The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

TheFlyingCamera · Mar 9, 2020

138S said:
We have seen erratic behaviours from them: Frist they waste money in the Ektachrome discontinuation, later they spend money in launching it again, with years of sells lost, instead promoting well the product. Same with Fuji, they discontinued Neopan, now they want to launch it again, also having lost years of sells. If thay had priced the product correctly then they would have saved a lot of money.

In the sheet pricing they are also wrong, ilford and foma are way smarter.

We do not know the numbers for pre-discontinuation Ektachrome sales/ post-resurrection Ektachrome sales, nor do we know the manufacturing costs or the carrying costs. They may have decided that sales were sufficiently low that they were throwing away more than half of what they produced every year due to slow sales, so they discontinued the products. Ultimately that's what killed Kodachrome (that, and the environmental consequences of manufacture and processing it).

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2020

Adrian, Ektar is a different animal. If someone can expose chromes correctly, Ektar should be no problem, except that there needs to be more attention paid to color temp situations out of whack. But even wide-latitude CN films like used for movies get carefully balanced by proper filtration and precise metering when pro results are mandatory. I've been explained that in detail by Hollywood cameramen who are expected to get it right the first time, everytime, who in fact set me on the right track in principle with Ektar. They can't afford to wing it or make shoot from the hip guesses about latitude or color temp crossover, and then expect someone to iron it out afterwards, even though that is the one industry far better than any other at post-correction. I've spent a lot of time and money learning certain things the hard way; and when 8x10 was the primary format involved, that was indeed a very painful way to learn how Ektar truly behaves. Most (not all) people on a forum like this do not have optimized expectations, or generally even understand how to objectively aim for that. But it truly is a high-performance film capable of more accurate hue rendering in certain categories that other CN films, but not entirely free from certain idiosyncrasies too. And it's only after learning what these are and how to contend with them that one can go back and realistically identify some of the reasons for these in the respective dye curves. A lot of the problem in discussions like this is that people confuse mere saturation for the topic of hue purity. It's easy to hyper-saturate certain colors, especially nowadays; but choreographing a wide gamut of hues and neutrals in the same image is an entirely different game.

NortheastPhotographic · Mar 9, 2020

Here is how I rate various CN films, and how I recommend users of my lab to do so:

Portra 160 : 125
Portra 400 : 320
Portra 800 : 400-640
Ektar 100 : 100

Fuji 400H : 100

The older gen emulsions like 400H really like over exposure, as does Portra 800. The newer Vision3 based stocks are much better and you can easily rate them at box speed, but I tell people to bake in a little bit. Most of my users are not using advanced metering techniques, nor do they have a super great understanding of the meters in their cameras (or their pockets). These materials are remarkably flexible in terms of over exposure.

138S · Mar 9, 2020

NortheastPhotographic said:
These materials are remarkably flexible in terms of over exposure.

They are very flexible in the highlights, but not that flexible in the shadows, deep shadows spot metered at -3 are easily damaged, highlights at +3 are no poblem, so I guess those exposure you recommend are good advice.

Tom Kershaw · Mar 9, 2020

NortheastPhotographic said:
Most of my users are not using advanced metering techniques, nor do they have a super great understanding of the meters in their cameras (or their pockets). These materials are remarkably flexible in terms of over exposure.

In medium and large format I almost always use a spot meter, I don't know how common this would be amongst your clients?

Tom

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2020

Meters were invented for a reason. Amateur films were also invented for a reason, which assumes lots of the shots are going to be way off from ideal exposure. I don't think my own mother ever got close to either a correct exposure or even a level shot with her box Brownie; every one of them was tilted somewhat! But optimal results, especially with pro films, is a different topic entirely. And in a thread like this one, involving a complaint over film pricing, commending any kind of machine-gunner shoot-from-the-hip "latitude" model of exposure would seem to be inappropriate, since it only wastes film and money.

