Ektar 100 now in 120 format

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by dave_luttmann, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. That is fantastic! And, the digital guys love to say that film will be gone in a few years.
     
  2. I'm dying to try this out. My scan of the 35mm version show minimal grain at 16x24. This film may allow me to use 4x5 a bit less. Hmmm....now what if it comes out in 4x5?
     
  3. Sweet. It sure would be nice if it had spools like Fuji with the little hook to grab the film for easy take-up, without having to add a small piece of tape...
     
  4. Cool, available in April. Maybe it will be time to get the 500 out for a spin or two.
     
  5. This 100% digital guy turned BACK into a fim guy is happy to hear that this film is now available in 120!
     
  6. I agree Derek. I was almost all digital with the wedding and portraiture work I do. For landscapes, I still held onto the RB67 and 4x5 gear. As I stopped using 120 for a long while, I got rid of my Nikon 9000 and just used an Epson V700 for 4x5. Now of course, the V700 isn't the best for 120....but it will have to do for a while.
     
  7. This B&W guy will have to get some when it comes out!
     
  8. Dave:
    I ended up with the V500 as I cant afford a dedicated film scanner that does 120 although I do have one for 35mm. As you said - not the best but good enough until I can afford a proper scanner. The V500 only has a strip of glass to do slides - I wish I could scan 8x10ish transparencies so I can make contact sheets/scans of my negative strips while still in the plastic sheets I use to keep them in a binder. I can still do it but a couple strips at a time which is a real pita.
    Back in November I got back into film - shooting b&w and developing it myself (a first for me) and a couple weeks ago I got a wet darkroom set up - another first for me. I'm enjoying using the old cameras in my collection which include a couple Leicas, and a GW670II.
    But I might have to pick up this film since Ive heard so much good things about it. Even if it is colour :p
    Luckily my local camera store still develops 120, but colour only no slides or tru b&w: those they send out.
     
  9. Derek,
    I was blown away the first time I scanned 4x5 on my V700. It was enough that I decided then and there that for high quality.....film was the way to go.....unless you've got $35,000 to spend on a digital back to give you the same quality as a $2 sheet of film ;-)
    Best of luck on your darkroom....there is nothing like the smell of B&W chemistry when your processing film!
     
  10. That is fantastic! And, the digital guys love to say that film will be gone in a few years.

    This is a quote worthy of Ice Age II (the movie). "How can mammoths go extinct? They're so big." For that matter, what's keeping Kodak from going extinct?
    Anyway, it's worth giving E100 a toss now that it's in roll film. It beats the rainbows and unicorns we get from Washington these days.
     
  11. My old memory.
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Edward Ingold [​IMG][​IMG], Feb 17, 2009; 02:33 p.m.
    That is fantastic! And, the digital guys love to say that film will be gone in a few years.

    This is a quote worthy of Ice Age II (the movie). "How can mammoths go extinct? They're so big." For that matter, what's keeping Kodak from going extinct?
    Anyway, it's worth giving E100 a toss now that it's in roll film. It beats the rainbows and unicorns we get from Washington these days.​
    I'm not certain what keeps Kodak from going extinct.....but it could have something to do with $3 Billion in film sales.
     
  13. A bit off-topic. But still, it did come up.

    Film is responsible for about 19% of Kodak's revenue.
    Consumer digital provides about 45%. Graphic communications about 35%. All else they do makes up the 100%.
    Still an important chunk, film. But don't worry about Kodak going extinct should film do. ;-)
     
  14. "For that matter, what's keeping Kodak from going extinct?"
    Agree, Dave! While film might not be Kodak's biggest sales. It is big enough for them to introduce new films now and then. Which goes to show that there are alot of film users out there. Even if the digital doomsayers don't want to believe it!
     
  15. Great news! Just when I got into improving my film technique...
     
  16. Kodak may (or may not*) have grossed 3B from film sales, but they lost 800M in 2008 out of gross revenues of just over 9B. For those of you unfamiliar with accounting practices, gross sales and profits are not the same thing. In the last 10 years, their stock has lost 90% of its value.
    As I was saying about mammoths...
    * The percentage of sales from film is not listed on their balance sheet. Companies typically group their sales figures to obscure the profit or loss for any given division.
     
