Ektar 100 high contrast problem in landscape

<p>I'm looking for suggestions to solve a problem in landscape photography. I'm trying to repeatedly shoot a particular area of East Anglian landscape over a year using a Mamiya 7II and Kodak Ektar. One particular view I'm shooting has to be done at noon and includes a lot of sky. But I'm discovering 1) the landscape colour on the negative is eccentric, sometimes bluey green, sometimes intense green 2) it's very easy to exceed the film's latitude so I'm always teetering between bleached out sky and under-exposed areas under trees and the like. I do use grads where I can, but they're not really a great solution on a Mamiya 7II. I'm loathe to use a different camera, as I have the 50mm lens and love its crispness. I've got 6x6 cameras but the 6x7 format seems much more natural for landscape. Any suggestions? I'm no great colour film user, so even a suggestion for a modern negative film more likely to give natural colours and have a decent spread of latitude would help. I have no objection to reversal film, but they're not known for latitude.<br /> Thanks</p>

<p>Try Kodak's New Portra 160 or 400.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Bob here.</p>

<p>Epson v750, Les. I did have some scanned by the film developers but they were worse. My usual exposure technique is to use a spotmeter and find the middle tone. Thanks for posting the photos - they made me wonder why American bridges are sometimes covered like that! Snow?</p>

<p>The Covered bridge was made to be strong in the days of only wood and sometimes not the best wood.</p>

<p>Do yourself a huge favor and try a roll of Kodak E100VS or Fuji Velvia. Landscapes are no place for a negative film, not even ektar. In know neg has greater latitude, and maybe for this particular shot it is needed, but try 1 roll of slide and you will see why many generations of landscape pros shot ONLY slide film. For landscapes, there is no comparison. You will be blown away when you first see those large, beautiful chromes, and then happily pleased when you see how much better it scans - sharper, better resolution, much less grain, and much better colors - especially on your Epson. (I have the 4870, forerunner of the v700)<br>

Give 1 roll a try, you will not regret it.</p>

<p>Les because of your past lessons I no longer have the Ektar blues... I got it tuned in and I discovered the problem. Ohh lord the secret is so easy... .... we all know shadows are blue... our eyes fool us. I got that fixed... The problem is that it was designed originally as part of the Vision 3 line of movie films and then R&D took it to 35mm still film and due to public outcry we got the 120. It has a way that fools the brain because it is a negative film that captures it all but we know it is then transferred to positive... .....<br>

You and I know the transition.</p>

<p>As I said.... The problem is not the film it is those who can't use it properly... :-) Thanks again Les.</p>

 

<p>OMG Velvia 50 is the worst in that situation .... But what do I know I gave up 5x7 a year ago... </p>

<p>It may not be just the fault of the film.</p>

<p>The more open your iris becomes, the higher the contrast. When you use NDs, the tendency is to keep the iris more open than not, perpetuating the problem.</p>

<p>Try keep in the +F11 range if you find your contrast too high, allowing your shutter speed to drop in compensation.</p>

 

<p>Hello Peter,<br>

What you have claimed re: "more open your iris = more contrast" is not generally true of most lenses.<br>

The large majority have spherical aberration, coma, etc that create a veiling flare and lower contrast wide open.<br>

Then, they have a sweet spot somewhere in the f/4 - f/8 region where the contrast and resolution is greatest.<br>

By f/16 or smaller, you get less sharpness overall due to diffraction.<br>

Exceptions are the modern aspherical lenses e.g. Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH, which is very contrasty even wide open.</p>

<p>The top part of a covered bridge prevents the bottom support portion from being constantly exposed to wet rainy or snowy weather. That preserved the wood from rotting out and accounts for why some of these bridges are so old. </p>

<p>Hmm, here in New Zealand they always cheap out on construction and think in the short term. This is also why all our roads and bridges are built too small and have to be expanded at great cost a few years later. Like this one near to where I live, which only opened in the late 90s, built way too narrow: http://www.hamilton.co.nz/page/pageid/2145842537</p>

<p>Thanks for the info on bridges... it makes sense and explains why we don't have wooden bridges in England, generally. It's too wet here.<br>

Regarding the advice on film etc, thanks to all. I really appreciate the answers you've offered. I have been photographing seriously since the early 70s and have a lot of experience with transparencies up to and including 5x4, so I know that's not the solution. Maybe I was hoping someone would say 'Try unobtainia, the miracle new wide latitude slide film.' The contrast in the particular scene I'm trying to photograph is just too wide for slide. One answer would be of course 'don't photograph at noon.' But that's not possible for a technical reason to do with the project. Some of you have suggested looking at scanning software. I tried the Vuescan and I was quite surprised to discover it was quite a bit easier to get a printable scan out of difficult negs with Vuescan than with Silverfast, which is what I have been using. So that's one way forward. The other is to use an slr or view camera and use grads. I always knew that but was loathe to give up the Mamiya lens! Anyway, thanks again to all.</p>

<p>There's nothing difficult about using a grad with a Mamiya 7--I've done it many times with a Mamiya 6. You may have to move it slightly and bracket a few shots.<br>

On the other hand, I've also used grads with SLRs, mostly medium format. I've always found them tremendously difficult to align, even with hard grads and even stopped down as everyone recommends. I have to bracket with them anyway. You might as well use the Mamiya.</p>

<p>I have just used my first roll of Ektar as it is now being stocked instead of Reala. The results (when developed and scanned at my reliable lab) are horrible. So horrible that I was ashamed to show them to anyone. Instead of true and reliable colour I got blue/green tinged everything - and the rich Autumn scenes were a washout. Negatives were perfectly exposed - I took care not to under-expose but this film was not what I hoped it would be. I hope the new 160 is far better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The more open your iris becomes, the higher the contrast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's news to me. Care to explain?</p>

<p>Les - this is what I am getting (photo below). Reading the before and after links it does look like Ektar needs special treatment when scanning however whenever I have asked my D&P shop for corrections in the past they have trouble getting it right. They are a film-friendly gang but maybe Ektar is beyond their experience.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Wow...that is a nasty color cast Ian. I agree with Les though....once the film is dialed in, the color is superb. I do not recommend Velvia in the least here. You can easily obtain a god 5-7 more stops of detail in Ektar. Velvia wouldn't have the blue shadows because it would simply block up to back in order not to overexpose the sky.</p>

<p>Ektar in 120 out of my RB67 can produce grain free 16x20 prints when scannd well....with dynamic range that slaughters Velvia. The only reason some people use chromes now is because they don't know how to scan neg film ;-)</p>

<p>Dear all,<br>

A bit of an update. If I have a handheld meter with me I always ignore the camera's meter and use the camera manually. Elsewhere on this site I reported my Sekonic 508 meter had died ten days after I first asked this question. Now I wonder if I have been making bad exposures based on the metering. I've acquired another - Pentax Spotmeter - and will find out tomorrow.</p>

<p>Keep us updated Bob but I have to say it would have to be off a few stops though.</p>