Adrian Bacon · Mar 9, 2020

DREW WILEY said:
Adrian, Ektar is a different animal. If someone can expose chromes correctly, Ektar should be no problem, except that there needs to be more attention paid to color temp situations out of whack. But even wide-latitude CN films like used for movies get carefully balanced by proper filtration and precise metering when pro results are mandatory. I've been explained that in detail by Hollywood cameramen who are expected to get it right the first time, everytime, who in fact set me on the right track in principle with Ektar. They can't afford to wing it or make shoot from the hip guesses about latitude or color temp crossover, and then expect someone to iron it out afterwards, even though that is the one industry far better than any other at post-correction. I've spent a lot of time and money learning certain things the hard way; and when 8x10 was the primary format involved, that was indeed a very painful way to learn how Ektar truly behaves. Most (not all) people on a forum like this do not have optimized expectations, or generally even understand how to objectively aim for that. But it truly is a high-performance film capable of more accurate hue rendering in certain categories that other CN films, but not entirely free from certain idiosyncrasies too. And it's only after learning what these are and how to contend with them that one can go back and realistically identify some of the reasons for these in the respective dye curves. A lot of the problem in discussions like this is that people confuse mere saturation for the topic of hue purity. It's easy to hyper-saturate certain colors, especially nowadays; but choreographing a wide gamut of hues and neutrals in the same image is an entirely different game.

I’m not unfamiliar with Ektar. I just recently made a new scanning profile for it for my setup. I generated all new characteristic curves for each color channel from -6 to +9 in full stop increments, and generated a hue and saturation map specifically for it. I did that because what you say is true. It is a different animal, and my generic C-41 profile, while looks good, doesn’t cut the mustard for me when it comes to Ektar. Does it look like Ektar printed on RA-4 paper? No. I didn’t model RA-4, I went for colorimetric accuracy in my chosen color space.

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2020

Well, hopefully someday we'll link up to compare actual visual results, especially where different corrective filters were involved right at the time of the Ektar shot. I was hoping to get a jump start on RA4 printing early this season due to the drought, since I drum process outdoors due to being slightly allergic to RA4 chem; but this kind of respiratory irritation seems to makes me a bit more susceptible to anything like a cold, and there's obviously a much more serious virus getting around, so I think I'll stick with b&w printing awhile longer until that threat has passed. But I do have a lot of previous print examples showing just how clean color neg can come out when it's truly optimized, or rather, the entire workflow optimized.

Adrian Bacon · Mar 9, 2020

DREW WILEY said:
Well, hopefully someday we'll link up to compare actual visual results, especially where different corrective filters were involved right at the time of the Ektar shot. I was hoping to get a jump start on RA4 printing early this season due to the drought, since I drum process outdoors due to being slightly allergic to RA4 chem; but this kind of respiratory irritation seems to makes me a bit more susceptible to anything like a cold, and there's obviously a much more serious virus getting around, so I think I'll stick with b&w printing awhile longer until that threat has passed. But I do have a lot of previous print examples showing just how clean color neg can come out when it's truly optimized, or rather, the entire workflow optimized.

not a problem. I personally don’t shoot a lot of it myself lately (more of a BW person, and it’s a bit pricey for doing point and shoot color stuff), but I get a lot of it in to process via mail and have to deliver reasonable results despite the fact that it’s rarely exposed correctly. I actually just finished processing several 4x5 sheets and 20 8x10 sheets of it this past week and dropped the film back in the mail this morning.

138S · Mar 9, 2020

TheFlyingCamera said:
We do not know the numbers for pre-discontinuation Ektachrome sales/ post-resurrection Ektachrome sales, nor do we know the manufacturing costs or the carrying costs. They may have decided that sales were sufficiently low that they were throwing away more than half of what they produced every year due to slow sales, so they discontinued the products.

This is true, and its easier to judge that pitfall now than when the decision was taken, of course. But what's clear that Ektachrome discontinuation is related to a series of mistakes: not promoting well the product, not anticipating present film persistence in the market.

For Kodak present flim flourisment is a total surprise, I guess they were making plans to close product lines.

It is known that Kodak paid some marketing experts for writting reports about what would happen with film photography. An important report about LF concluded that it was not known at what pace LF photography were to disapear, so recommendation was to not make any effort to conserve customer base and taking all money possible from "captive" customers before they abandoned LF. The idea was that film price was irrelevant for LF shooters anyway, ans a 200% price compared to 120 was recommended.

Ilford smiled, they took a big share of the LF kodak market share. Market changed, commercial LF photography disapeared but cheap user gear allowed many enthusiats (me I'm one) and artists engage.

Those reports are flawed because or several points:

> Market analysis made by experts in gear marketing that saw a demolition his product range sells: expensive cameras and glass, as top notch used gear was sold near for free at ebay.