  17. Edward....if they were losing money on film, I don't think they'd be releasing new emulsions in various formats. Same with Fuji. I'd say they are making a decent profit on film.
     
  18. this will work great on my Makina 6x7. yeehaw.
     
  19. Edward....if they were losing money on film, I don't think they'd be releasing new emulsions in various formats.

    Does GM release new cars? It seems so, from the Auto Show in Chicago last weekend, but they're still not making money. It may be an act of desperation for Kodak, or maybe less than it seems. Ektar 100 is a retread.
     
  20. As a cpa I kabish GAAP a little bit...appears film contributed to revenue -- no surprise as R&D covered long time ago -- its the other stuff that is flat or negative. Kodak wont survive on film alone, but it does contribute to the bottom line.
     
  21. Thanks Paul...that is what I've heard as well. Regardless, there will be a lot of Ektar rolling through my RB!!!!
     
  22. Darn it! I have digital and 4x5. Don't tell me I'm going to have to buy that SWC or 6x9 camera that I've always wanted. Well, I'll wait a bit and see if it comes out in 4x5 first.
     
  23. ...appears film contributed to revenue...
    Revenue = profit? Please cite your sources and methods regarding Kodak film sales. All I see are gross results.
     
  24. Edward: Relax. As with any smart company we will never know exactly what $ film produced -- as its lumped in with various other legacy items purposely. But we know from its financials that the category film has positive cash flows.
    Careful with the term "profit" -- ask Enron and Bernie Madoff;-)
    Best regards and happy snaps. Paul
     
  25. Ingold...whats your deal, do you have some kind of axe to grind with Film? If so, GTFO (Get out of This FOrum) of this forum, as it is basically all about FILM cameras, for the most part. Your time would be better spent working over your RAW files in Photoshop to fix the blown highlights and white balance issues ;-)
     
  26. As with any smart company we will never know exactly what $ film produced -- as its lumped in with various other legacy items purposely.
    Thank you for coming clean, Paul. As you know Kodak's financial report lumps film, photofinishing and entertainment into a single category, which is shrinking rapidly. One suspects, but an outsider can never officially know the contribution of film in this category. It would be nice if more items in the Kodak report were not enclosed in parentheses.
    Randall,
    Cool your jets! If others can make statements regarding the resurgence of film at Kodak I am entitled to put them in perspective. It is nice that Kodak has relabeled a movie film as "Ektar 100", and it may indeed be wonderful. I intend to try it, but that's as far as it goes. I don't have an "axe to grind with Film (sic)" per se, rather with those who make unrealistic assertions. How odd that your response is the first to even mention "digital". Do you have an axe to grind?
     
  27. Ektar 100 is not a relabeled movie film. See this thread, and particularly Ron Andrews' comments.
     
  28. Look, your basically bashing film with your antagonistic quips, or "Raining on the Parade" and I think you know it. If you dont share our excitement over Ektar going 120, just dont comment in this thread, its that easy.
     
  29. Edward, it's not a movie film (Cine film). Please, do your homework before you come to a film forum and pretend to be an expert in that arena. Your posts are borderline trolling.
     
  30. If you dont share our excitement over Ektar going 120, just dont comment in this thread, its that easy.
    I've done nothing to bash film - I'm bashing Kodak, a fine company sabotaged by its own (mis)management and lack of foresight. I'm also standing up to those who pull facts out of an hat to support their prejudices. Sacred cow makes the best barbeque.
    Please, do your homework before you come to a film forum and pretend to be an expert in that arena.

    The charter of this form encompasses both film and digital (read the little balloon as you enter). However, this is not a "film vs digital" issue, and it's a weak argument to paint it otherwise. Is it just possible, outside of your cloister, that they are not mutually exclusive.
     
