Ektar 100 now in 120 format

<p>Did you guys see this test from Les?<br>

http://www.fototime.com/12BB4E2FD043EF4/orig.jpg</p>

<div></div>

<p>Mauro,<br />Like I said earlier, this type of exchange is normal. You'll get the anti film people (I don't include Edward in that) proclaiming that everything said is based upon vacuous, biased opinions....yet people in the thread have posted tests, and many of us have done the tests. What is funny are the comments from Daniel that there is bias and wrong assertions from the rest of us.....yet he doesn't have a step wedge nor densitometer....and hasn't done the testing himself. The posts from him are exactly what he claims everyelse does....post uniformed, biased opinion pieces.</p>

<p>No matter how many samples are posting here proving a point.....some will keep posting links to their heroes at the LL, Koren, SPhoto, or Clark.</p>

<p>I will simply purchase the new Ektar and use it. In 35 it produces superb results. In 6x7....I can't wait to produce a large print from it. Thank you Kodak!!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p > use the term "estimate" in the scientific sense. In measurement science there are no absolute data, just estimates. There is always uncertainty in a measurement. Sometimes there are also assumptions. Since I stated the methods and values I used, the analysis can be repeated by anyone, even with different assumptions.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p >You will notice that I did not choose an arbitrary starting point, rather a minimum contrast, which is proportional to slope of the curve</p>

<blockquote>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >Edward I see your mistake, your modus is not right for the data you are using.It looks like what you are doing is measuring the contrast Index, not the latitude, your point is indeed arbitrary because it does not follow the same formula as the one used to calculate the latitude </p>

<p >I have the ISO specifications, but if you would like to read further there is a good introduction to sensitometry here:</p>

<p >http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_education_sensitometry_workbook.pdf</p>

<p>Want something to wax scientifically over? Try this:<br>

Who cares how it stacks up to something else: if we like it, we like it. If we don't, we don't.</p>

<p>So here's a brilliant idea: let's wait until the film is available, and then run it through our cameras, and see how we like it ourselves.<br>

</p>

 

<p>Mr de Bakker you got it 'hole in one' all the angels on pinhead arguments are for the non photographers. I'm half way through writing an article on Ektar but will now probably wait 'till the 120 comes out as I'd like to do it justice.<br>

So my impression is of a wonderful film with rich colour saturation especially red/blue having good skin tone (not easy to achieve) and grain every bit as fine as the old Ektar 25.<br>

We live in exiting times choice is good Film lives! (alongside digital)</p>

 

<p>Both of you summed it up well. I'll post a couple of scans of 120 when I get my hands on it. Please share the article when it's ready Mark.</p>

<p><em>It looks like what you are doing is measuring the contrast Index, not the latitude</em></p>

<p>Thank you, Mark, for that informative link. Please note that I am not measuring the Contrast Index. That is related to the gamma (slope of the middle part of the curve). I am measuring the range of exposure from the least useable density to the maximum useable density. The density itself (the y axis) is not a factor in my calculation, only the x axis (log exposure). My only use of slope is to establish a reasonable starting point in the toe. The same would apply to the shoulder, if it were curved, to establish an ending point.</p>

<p>The Kodak paper does not address dynamic range directly, only in reference to latitude (the amount by which the exposure can be varied without a material affect on the quality of the image). Latitude is another subject for another time.</p>

<p>Edward<br /> you are welcome, dynamic range is/has been more of a 'buzz word' for digital photographers. Your friend who told you sensitometry is a mine field would probably be right when he states there is no correct answer.<br /> The problem is this: we have a set of standards driven by the manufacturers and the industry which sets ISO ratings and characteristics based on a fairly rigid criterion laid down in published papers.<br /> Then we have real world use practitioners (I include Ansel Adams in these) who develop systems which enable advanced photographers to get consistent results by following a few rules.<br /> Expose for the shadow develop for the highlights, take a mid tone and then close down two stops, etc etc.<br /> Neither way is wrong or right, and for most a pragmatic 'what works for me' view is indeed best regardless of the correct scientific methodology.<br /> Your 'reasonable' starting point in the toe of the curve by your method is subjective, I can see what you are driving at but it is no more correct than any other method (remember you expert friends warning) <br /> In reality even the toe with an apparently horizontal line will record tone, although not linear it will have the effect of compressing shadow area.<br /> Shadow and highlight compression is really liked (accepted readily) by the eye as is the highlight compression on the shoulder.<br /> It is the biggest difference between digital and analogue reproduction, and could be the reason quite a lot of folk like the 'S' shaped curve of film compared to the linear digital reproduction.<br /> Like the Kodak workbook says;- place your shadows on the toe and your highlights on the shoulder, everthing else just drops into place.<br /> Mark</p>

<p>All I can say is "thank god"...<br>

I am going to get myself a nice Rollei SL66 soon. I was looking for a nice film to try it out with.<br>

I read about Ektar in 135 format and thought "damn... wish i had that" ... and now I hear that a month after I get my Rollei the film will be available in MF!<br>

I want to squeal in delight, you guys have just made my year :D</p>

<p><em>It is the biggest difference between digital and analogue reproduction, and could be the reason quite a lot of folk like the 'S' shaped curve of film compared to the linear digital reproduction.<br /></em><br>

Absolutely true! You can try different (or no) curves instantly in Lightroom or ACR. With no curve, images are flat. A film-like curve makes the image pop. You can do the same in Photoshop - use Limits (the histogram) to set the end points and Curves to fine tune the contrast.</p>

