engineer, but I do have a strong engineering background!

I am NOT a comedian!

 

[Craig75]

I remember this dude when he first appeared and asked him what the deal was - fair play to him he explained he considered everyone on here to be full of crap - whether that makes him a troll or a wind up merchant i dont know but engage in only the most frivilous manner or sentence yourself to be a prisoner of his rabbithole.

Happy new year george you crazy diamond x

 

[George Mann]

Happy new year george you crazy diamond x

Crazy and sly like a fox!

 

[George Mann]

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.

You are of course correct. So after seeing the evidence that others have posted here, I will be shooting a roll of it tomorrow, and will be sending it to AGX for processing.

My only concern at this point is whether or not my B&W KR1.5 will be able to provide enough filtering in our high altitude here.

 

[thuggins]

Since they stopped making Kodachrome, I would say that you are right!

I personally don't see the point of scanning slide film.

Without trying to dissect this too far, a couple of thoughts.

1. There are currently at least six different slide films available in either 35mm of 120. That's not counting Ilford XP-2 which makes lovely monochrome transparencies when processed in E-6 chemistry. If you are still lamenting the loss of Kodachrome, perhaps you should consider a new hobby.

2. The point of "scanning" slide film is to get a print. Personally, I think there is nothing that compares to viewing trannies directly on a light table, but there is an occasional desire to share a couple of shots with friends and family. While the historical methods of making prints from slides are no longer with us, the newfangled electrical picture making thingies do a better job than any of the old photochemical processes, IMHO. 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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

 

[thuggins]

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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

It suggests that the negative scans weren't very good at all. My opinion is based on the many, many scans (thousands?) I've made on high end scanners, not 'professional' minilab scanners.

 

[RPC]

PE has commented many times on the technical superiority of color negatives over reversal film. I don't scan, but would agree with the idea that it is mostly or all in the quality of the scan. There is no technical reason, if scanned correctly, why negatives would not give results as good as or better than slides. Even for scanning, the mask and low contrast are as important as for traditional printing in producing higher overall quality than slides.

 

[George Mann]

If you are still lamenting the loss of Kodachrome, perhaps you should consider a new hobby.

Photography is a coveted hobby for me. I have been involved in it since '72.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Moved to the scanning subforum.

Please remember when starting a new thread that if the topic involves digitization of analogue materials or analogue printing from digital sources, then it belongs in an appropriate hybrid forum. Analogue forums are for 100% analogue workflow. If there’s not an appropriate subforum in the Hybrid zone, just ask, and if it seems like there’s enough demand, we can add new subforums. The hybrid area needs that kind of development.

 

[George Mann]

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.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

You seem uninterested in evidence or accounts other than scans, and much of the discussion here—whatever you may have intended—is about how well the film scans and the value of scans for judging the film. That’s off topic for the analogue forums. If the question is about the performance of the film only insofar as scans reveal, if they reveal anything, then it’s hybrid territory.

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.

 

[George Mann]

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.

As I stated previously, the scans were only used for comparative purposes. I have no intention of scanning this film, so projection and light table viewing are my only intended usage.

 

[Wayne]

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.

It started that way but soon almost every post was about scanning. Not your fault for asking, but that's where it went.