  31. Ektar 100 in 120 would be a worthy addition of yet another back for my Mamiya.
    Edward, I do not know what you shoot today, but Ektar 100 in just 35mm outresolves the 5DII and has almost twice the dynamic range. 120 has almost 5 times the detail of 35mm when scanned.
    If you dropped medium format for a crop sensor DSLR, I can understand why this is a sensitive subject. I would still give it a try and who knows, you may come back full circle back to film.
     
  32. These are some shots with Ektar 100 35mm for people who haven't had the chance to try it yet. 120 is a great addition to the world of photography.
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/5/412869552_SU8dE#412869552_SU8dE-X3-LB
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/5/412869552_SU8dE#412882634_PtEoi-X3-LB
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412836438_dfYZh-X3-LB
    This is Ektar 35mm next to the 5DII:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#468030922_WQLZp-X3-LB
    This is Ektar 35mm next to TMX, Velvia and Canon 40D:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6616619_YJEwK#471880876_V8LEa-O-LB
     
  33. Edward -- your attitude is like that of the Grand Inquistor. I dont appreciate your comment, "Thank you for coming clean, Paul," attempting to make it look like I am being less than truthful. I'll bet your a really nice guy in person, but your attitude needs a major realignment.
    Go get a drink; in fact make it a double.
     
  34. I don't care if it's remarketed Wrigley's chewing gum. If it takes good pictures and is cheaper than slides, I'll try it. In fact, I have 4 boxes ,of the 35mm type, on my shelf.
     
  35. leopards and spots...
     
  36. Edward, please let me know why you think Ektar 100 is rebadged Pro Cine film. If that were the case Ektar 100 would be formulated to work best under tungsten light. I shoot a lot under tungsten and this would be the prefect emulsion for me.
     
  37. "Kodak may (or may not*) have grossed 3B from film sales, but they lost 800M in 2008 out of gross revenues of just over 9B. For those of you unfamiliar with accounting practices, gross sales and profits are not the same thing. In the last 10 years, their stock has lost 90% of its value."
    You have made a comment that applies to most companies these days. Look at the stock charts of hundreds of companies.
     
  38. Ektar 100 in just 35mm outresolves the 5DII and has almost twice the dynamic range.
    According to charts in the technical data sheet for Ektar 100, the resolution at MTF10 is about 100 lp/mm (40 lp/mm at MTF50) and the dynamic range is just under 10 stops. According to tests performed by DPReview, the 5DII has a dynamic range of 8.4 stops at ISO 100 and a resolution of 78 lp/mm. Ektar is better in both respects, but not to the extent asserted above. While I see no compelling advantage to 35mm film over small-format digital, medium format film is another matter. It will be interesting to put it through its paces in an Hasselblad and LS-8000.
    The performance of Ektar 100, on paper anyway, is not significantly different than other ISO 100 negative color films such as Fuji Reala. Kodak's sell point is Ektar's fine grain rather than resolution. As we know, fine grain does not automatically confer high resolution. The main reason I have avoided Kodak film for years is that they make major changes before I can get warm and fuzzy with a particular emulsion, and it was (is) often hard to get in quantity when I need it. It's kind of the GM mentality - change it and they'll buy more. (Kodak might have pulled it off if they could make film rust.)
     
  39. cool.....wondered why they didn't do this in the first place...
     
  40. This will put a smile on my self-portrait at Facebook.
    Wow! My Mamiya RZ67 was starving for a new gourmet meal. Thank You Mr. Eastman!!!!
     
  41. I don't care what Kodak's profits, gross sales, turnover, etc. are. It's none of my business.
    I just know that I did a little happy dance when I first heard about Ektar 100 in 120 size!
     
  42. And digital people was saying "film is dead". They are claiming so since 2000. Kodak knows digital is "the market", but there is still enough demand of film, well above the market critical mass, for making an interesting profit. Moreover, the experience of Kodak with film and its proven technology makes it easy for them to get a big benefit per roll of film. In my opinion, after the "film is dead" motto, the actual tendency is going to be "film has survived". My Rolleiflex is very happy this morning!
     