> Not anticipating that new LF/glass camera owners were enthusiats and artists, instead commercial photographers

> Not anticipating that new film community would be die hard film lovers that would be able to promote that subculture. (It's LOL that I've film images at flicker sporting 14k views and digital friends that are x10 better photographers than me can only gather 30 views...)

That kind of mentality ended with Fuji/Kodak floowing strategies for LF oriented to take most money possible before closing product lines, the surpise was that the product continued having demand beyond they expected, and that ilford was treasuring new customers from them, so basicly their policy was incorrect.

Today (B&H) TMY 8x10 sheets are priced $8.5 each. In 2017 I gathered US film prices in all formats, and a sheet was $10.35, funny it's like this after those price increases:

(For the record, 2017 film prices for different formats, second numeric column from left is price per 80sq in)

A problem for marketing staff at kodak/fuji is that they don't understand that LF market reacts slow to price changes. Engaging/disengaging 35mm is fast, while engaging/disengaging LF is quite slow.

Will they make money if selling a single 300€ box per year of 8x10 Portra in the UE?

Me, if I was the boss I would promote 8x10 usage, now probably it's a line producing no profit. By promoting 8x10" (king size) amazing artists would show impressing/unique 8x10 works to the community, which it would be a powerful promotion of general film usage.

This is an opportunity they are clearly missing.

In similar terms, what is a 8x10" velvia sheet? The most impresive imaging system on earth. This would be a corporate flagship, Fuji should be proud to source that world class medium, and now it looks like if they don't want to sell it.

Just my point of view.

Lachlan Young · Mar 9, 2020

138S said:
This is true, and its easier to judge that pitfall now than when the decision was taken, of course. But what's clear that Ektachrome discontinuation is related to a series of mistakes: not promoting well the product, not anticipating present film persistence in the market.

For Kodak present flim flourisment is a total surprise, I guess they were making plans to close product lines.

It is known that Kodak paid some marketing experts for writting reports about what would happen with film photography. An important report about LF concluded that it was not known at what pace LF photography were to disapear, so recommendation was to not make any effort to conserve customer base and taking all money possible from "captive" customers before they abandoned LF. The idea was that film price was irrelevant for LF shooters anyway, ans a 200% price compared to 120 was recommended.

Ilford smiled, they took a big share of the LF kodak market share. Market changed, commercial LF photography disapeared but cheap user gear allowed many enthusiats (me I'm one) and artists engage.

Those reports are flawed because or several points:

> Market analysis made by experts in gear marketing that saw a demolition his product range sells: expensive cameras and glass, as top notch used gear was sold near for free at ebay.

> Not anticipating that new LF/glass camera owners were enthusiats and artists, instead commercial photographers

> Not anticipating that new film community would be die hard film lovers that would be able to promote that subculture. (It's LOL that I've film images at flicker sporting 14k views and digital friends that are x10 better photographers than me can only gather 30 views...)

That kind of mentality ended with Fuji/Kodak floowing strategies for LF oriented to take most money possible before closing product lines, the surpise was that the product continued having demand beyond they expected, and that ilford was treasuring new customers from them, so basicly their policy was incorrect.

Today (B&H) TMY 8x10 sheets are priced $8.5 each. In 2017 I gathered US film prices in all formats, and a sheet was $10.35, funny it's like this after those price increases:

View attachment 241759 View attachment 241760
(For the record, 2017 film prices for different formats, second numeric column from left is price per 80sq in)

A problem for marketing staff at kodak/fuji is that they don't understand that LF market reacts slow to price changes. Engaging/disengaging 35mm is fast, while engaging/disengaging LF is quite slow.

Will they make money if selling a single 300€ box per year of 8x10 Portra in the UE?

Me, if I was the boss I would promote 8x10 usage, now probably it's a line producing no profit. By promoting 8x10" (king size) amazing artists would show impressing/unique 8x10 works to the community, which it would be a powerful promotion of general film usage.

This is an opportunity they are clearly missing.

In similar terms, what is a 8x10" velvia sheet? The most impresive imaging system on earth. This would be a corporate flagship, Fuji should be proud to source that world class medium, and now it looks like if they don't want to sell it.

Just my point of view.

