Difference Between Ektachrome 64 and Ektachrome 100G

Hi there,

 

It's great to finally be a member of photo.net.

 

I'd like to ask a general question about these two films. Apart from the speed, once processed how do they differ visually?

Are there big differences between the two?

 

Kind Regards

What's the context of your question? Are you shooting these films now? Both will be expired. How have they been stored? Is the ISO 64 variety a tungsten-balanced film?

I'm assuming you're talking about some form of Ektachrome 64, and not Ektachrome 64T.

 

In any case, either emulsion is very much an older design. Ektatchrome 64T(EPY) was made up until the mid to late 2000s, and is a tunsten balanced film. This means that's it's REALLY meant to be shot under studio "hot" lighting with a color balance of 3200K, although in practice it looks okay under household tungsten lighting(2700K or so). The former is much less common than it once was, while in most residences these days you'll see very little tungsten and often get a mix of fluorescent and LED with color temperatures all over the place. Kodak recommends an 85B filter for daylight or flash use.

 

E100G was the last Ektachrome film that Kodak developed in the heyday of film, and the recently introduced E100 is effectively a copy of it. Back when E100G was still in production, I considered it one of the most technically perfect slide films ever made. It is one of the finest grained E6 films made(rms granularity of 8, only Fuji Astia with an RMS granularity of 7 is finer), and has nice "honest" colors with reasonable but not over the top saturation. My only complaint about E100G was that I found it somewhat cool for my taste-back in the day I usually shot the otherwise identical but slightly warmer E100GX-now if I shoot E100G or the new E100 I use a filter in the 81 range(often 81B or 81C) to bring the color balance to my taste. Its archival storage properties are also equal to that of Fuji E6 film, and arguably at least as good if not better than the legendary Kodachrome.

 

I've not shot E64, only EPZ, but I would guess that it probably behaves similarly to EPP(Ektachrome Plus). The grain isn't as tight as the E100-generation films. The color palette is a bit different, with fairly bright blues but somewhat dull otherwise, and excellent caucasian skin tones. Bear in mind that my comments on both refer to fresh, in date film processed in good chemistry.

 

Any Ektachrome 64 you find is likely to be 10 years or more older than E100G, the newest of which is ~6 years old now anyway(I'm not sure when Ektachrome 64 was discontinued, but I'd guess mid-1990s). Depending on how it's been stored, you MIGHT get decent results from E100G, but Ektachrome 64 is a lot more iffy. I'd expect dull colors and probably a shifted color balance. I always hesitate to recommend it, as I'm not a big fan of the practice in general, but Ektachrome 64 might benefit(and be more salvageable) if cross-processed and then scanned.

Sorry Guys, I should have been a bit clearer. I'm writing a paper on Kodak and looked at images on Google for the two film speeds but my results are inconclusive. I guess I'm looking at how they differ (post-process) in character.

Most of the images I see on the internet for Ektachrome 64 are utter crap posted by lomographers who thrive on the fact that it's outdated, grainy, and color shifted.

 

I can post scans of E100G that was shot and processed when fresh, but don't have any of Ektachrome 64.

 

With that said, you MIGHT have a bit better luck if you compared E100G to Kodak EPP(Ektachrome Plus). They're both 100 speed films, but E100G is a generation newer. As I said, EPP is a bit grainier than E100G(I suspect that the same could be said of Ektachrome 64) but renders Caucasian skin tones really, really nicely-it's perhaps one of the best films ever made for this purpose, and that's why, despite being outdated, it stuck around until ~2010.

Sorry Guys, I should have been a bit clearer. I'm writing a paper on Kodak and looked at images on Google for the two film speeds but my results are inconclusive. I guess I'm looking at how they differ (post-process) in character.

 

When E6 films first came out, they replaced somewhat similar previous E4 films.

 

Ektachrome 64 replaced Ektachrome-X at ASA 64, and

Ektachrome 200 at ASA 200 replaced High Speed Ektachrome at ASA 160.

 

(I never used tungsten balanced films, but I think there was a 50T about then, too.)

 

Not so much later, was Ektachrome 400, which is much different from previous films.

It has more than one green and red sensitive layer, along with the usual one blue

sensitive layer. The result was that even though it was higher speed, it was a

sharper film, but also more expensive. I believe that there are also multiple

of some color layer films made by Fuji, too.

 

At some point, the C41 films became Kodacolor 100, 200, 400, and 1000,

and Ektachrome 64 was replaced by Ektachrome 100. The result being, that

except for 1000, they were all on the series 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600.

 

There was also the transition to T-grain films, which I don't remember now

when happened. T-grain is supposed to be naturally a little faster.

 

In the Ektachrome 64 days, I mostly used that, and with the transition to 100,

mostly used that, without much worry about the change. I used them outdoors

often, or indoors with a Vivitar 283 flash. The flash worked well enough that

I didn't see a need for a 200 or 400 speed film, and they cost more.

