'Sure Be Nice If Ektachrome Wasn't the Only One Available...

[Wayne]

They should - as I posted:

I thought you were trying to debunk that notion not prove it

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Well I agree with you ... that's why I prefer Provia! But the Ektachrome mafia keep telling me that in fact Ektachrome is more accurate (hence my word "neutral") ...

My preference order is Provia, Velvia and Ektachrome only as a last resort!

E100 certainly is more neutral in its tonality and saturation, and that's what makes it very suitable for the landscape and scenic genre. Its 'punch' can be adjusted with a polariser or underexposure. It is noticeably less prone to blue than Velvia, but will still require warming-up in emergent bright sun.

Kodak's VS100 (very saturated) chrome film was possibly the worse emulsion ever to be run through my camera. I wasn't particularly flattering of it in a published review in Australian Photography in 2004. Not much better when it was being printed to the Ilfochrome Classic process: just 2 prints were produced. We observed at the time it was very red-channel heavy, although the whites were very clean. But in a single swipe, the film's palette just did not look right. It was never used again after August 2004.

____________________________________________________________
Photo: Rainforest idyll.
Pentax 67 + SMC-P 45 f4; E100, full POL, diffuse light

 

[MattKing]

I thought you were trying to debunk that notion not prove it

I was just pointing out that some of my examples faithfully reproduced a scene illuminated by light with a fair amount of blue in it - in two cases unfiltered open shade.
And by "faithfully reproduced", I mean no blue added.

 

[MattKing]

OOPS - my apologies.
I just re-checked the notes on a number of those posted images, and realize that two that I thought were originally on Ektachrome were actually on negative film. I've deleted those two from my earlier post, and edited the post accordingly.

 

[Wayne]

OOPS - my apologies.
I just re-checked the notes on a number of those posted images, and realize that two that I thought were originally on Ektachrome were actually on negative film. I've deleted those two from my earlier post, and edited the post accordingly.

Getting old sucks, doesn't it. lol

 

[F4U]

When you think about it, this is the after-times of the "digital apocalypse". About the end of the last century, almost overnight digital photogrphy wiped out the conventional suppliers. We lost everything. Kodachrome, Infrared, and just about all the manufacturers. Then the 2008 crash practically wiped out everything. Now we are in the "aftertimes". The supplies we have available now are as good as it can get. and I expect we may eventually lose even that. Alaris, for instance, could decide their interest in Kodak is not suiting the return expectations of the money changers, and get rid of it like a bad girlfriend. It's one day at a time from here on in. Same for the other manufacturers. So we make-do. Blessings, no mater how small, should be counted.

 

[mshchem]

Getting old sucks, doesn't it. lol

Beats the alternative

 

[MattKing]

Getting old sucks, doesn't it. lol

More to do with still being uncomfortable with this new-fangled business of depending on digital for organization of mixes of film, darkroom and purely digital photographic stuff.
Some stuff that has been digitized has more easily accessible information associated with it than other stuff does, so a search based on film type isn't as easy as it should be.