If you spent less time on the wild guessing and more time doing a little reading and understanding, you might get why Ektachrome went. It is likely that the ingredient change that forced the re-formulation of Portra, XP2 and others from 2008 onwards affected the decision making around Ektachrome. Furthermore, the couplers used in Ektachrome still needed a stabiliser with Formalin in it. Reformulation of the product line to solve these issues was likely to have been felt to be too great relative to potential ROI at the time. The loss of Astia at around the same time seems likely to have been due to the same financial pressures relative to the costs of re-formulation to remove environmentally problematic components. End of story.

You still haven't given a clear reason why you personally need 8x10 colour film at below market price. Everyone else who uses it seems to understand the specialty nature of the product.

And while we're at it, more saturation might look like there's more contrast - compare the characteristic curves for Portra 160 NC and VC and you'll see that sensitometrically they essentially match, yet in use you would think that VC is 'contrastier'.

Lachlan Young · Mar 9, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
I’m not unfamiliar with Ektar. I just recently made a new scanning profile for it for my setup. I generated all new characteristic curves for each color channel from -6 to +9 in full stop increments, and generated a hue and saturation map specifically for it. I did that because what you say is true. It is a different animal, and my generic C-41 profile, while looks good, doesn’t cut the mustard for me when it comes to Ektar. Does it look like Ektar printed on RA-4 paper? No. I didn’t model RA-4, I went for colorimetric accuracy in my chosen color space.

Essentially, the published curve set for Ektar (which largely lines up with what I've experienced) seems to suggest that you get about 7 stops of straight line, then the blue curve begins to rise slightly more steeply than the red or green curves, then begins to upsweep slightly, while the red and green curves start to shoulder. All rather indicative that exposure of Ektar should be keyed to the highlights (in the manner of cinema neg stock) & the shadows left to go where they will - unless you fill them, or use grad filters on the highlights. In essence, a clever way of getting a neg stock to behave more like a transparency in terms of scale and highlight behaviour.

faberryman · Mar 9, 2020

I checked the prices of 10 sheets Kodak 8x10 CN film at B&H: Ektar 100 $159, Portra 160 $179, Portra 209. Are those pants on fire prices for LF photographers?

138S · Mar 9, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
Essentially, the published curve set for Ektar .....seems to suggest that you get about 7 stops of straight line,

Those published in the datasheet (at least) are straight from H = -2 to +1

This is 3 H units that are exactly 10 stops, isn't it?

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2020

Ektar : No way you get 7 stops linearity if you expect clean dye curve independence; crossover will set in one extreme, shouldering the other. I'd say realistically, no more than one stop either side of what you'd normally expect from a mid-contrast chrome film like Provia or E100. One of the hardest conditions to correct is split lighting under deep blue sky where the sunny area fine, but you get an exaggerated cyan blue in deep shadows. I have a flashing filter containing a diffuser sheet, a strong warming filter, and an ND amounting to about two stops, and use this to flash the exposure using an 18% gray disc, so effectively a Zone III warm flash involving mainly the shadows. In other cases a warming filter alone works, depending on the exact scene hues affected. Of course, if the color temp is affected all across the board, like under an overcast sky, simple warming filtration at the time of the shot works. Trying to post-correct it might become a nightmare because there will be a range of values already cross-contaminated. It's very difficult to un-mix mud once it's made, if you will excuse my personal term for that predicament. The published curves only take you so far, and then you need to understand in a practical manner the dye idiosyncrasies. But those curves themselves do give a strong clue just how different this film is from traditional color neg films. Most people who see my own Ektar prints don't even believe a color neg film was involved. And it's not just a matter of saturation. Lots of previous CN films have been souped up to deliver certain hues more brilliantly, but always at the expense of something else. Ektar is quite a step ahead in terms of overall control, though not a perfect replacement for chrome films by any means, yet in other ways, even better. For example, the extra margin of exposure range is truly helpful. And married to current RA4 papers, it's certainly easier to tame than printing chromes on Cibachrome was.