  43. Awesome news! I've been using Pro 160C and Reala 100 as my main C41 film in my Mamiya C330, but this is just brilliant news given how much I have enjoyed using this film so far.
    Hopefully it'll be in the UK by May then :)
     
  44. Edward, where in the publication is stated 10 stops of dynamic range? Or you are you deriving from the density curve.
    Anyhow, Ektar 100 has 0ver 14 stops.
    Truth is (as usual tested by myself fore I quote it), Ektar 100 has over 14 stops:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/2/424020444_n2LsD#424020444_n2LsD-O-LB
    .... at least the batch I got...
    00SUgs-110355584.jpg
     
  45. On the congratulatory note;
    Edward, I have to admit I am positively surprised you acknowledged that 35mm film outresolves the latest Canon full frame DSLR. In 2009.
     
  46. Mauro, don't show that test to Daniel Taylor.....you might get a bunch of links to Clarkvision, Koren, and Luminous Landscape sites trying to prove you wrong ;-)
     
  47. Edward, I have to admit I am positively surprised you acknowledged that 35mm film outresolves the latest Canon full frame DSLR.
    I have never maintained otherwise. However the difference is not enough to write home about. Furthermore, the acutance of the Canon far surpasses that of film, so results will look sharper than film even if the absolute resolution is less.
    I derive the dynamic range from the characteristic curve (density) produced by Kodak using calibrated instruments and a well-established method. It is the only basis for objectively measuring dynamic range. The exposure is on a logarithmic scale, and the range can be expressed as f/stops by dividing differences by log(2) = 0.301. The toe is counted only to the point where its slope is greater than about 10%, which is about the lower limit of useful contrast.
    I have seen your experiment and find it to be subjective and and deeply flawed. Your method does not accurately control nor measure the light falling on the tin soldiers, and you attempt to create a gradient by flagging the light source. The subjects are lighted from one side, so each subject has bright and dark parts. If you can see any detail in any part of the figures, you count it as "inside" the dynamic range. The scanner you use to measure your results cannot have anywhere close to 14 stops range. I could go on. Let us say that you provided amusement for enough people to make a thread of record-breaking length when you published it in the Film Forum. I think Reverend Moon fooled a lot of people too.
     
  48. The test may be flawed Edward, but regardless, the film beat the 40D.
     
  49. Ok, lets end the war, and get back on track with our celebration over Ektar going 120.
    Kodak, I Thank You greatly for This. Glad to see you have not given up on film!!! And BTW, thanks for many of my favorite emulsions like EBX, BW400CN, 400UC (hope you replace with an Ektar 400), and of course, Kodachrome.
     
  50. Yay! Can't wait to try it - shame I can't find anywhere tobuy it in HK :(
     
  51. Agreed Randall. Now that they've released it for 120, I'll have to complain that they don't have it in 4x5 ;-)
     
  52. The test may be flawed Edward, but regardless, the film beat the 40D.
    I don't disagree, but it's 10 stops, not 14 stops, vs 8 stops for the Canon. My point is that the technical data sheets are objective, present the best possible results for that film, and are free to all who are interested.
    Mauro's Canon 40d results would have been better had he used better technique and processed the results with Curves. Film has a natural curve built in, so the comparison would still be fair. As with scanning, you should use all available tools to get the best out of the medium.
     
  53. Edward,you must have a liking for self punishment...
    I'll give you a brief explanation of the basics of light to address your points - assuming you mean well; but if you need more let's email each other and not to take the thread off. This thread is about Ektar 100 and its release in 120.
    1) "The scanner you use to measure your results cannot have anywhere close to 14 stops range". You are confused. First, the scanner (DMAX 4) captures detail on a range of 1-10,000. This has nothing to do with stops on the scene.
    If a piece of film could capture a scene with 20 stops in a density range of just 1-1,000; even a flatbed could then scan 20 stops. I won't go further since I know you probably quickly understand your mistake.
    2) "Your method does not accurately control nor measure the light falling on the tin soldiers" As stated, incident light was measured with a sekonic 358 pointing at the camera. Also regardless of how figurines reflect light, they cannot reflect more than what comes at them. If you see detail in the shadow and then also in the highlights without any blown areas, 13 stops over, then there you go.
    3) "Canon 40d results would have been better had he used better technique and processed the results with Curves". Silly. Technique = Measure the light, set ISO 100 and shoot. That's it - very difficult-subjective technique ha ha. Light does the rest. And I provided the raw files for people to take a stab at eliminating the blown area. (You are welcome too). Did you try yourself from the raws I provided?
    Email me at franicma@yahoo.com if you have more questions or need more data about this test.
     
