@Alan Edward Klein what makes a film harder/easier to scan? Curling?
I don't know what makes it better. But Kodak claims that Portra and Ektar are made for better scanning. I don't know what they say about Gold.
In my recent chat with Andy Church of Kodak-Alaris, he did say that it's important to ensure labs know it's Gold and are prepared to scan it appropriately. It's not that it's difficult to scan, but that so many labs are now set up (by default) to scan Portra or Ektar in 120 that they might not use the correct profile.
I ran a roll through my Mamiya 645 about two weeks ago. Came out fine....looks decent, though I'd say nothing special. Good detail, moderate grain. I prefer Ektar overall.
I have loaded my first roll today in my RB67. It's going to be a Kodak only weekend: Kodak Gold and Verichrome Pan
I ran a roll through my Mamiya 645 about two weeks ago. Came out fine....looks decent, though I'd say nothing special. Good detail, moderate grain. I prefer Ektar overall. Here are some shots from that roll. I scan using a light table and my Canon R5 with Laowa 100mm Macro to shoot the negatives, and convert in Negative Lab Pro. M645 with 35/3.5, 80/2.8 and 150/3.5 on Gold 200:
I posted my video of Gold 200 finally, after I picked up the last rolls this morning, and scanned them up. Then did the video. I think it turned out rather well considering, other then the odd editing mistake. My computer needs more memory, as it won't play through my 4K files without breaking up. Makes it hard to edit when you can't see what you're looking at. Keep in mind my scans are not the typical lab scan, so my results may vary a bit from what they offer. Take a look.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?