Adrian Bacon · Mar 9, 2020

DREW WILEY said:
Ektar : No way you get 7 stops linearity if you expect clean dye curve independence; crossover will set in one extreme, shouldering the other. I'd say realistically, no more than one stop either side of what you'd normally expect from a mid-contrast chrome film like Provia or E100. One of the hardest conditions to correct is split lighting under deep blue sky where the sunny area fine, but you get an exaggerated cyan blue in deep shadows. I have a flashing filter containing a diffuser sheet, a strong warming filter, and an ND amounting to about two stops, and use this to flash the exposure using an 18% gray disc, so effectively a Zone III warm flash involving mainly the shadows. In other cases a warming filter alone works, depending on the exact scene hues affected. Of course, if the color temp is affected all across the board, like under an overcast sky, simple warming filtration at the time of the shot works. Trying to post-correct it might become a nightmare because there will be a range of values already cross-contaminated. It's very difficult to un-mix mud once it's made, if you will excuse my personal term for that predicament. The published curves only take you so far, and then you need to understand in a practical manner the dye idiosyncrasies. But those curves themselves do give a strong clue just how different this film is from traditional color neg films. Most people who see my own Ektar prints don't even believe a color neg film was involved. And it's not just a matter of saturation. Lots of previous CN films have been souped up to deliver certain hues more brilliantly, but always at the expense of something else. Ektar is quite a step ahead in terms of overall control, though not a perfect replacement for chrome films by any means, yet in other ways, even better. For example, the extra margin of exposure range is truly helpful. And married to current RA4 papers, it's certainly easier to tame than printing chromes on Cibachrome was.

There's a pretty high likelyhood we're talking about differences between staying completely analog and actually scanning the film. When scanning, if you know where the inflection points on the curves are for each color channel is, it's pretty straightforward to deal with and straighten each color channel back out so that it is more or less linear depending on how precise you measured each curve. It's not perfect, but it looks a whole lot better than not doing anything about it and having "mud" (in your parlance), and more importantly extends the amount of recoverable latitude. Again, not perfect by any means, but is the difference between delivering crap scans to a customer and actually delivering something they won't complain about.

All that being said, if I shot something that had mixed color where part of the image is direct sunlight and part of it is open sky shade, I'd expect the shade to push to blue, it's being lit by a big giant blue sky, shouldn't it be cooled off unless you introduce light to offset that? Even digital cameras are going to register that. How exaggerated or muted that color is going to be is a different topic, and in digital land how you deal with it is also a whole other topic, but suffice to say that it's totally a subjective thing. You might want to emphasize that color, or not.

138S · Mar 10, 2020

DREW WILEY said:
Ektar : No way you get 7 stops linearity if you expect clean dye curve independence; crossover will set in one extreme.

Drew, Ektar has 10 stops sensitometric linearity, at least 9.

It is true that from +4 overexposure colors shift slightly to yellow, delivering some nice warming effect to highlights, I guess that this nice effect is by design, not a flaw, as Kodak would easily avoid it if they wanted, anyway this can be easily corrected in the hybrid if you don't want it.

Kodak graph speaks on its own:

138S · Mar 10, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
more saturation might look like there's more contrast - compare the characteristic curves for Portra 160 NC and VC and you'll see that sensitometrically they essentially match, yet in use you would think that VC is 'contrastier'.

I agree, but this can be addressed in post, specially easy in hybrid. NC and VC did not make sense in the digital minilabs era and they did the same easily with soft. What is critical is spectral response, converting spetral information to 3 colors is a loss of infomation, what you loss in that step is lost.

Lachlan Young said:
you might get why Ektachrome went. .... Furthermore, the couplers used in Ektachrome still needed a stabiliser with Formalin in it. Reformulation of the product line to solve these issues was likely to have been felt to be too great relative to the
same financial pressures relative to the costs of re-formulation to remove environmentally problematic components. End of story.

At that time Kodak was thinking that film would disapear anyway in the short or mid term. Discontinuation was a mistake, because film persisted.

Lachlan Young said:
You still haven't given a clear reason why you personally need 8x10 colour film at below market price. Everyone else who uses it seems to understand the specialty nature of the product.

Me, I don't understand why the same emulsion has to be sold at 200% or 300% price if coated on sheet instead rolls, when manufacturing sheets it's cheaper than rolls.

Sure ilford doesn't loss money when selling BW sheets at similar price than rolls, so when kodak sells BW of color sheets at that insane 200-300 overprice (specially in the EU) I feel that they practice destruction of LF. The effect in the EU is evident, 8x10" color photography has been machinegunned, virtually exterminated.

Judge it yourself, $720 for 20 shots, I guess that they are smoking something really hard... It disapeared yet from most of the EU web shops... because there is no way to sell that.

Anon Ymous · Mar 10, 2020

@Lachlan Young Do you have any indications that the current Ektachrome E100 dyes don't need stabilization and the reformulation took care of this? Or if any current E6 film doesn't?