<p>The reason is simple. If you keep the same end points (black, white) and put a toe and shoulder curve, the center has to get steeper - hence there is more contrast in the midrange. Curves have no effect on the dynamic range if the end points are unchanged.</p>

<p><em>In reality even the toe with an apparently horizontal line will record tone, although not linear it will have the effect of compressing shadow area.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

If the curve is truly horizontal, no image detail can be reproduced - a change in exposure does not produce a change in density so you couldn't tell a line from a space. Linearity is not the issue. At what point is the slope too low to be photographically useful? The Kodak paper does not address that issue. I made an educated guess, and presented results using 10% and 50%. Feel free to pick another number other than zero (and to defend it).</p>

<p>Sensitometry is a separate issue. The film speed is determined, basically, by the exposure needed to produce a certain density in the negative, and is located somewhere in the central portion of the characteristic curve. To do this, you need to know the absolute intensity of the light source - not an easy task. To calculate the dynamic range you are just looking for differences. The absolute exposure value does not matter, nor does the film speed.</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>If you measure a wider dynamic range than the characteristic curve predicts, you are using the wrong characteristic curve. Your data could be used to prepare a new curve relevant to the chemistry and methods you are using. If you get different results (1.5 stops is a lot) using the same development process as Kodak, you probably have measurement errors. In school, did you notice that the answers in the back of the book are usually correct ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The film speed is determined, basically, by the exposure needed to produce a certain density in the negative, and is located somewhere in the central portion of the characteristic curve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The speed point of the film is determined as .10 above base fog, and most certainly is NOT in the central portion of the curve but located in the toe.<br>

The formula is in the Kodak tech doc, and was laid down as the ASA standard in 1963 and has been adopted bt ISO/ANSI</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you get different results (1.5 stops is a lot) using the same development process as Kodak, you probably have measurement errors. In school, did you notice that the answers in the back of the book are usually correct ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward BOTH you and Dave are using different calculations compared to Kodak, the fact you get different results and use different methods from the ANSI formulas makes neither of you right.<br>

If you are going to use the curves supplied by Kodak you need to conform to the same standards they use.<br>

Using your own to get results you think are correct and questioning Daves looks like– double standards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why don't we now just wait until it is available, and then run it through our cameras?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the best advice in this whole thread. The only thing that matters it what actual prints look like. Who cares how they turn out when viewed on a computer monitor?</p>

<p>You can do all the calculations and density measurements you want but if the prints look good, they are good and if they look like crap, they're crap.</p>

<p>I am going to make a personal field test with my Contax 645 AF, as soon as the Ektar 100 becomes available as 120 film, comparing both the Ektar 100 (120) with the Fuji Reala 100 (120), the present team leader, and get the films processed in a pro-lab, to obtain comparable good results.<br>

Cheers</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Dave,<br>

If you measure a wider dynamic range than the characteristic curve predicts, you are using the wrong characteristic curve. Your data could be used to prepare a new curve relevant to the chemistry and methods you are using. If you get different results (1.5 stops is a lot) using the same development process as Kodak, you probably have measurement errors. In school, did you notice that the answers in the back of the book are usually correct ;-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Odd, this isn't a math question. If science worked the way you posted above....we'd all be in trouble. Sorry Edward, but you're wrong. The posts from Mark (who if memory serves ran a pro lab) are an attempt to point you in the correct direction. You've got the right answer my friend.....the problem is that you have it for the wrong question.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The speed point of the film is determined as .10 above base fog, and most certainly is NOT in the central portion of the curve but located in the toe.<br /> The formula is in the Kodak tech doc, and was laid down as the ASA standard in 1963 and has been adopted bt ISO/ANSI</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>True Mark. The point is that Edward doesn't know where to begin on the curve. From testing and experience I know it is further down the toe than where he placed it. That area is "latitude". Until he understands that concept, he will continue to argue. Unfortunately, he's arguing against Kodak, ANSI, and those of us who have tested this issue.</p>

<p>I'm done with this one. I prefer film. It has a wider dynamic range and better latitude. If offer me more resolution in a more natural manner. </p>

<p>I prefer it's look. There is no formula at the back of the book to prove me wrong.</p>

 

<p>I scrolled all the way to the bottom of this thread hoping to see some photos people took with Ektar 100 (other than crayons and action figures)...I am amazed there are 143 responses with a single actual photo. </p>

<p>Stuart there is no Ektar 120 on the market yet (which believe it or not is the reason for this thread)<br>

Just for you here is a picture taken on a dull winters day on a Leica M4P with 35mm 1958 Canon lens<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/107653065.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Good colours for a minilab process.<br>

The film is nice, will be amazingly fine grained in my 6x7 RF</p>

<p>I hope the film won't be as dull as this thread!</p>

<p>I never saw a picture of a step wedge that did it for me.</p>

<p>I think at this point the message to me is to keep shooting and especially talking about film as much as I can because it seems to drive some people so crazy they actually put down their chalk and erasers and start pulling their hair out in front of their computers.</p>

<p>Let me ask you people this: What is happening at the far right of the density/exposure plot? <br /> All the nasty snarks about 'bad math' are missing a very basic observation, that the dynamic range contained in the shoulder is being ignored.</p>

<p>http://members.cox.net/geonerd/images/Ektar100.gif</p>

 

<p>All the nasty snarks about 'bad math' are missing a very basic observation, that the dynamic range contained in the shoulder is being ignored. Looking at the Kodak datasheet, it seems that red is just starting to round off, but blue and green are still going strong, showing linear response. If we ignore any color shifts, just how much raw dynamic range is 'up there'?</p><div></div>