Lack of contrast from current Ektachrome?

[faberryman]

OP is making a decision on whether to buy a role of Ektachome based on scans. How could it not be about scanning?

 

[George Mann]

OP is making a decision on whether to buy a role of Ektachome based on scans. How could it not be about scanning?

You seem to have a particular bent against me, which is bordering on trollish behavior!

 

[Prest_400]

Michael Strickland (mainly LF photographer) has been posting some drum scanned samples of E100. However, icy overcast conditions might not be what you want for biting contrast...

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Prest_400 agree, the images from Mr. Strickland are very nice to my eye.

 

[warden]

Michael Strickland (mainly LF photographer) has been posting some drum scanned samples of E100. However, icy overcast conditions might not be what you want for biting contrast...

Do you have a link? I couldn’t locate them.

 

[Prest_400]

Do you have a link? I couldn’t locate them.

https://www.instagram.com/mstricklandimages/

Some of them are featured on Kodak Alaris' IG as well: https://www.instagram.com/kodakprofessional/

 

[warden]

https://www.instagram.com/mstricklandimages/

Some of them are featured on Kodak Alaris' IG as well: https://www.instagram.com/kodakprofessional/

Thanks!

 

[dmr]

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.

I find slides to be a bit more tricky to scan than negatives. Negatives obviously have more dynamic range and always seem to take less dorking around in PS/Gimp to make a great image. As we all know, slide film can't take a joke, exposure wise, and it seems that there are too many with blown highlights or shadows down in the mud.

 

[warden]

I find slides to be a bit more tricky to scan than negatives. Negatives obviously have more dynamic range and always seem to take less dorking around in PS/Gimp to make a great image. As we all know, slide film can't take a joke, exposure wise, and it seems that there are too many with blown highlights or shadows down in the mud.

All scanning is hard for me. If I'm out for a walk with negative film I try to remember to take cell phone pics along with the film images to serve as a reference for color (which I know isn't perfect but better than nothing for me as I have minor color blindness).

With slide film I can leave the phone in the pocket because the film is its own reference and makes more pleasing color anyway, but your point of not being able to take a joke is spot on.