Lachlan Young · Mar 10, 2020

Anon Ymous said:
@Lachlan Young Do you have any indications that the current Ektachrome E100 dyes don't need stabilization and the reformulation took care of this? Or if any current E6 film doesn't?

I think it was commented on both by Kodak (in interviews I recall) and by Ron that the couplers were re-built to allow compatibility with a formalin free stabiliser - I think Fuji rebuilt their E-6 films in the early 2000's. You still need a stabiliser, it's just much less nasty than in the past.

Anon Ymous · Mar 10, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
I think it was commented on both by Kodak (in interviews I recall) and by Ron that the couplers were re-built to allow compatibility with a formalin free stabiliser - I think Fuji rebuilt their E-6 films in the early 2000's. You still need a stabiliser, it's just much less nasty than in the past.

I don't recall anything like that. IIRC, PE had commented that E6 still needs formaldehyde in one form or another for dye stability. It used to be that it was an ingredient in the stabilizer bath up until the early 2000s or so, but being a gas dissolved in a solution, it was an occupational hazard for those involved in film processing. The solution to this was the replacement of the stabiliser with a final rinse bath that has a fungicide and wetting agent, but formaldehyde was kept in the form of a formaldehyde-bisulfite adduct in the pre-bleach bath. It is just as effective, but much less of an occupational hazard.

138S · Mar 10, 2020

Anon Ymous said:
PE had commented that E6 still needs formaldehyde in one form or another for dye stability.

Yes...

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/is-formalin-necessary-for-e6.146229/#post-1913598

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/is-formalin-necessary-for-e6.146229/#post-1913941

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/is-formalin-necessary-for-e6.146229/#post-1913980

koraks · Mar 10, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
I think it was commented on both by Kodak (in interviews I recall) and by Ron that the couplers were re-built to allow compatibility with a formalin free stabiliser - I think Fuji rebuilt their E-6 films in the early 2000's. You still need a stabiliser, it's just much less nasty than in the past.

That was for C41, not for E6.
Many people overlook the stickied thread on stabilizers for some reason, even though the issue pops up about every 2 weeks or so: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-definitive-word-i-hope-on-color-stabilzers.89149/

Lachlan Young · Mar 10, 2020

Anon Ymous said:
I don't recall anything like that. IIRC, PE had commented that E6 still needs formaldehyde in one form or another for dye stability. It used to be that it was an ingredient in the stabilizer bath up until the early 2000s or so, but being a gas dissolved in a solution, it was an occupational hazard for those involved in film processing. The solution to this was the replacement of the stabiliser with a final rinse bath that has a fungicide and wetting agent, but formaldehyde was kept in the form of a formaldehyde-bisulfite adduct in the pre-bleach bath. It is just as effective, but much less of an occupational hazard.

Yes, that was what I was meaning - I assumed (wrongly) that that was obvious. That said, this post mirrors what I recall a number of interviews with Kodak at the time were essentially saying - reformulation was necessary for both lack of availability and/ or environmental reasons. I remember reading somewhere that there was a troublesome component in Fuji's films by around 2010 too (maybe PFOS? Though as Ron says it's difficult to see what its importance would be - only thing I can think of is something to do with coupler encapsulation).

DREW WILEY · Mar 10, 2020

As usual, 138s, you have so little experience with certain actual products that you're speculating about how much of a curve is actually usable, but apparently unaware of the significant qualitative loss. For example, one could hypothetically recover more than two stops or nominal image further down into Velvia, but it would all be worthless blue-black grit.
People who lack sufficient experience do the same kind of thing with black and white film curves. But with color you have to additionally understand how the respective dye curves are going to interact, and the notion that anyone is going to get 10 stops or usable range out of Ektar is beyond ludicrous. Post-straightening curves isn't going to fix problems once those curves are already tangled together to create a hybrid, which I term mud. But I'm getting a bit tired of this subject. I always amazes me just how few color photographers have even a basic understanding of color theory with regard to how complex hues are formed.

The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

DREW WILEY

NortheastPhotographic

138S

Tom Kershaw

DREW WILEY

Adrian Bacon

DREW WILEY

Adrian Bacon

138S

Lachlan Young

Lachlan Young

faberryman

138S

DREW WILEY

Adrian Bacon

138S

138S

Anon Ymous

Lachlan Young

Anon Ymous

138S

koraks

Moderator

Lachlan Young

DREW WILEY

The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency