E100G vs K64

Damn Kodak...They discontinued the two (Kodak) color films I used the

most, K25 and E100S. I just picked up some E100G to see how it

compares with K64 as a replacement for K25. (I wish I had a few rolls

of K25 for comparison, but I've shot it all.)

 

This comparison is a flower picture. I just had a few minutes to

shoot, and did it all hand-held, so sharpness won't be to great on

any of the pics. I was primarily looking at comparing color

rendition.

 

All shots were mid-day sun, difused light. Canon A2E 85mm f/1.8

@f/1.8 with 25mm extension tube, no filter. Scanned with Minolta

Dimage Scan Dual III. Straight scans, full frame.

 

In general, K64 seemed warmer and more saturated in the yellows and

greens at 64 and 80 asa, as compared to both the E100G shots.

 

E100G was very accurate with the purple of the flower, but seemed

cold with all other colors. Shots at 80 seem to scan (on my scanner)

better than shots at 100, but shots at 100 look better when

projected.

 

Although you won't be able to tell from these low res scans, E100G

wins hands down in the grain department. I'll probably keep both

films in my camera bag until I go digital :-)

 

Both film do a nice job with skin tones, although I do have to use a

warming filter with the E100G. Don't have any pics for direct

comparison of skin tones.<div></div>

try E100GX (warm version of E100G) or Fuji Velvia 100F ( slightly desaturated & finer

grained version of RVP).

Thanks Ellis, a friend of mine just got both of those films in. He is going to be testing these films over the next few weeks. I will try the Gx

Aside from grain, which is impossible to distinguish from low-res scans, I'd say the K64 shots are more pleasing. They seem to have more depth and appear more life-like.

I'm noticing the increased contrast of K64, and severely blown out reds with no detail as well. This kind of subject matter really shows how aged the Kodachrome technology really is.

 

I know this flower, have shot it many times, and the E100G shot is far more accurate. Then again, Provia would have annihilated either film in terms of this kind of subject matter.

Eric, you wrote that you wanted to compare the films to your beloved K25 then you said no more about it! I would like to know how you found K64 next to K25. The reason being that next to technical pans, I thought K25 was supposed to be the sharpest film available.

 

As for your scans, the E100G makes the petals look velvet and more haggard than the K64, which may be more detail, but the lighting is also different and there is more colour fringing around the petal edges.

The K64 looks sharper and more vivid to me..I like both the 80 and 64 ISO's...and neither film looks excessively grainy to me.

N.M. you are right about not including K25 in the test, I should have. I used K25 mostly for portriats (no need to mess with ND filters to get slow enough speeds to sync with the flash, even wide open) I also used it on flower pictures. I have searched for a k25 slide of that particular flower and can't find one. I was using E100S, but I'm at the last of my final bulk roll.

 

I have compared some old k25 slides of people to k64, E100G, and E100S, & SW. My kids skin looks great on all of these films, in particular the K64 seems to be quite nice. My wife, on the other hand, is fair with red hair, and the K64 just makes her skin look to red.

 

Other films I will try incluse Astia, and Provia100F. I had tried a roll of proviaF when it came out, but decided to stick to k25 at that time.

 

For nature shots it I'll still stick to Velvia, and E100VS.

 

Thanks for your replies

I've shot a few dozen rolls of E100GX so far and am very impressed with it. When I want more saturation I've been using E100VS, though it's a bit grainy and doesn't handle contrasty situations well. How does the new Velvia 100 compare with VS on these issues? I've read a couple of reviews of Velvia 100 in the photo mags, but they've never met a film they didn't like.

Are you sure about your claim of identical lighting for the two films? Doesn't look like that to me. While the flowers may have been in shade, looks like some dappled sun creeps in: note the shadows on the petals from the flower's center in the K64 images that are completely lacking in the E100G shots. To my eye, it looks like the flower had some sunlight on it during your K64 shots. No wonder the E100G looks comparitively colder. The image background appears to also be impacted by this. Sorry -- nice try, but I think the inconsistent scene lighting is primarily responsible for the apparent change in colors, not the color reproduction of the films.

 

How would you compare the E100G versus the old E100S, colorwise?

I compared E100S, PKR, and Velvia in 1997 or so, using flowers in a controlled environment where no wind affected them. PKR was grainier, but sharper and more accurate in color. The retchdachromes do not have a scarlet/red, only a magenta. Kodachrome has a true scarlet/red.