It's better and cheaper to buy a medium format camera and use 120Reala that's freely available than switch to digital, and the image quality s better.
Much Happier with Reala
-
A
- Thread starter RattyMouse
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Mounting Flange for Compur 2 Dial Set Shutter
- Started by ivan35mm
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sekonic L-758DR DigitalMaster light Meter
- Started by pascalkea
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Rapid Rollex 6x7 Roll Film Back for 4x5 camera
- Started by pascalkea
-
Sold FS: Four boxes of 120 Kodak gold 200 (20 rolls) expired 02-2025.
- Started by pascalkea
Forum statistics
I've heard and seen Kodak Ektar "cyan" sky and unfortunately it seems to be due to poor "automatic" scanning.
An hybrid area on how to properly use a scanner is badly, badly needed on APUG 
*
All the dramatic differences we are seeing on this comparisons are just differences in scanning, scanner calibration, filtration, etc.
The picture above, in post #27, shows how moot is to compare a film with another if the scanning work is not properly executed.
So which is the "real" Kodak Ektar 100? The one to the left or the one to the right? Or one of the thousands filtrations more that can be obtained by using different settings?
My scanner if not profiled and if used with default settings has a slight green cast. That doesn't mean the film I scan on it has a green cast.
With negatives there is no "reference" and automatic settings will easily grossly fail, besides failing in a different way for each different setup.
Just as an exercise I tried to re-filter it. The result is certainly suboptimal due to the fact that curves have already been applied, that I was not there and I have no idea which colour was the grass, or the "grey" arm of the crane.
This image shows the great difficulty a printer has when he doesn't know the scene and has no known reference (such as a Greytag chart in the same light conditions).
The final result can be anything.
* I know, I know, this has already been debated, just saying.
(I see the sky as a bit too magenta and the rest of the scene a bit too yellow in general, probably).
*All the dramatic differences we are seeing on this comparisons are just differences in scanning, scanner calibration, filtration, etc.
The picture above, in post #27, shows how moot is to compare a film with another if the scanning work is not properly executed.
So which is the "real" Kodak Ektar 100? The one to the left or the one to the right? Or one of the thousands filtrations more that can be obtained by using different settings?
My scanner if not profiled and if used with default settings has a slight green cast. That doesn't mean the film I scan on it has a green cast.
With negatives there is no "reference" and automatic settings will easily grossly fail, besides failing in a different way for each different setup.
Just as an exercise I tried to re-filter it. The result is certainly suboptimal due to the fact that curves have already been applied, that I was not there and I have no idea which colour was the grass, or the "grey" arm of the crane.
This image shows the great difficulty a printer has when he doesn't know the scene and has no known reference (such as a Greytag chart in the same light conditions).
The final result can be anything.
* I know, I know, this has already been debated, just saying.
(I see the sky as a bit too magenta and the rest of the scene a bit too yellow in general, probably).
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
psst, Dead Link Removed
An hybrid area on how to properly use a scanner is badly, badly needed on APUG
No.
There are many other sources that are really good at that subject.
Here's one http://www.lynda.com/search?q=Scanning&x=0&y=0
Another http://photoshopuser.com/
Polyglot provided another.
DPUG is another.
People who choose labs for scan and develop can and should talk with their labs.
There are plenty of reasources.
I think it's a good choice. In the early '90's when I had my mini lab I always thought Reala was a better film. It's much more tolerant of exposure errors, produces more natural but "pleasing" colors and I think it has a much longer scale than Kodak films in general. If I were a color negative shooter it would be Reala exclusively for me. At that time Kodak introduced their Ektar films in 25, 125, & 1000. The 125 was a close rival in my estimation with its own "feel." I shot only one roll of Ektar 125 but it obviously was head & shoulders above everything else. When you sit in a lab all day running all types of film, a superior product is immediately recognizable.
Not only that, but supposedly this film was more natural under fluorescent light. Surprisingly I found this to be partially true. The green tinge was still there but much tamed it seemed.
Yes, and some are more great. ;-)
Yes, and the old Ektar 125 was not like this example at all.
Whew! Windbag alert, sorry.
You know you can edit your posts shortly after posting to add more information?
Removed
| 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:  |