Without flash, much of the time, there wouldn't have been enough light

for even Ektachrome 400, and if there was, it was likely fluorescent.

With a color correction filter, it would not have been enough light.

 

The transition to E6 happened about the time that I could actually afford

buying more film. In the years before that, I mostly did black and white,

developed myself. A few special occasions, my father bought me some

color film.

 

As for character, I mostly never considered it. I do remember believing

that Ektachrome 200 looked worse than the slower films, and that

Ektachrome 400, with its new additional layers looked better.

The worse might have been dull colors.

 

I think it isn't mentioned much, but there is light scattering going through

the emulsion. AgBr has an index of refraction of 2.2579, much higher

than gelatine. With a color film, the light to the deeper layers goes though,

and is scattered by, the earlier layers. Using more than one of the

green and red layers, allows for some of the red layers to see less

scattering from above. This gets worse with faster films, with more

and bigger grains.

 

(snip)

 

E100G was the last Ektachrome film that Kodak developed in the heyday of film, and the recently introduced E100 is effectively a copy of it. Back when E100G was still in production, I considered it one of the most technically perfect slide films ever made. It is one of the finest grained E6 films made(rms granularity of 8, only Fuji Astia with an RMS granularity of 7 is finer), and has nice "honest" colors with reasonable but not over the top saturation. My only complaint about E100G was that I found it somewhat cool for my taste-back in the day I usually shot the otherwise identical but slightly warmer E100GX-now if I shoot E100G or the new E100 I use a filter in the 81 range(often 81B or 81C) to bring the color balance to my taste. Its archival storage properties are also equal to that of Fuji E6 film, and arguably at least as good if not better than the legendary Kodachrome.

 

(snip)

 

In the film days, every one using color film, and most using black and white film, had a skylight

filter on the lens. One reason is for lens protection, but the other is UV.

 

The blue sensitive layer is also UV sensitive. The yellow filter below that should block the UV

also, such that the green and red layer don't see it. That means that extra UV makes things

look bluer.

 

Skylight filters (1A and 1B) block the UV, and also add a tiny bit of warming, the 1B about

twice as much warming as 1A, though I suspect much less than any of the 81 filters.

 

As well as I remember, I always used a 1A or 1B, and not 0A (UV only), and if I had the

choice, 1B over 1A. The warming is small, you have to look at least a little carefully

to see it.

Beware of saying that everyone used a skylight/UV filter. I shot and shoot plenty of film and never used either filter.

Even though I cut my photographic teeth in the early digital age, I did so with stuff that was pretty much strictly film equipment(Canon FD mount).

 

I'd buy a lot of used lenses with skylight filters, and a lot of used lenses with UV filters or no filters. I shot MF with a Rolleicord and Rolleiflex, but the only filters I've ever had for those are B&W contrast filters.

 

Of course, I did shoot a decent amount with polarizers, but would generally avoid stacking if at all possible.

 

The only lens I ALWAYS shot with a Skylight was my FD 20mm f/2.8. I think I removed the filter twice-once when I first got it to dust it off, and again before I sold it to photograph the front element(even though I sold the lens with that filter still on it). That one kept a filter all the time because the slightly bulbous front element scared me. In retrospect, I guess that I've been numbed a fair bit since the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 I use all the time has an even more "out there" front element with no provision to put a filter on it for protection(although at least it does have an integrated lens hood).

Beware of saying that everyone used a skylight/UV filter. I shot and shoot plenty of film and never used either filter.

Same here with one exception, my Canon 500 FLF. If the conditions are a little dusty, I don't take chances.

Beware of saying that everyone used a skylight/UV filter. I shot and shoot plenty of film and never used either filter.

 

Well, I specifically said for color, and I supposed ignored that some might not be outdoors.

 

Did you use color film outdoors, and not get a blue shade from extra UV?

I'm posting this not for its artistic merit, but because I had a reason to dig it out and scan it last night(this marker recently disappeared, and we couldn't remember first of all if it even existed and if it did exactly what it said-it's an great uncle who was killed in action in France).

 

In any case, this was processed in June of 2006, and given other contents of the roll I'm guessing it was shot in May 2006(around Memorial day). It would have been processed by "The Film Lab" in Lexington, KY. The film chip I had stored with it indicates that it was E100GX, which was the "warm" version of E100G, and what I often shot in preference to E100G. Other than a slightly warmer color balance, the films are otherwise identical. More than likely, this was shot in a Canon T90 and probably with a 50mm f/1.4. It was scanned in my Nikon Coolscan V.

 

This should at least give you some idea of what the E100 series films were capable of when in-date.

 

I usually will go to flickr to see results of a certain film/camera. i probably have been given the original, expired, cold stored versions of these films. Lomography is keeping film alive with youger people as you might say. I cross process all my slide film anyway and yes, I like color shifts.