  54. Thanks for elaborating Mauro. I wasn't quite certain what Edward was getting at. As I've done my own tests before with a 1Ds2 and Fuji Pro160S, I found about the same results....the film was much better.
     
  55. Mauro,
    The reason your test is wrong is because it does not agree with Kodak's results by a substantial margin. Kodak has used this proven method for over 70 years, albiet with improved instrumentation. One can argue where your errors occur, but the basic facts are unaltered. DMAX, by the way, is not the dynamic range, rather the maximum density which you can scan and get a signal above the noise level.
    Also regardless of how figurines reflect light, they cannot reflect more than what comes at them.
    True, but how much of that light is reflected depends on many factors, including the angle of incidence.
    If you see detail in the shadow and then also in the highlights without any blown areas...
    It's not a stretch goal to overexpose with a DSLR, nor with film for that matter. Are you testing range or ISO?
    Why don't you borrow a densitometer and calibrated step wedge, and start over again?
     
  56. This is exciting indeed. I only wish that I didn't live on a remote island in Alaska and didn't have to wait weeks to get the film, and then many more weeks to get it developed!
    But, then again, it's not like I'm shooting Medium Format for its expediency!
     
  57. Edward, if you have a true interest email me and I will respond. Let's not disrupt the thread.
     
  58. It really is funny to me that someone posts an excited post about a NEW film and instantly a digital troll comes out of the woodwork to bad mouth film. Really, if film trolls came into the EVERY discussion about a new digital camera things would be pretty messed up. Instead, every discussion about film posted in forums full of digi heads gets ambushed. My suggestion is that the anti-film crowd take a step back and ask yourselves this... are you upset about film because it really sucks... or are you mad at yourself for selling your great old metal and mechanical film gear and trading up for a menu-driven lumpy plasticy-feeling gadget?
    Meanwhile, the really INTERESTING aspect of this has been ignored. Namely, does a "slide quality" C-41 film in 120 format spell out the last nail in the coffin for Kodak E-6? Yes, the company is loosing ground and loosing business. Yes, they have scooped up most of their loaner E-6 machines in localities in an attempt to consolidate E-6 processing (as well as corner-in the market). Yes, they have steadily been pushing for finer and finer grain high resolution negative films. Yes, C-41 is cheaper for us as well as them to process. And yes, slide film is largely used only by professionals, many of whom have moved on to digital. This leaves me with only one conclusion... Velvia forever! ;)
     
  59. Patrick, I'll probably keep using Astia for a lot of my 35mm and 4x5 work. But to me, Ektar is like a C41 Velvia in a lot of respects.....with quite a few extra stops of dynamic range and latitude. Of course, if I wanted the most DR, then I'd shoot Fuji Pro160S and leave every DSLR in the dust....but that doesn't really matter because even if a DSLR matched film for DR or Rez....it still wouldn't look like film....and that's why I'm excited about seeing Kodak release this in 120. It shows they are still providing support to those of us who love to work with film.
     
  60. I need to get a few rolls of the 35mm version and run it through my new Pen FT and see how much detail I can get out of these old lenses! (Film APSC... lol!)
     
  61. "ektar 100 now in 120"--never thought such a simple statement would warrant so many responses--including this one.
     
  62. William, I guess it just shows how much interest there is in this film. I agree though....I didn't think this thread would come up as the heaviest of the day.
     
  63. I've tried the Ektar 100 in 35mm, and find it to be a great film. It has saturated colors, but very accurate skin tone rendition, so it's nowhere near Velvia in terms of pictoral response.
    Edward, before you keep dissing this film, which you've never tried, why don't you just try the stuff?
    Your persistent clinging to some mythological "curve" of Kodak and your refusal to look at the actual images produced by Maruo shows that your methodology is wrong. Most of us like to believe our own eyes with a visual medium such as photography, rather than your curves.
    This reminds me of the people that look only at MTF curves on lenses. There have been some threads here and on Rangefinderforum (e.g. "Half a Petzval", and "Brownies"), in which someone is using 1/2 of a Petzval lens, or flipping the meniscus lens of a Brownie around to produce some fascinating pictoral effects. I'm sure the MTF curves on these lenses would be in the basement, but the photographs are outstanding.
     
  64. With all the back and forth flames, for a minute I thought I was in the film forum when there is a food fight between the digital and film folks. Anyway....this is truely great news. Much of Kodak's profit comes from their film division. I realize much of that may be due to their cine business, but I suppose they must still be making money off their still camera film business too, or Kodak wouldn't be doing stuff like this. I intend to buy some of this film and run it through my Hassy.
     
  65. db1

    db1

    Thanks to everyone for the entertainment. Who should I tip?
     
  66. Mauro,

    You're supposed to measure dynamic range with an evenly illuminated target that does not exhibit specular highlights. Transmission step wedges fit the bill. If you are going to test using multiple exposures and reflected light, you need an evenly illuminated area of consistent tone by which to judge the range. To get the count you claim one has to look at bright areas in the shadow range and dark areas in the highlight range, but that's not an accurate evaluation of usable range in a single exposure.

    Also, no one can exactly reproduce your lighting setup, and slight variations in angle could easily "blow" one shot while making another appear fine. Glare on the backdrop changes dramatically in the series for both digital and film. Something moved or changed angle relative to the scene.

    Magazines and professional web sites shoot transmission step wedges, illuminated evenly from behind, generally with a single exposure. They do this because it's consistent, repeatable, and doesn't lead to false impressions based on lighting angles, specular highlights, or varying subject tones. Edward is right to rely on published data from Kodak and dpreview, and his complaints are spot on. You're not going to like this, and you'll probably continue to post your test, but your test is invalid. If you really want to explore this issue, buy a Stouffer transmission step wedge and shoot it correctly.

    That being said I would expect Ektar to exhibit more total DR, but I don't understand why that's an obsession with anyone. DR never stopped me from shooting slide, and that's more narrow than digital. Even with slide when I encountered a scene that exceeded the range available to me, it was never by some small amount that made me wish I had loaded print film. It was by a huge amount that makes one grab GND filters or, with digital, shoot multiple exposures for an exposure blend.
     
  67. Benny,

    Anyway....this is truely great news.

    Ektar in 120 format is good news indeed.
    Now if only Kodak would bring back HIE and offer it in 120 :-(
     
  68. How is a GND filter going to reduce the stops in the scene? Do you carry thousands of GNDs and place them on every spot of the scene you want to filter down? You have confusion by lack of experimentation and too much regurgitation.
    Like I told Edward, if you have a valid interest in understanding light, email me and I will respond.
     
  69. If you want HIE to come back, convince the US Department of Defense to start placing large orders.
    As for E-6, it's obvious from where Kodak is putting their R&D money (C-41 and B&W films) what the market is doing to E-6. The labs are collapsing, unless they really know how to hustle for business. The consumer Elite Chrome films are getting discontinued, as are the legacy (pre T-grain) ones.
     
  70. Kudos on Kodak! Ektar is a great negative film for products and landscpe! It also cuts down on the quantity of ND filters I need to carry. When velvia just isn't slow enough......
    Yes digital is here to stay, and yes film sales are declining as amateur pic clickers trade in their 35mm vivitar P&S for the latest and greatest 500 megapixel / square inch P&S. I don't think that film will ever disappear in its entirety though. The love for film is experiencing a resurgence, so much so, I can no longer count on two hands how many film emulation plug-ins there are for photo shop.
    Sometimes the arguments get so silly on the forums over technical minutia, I wonder what it would have been like in the days of Rembrandt, 10 old guys gathering in a circle debating which paint offers a finer brush stroke. For those of you, and you know who you are, your punishment is to go buy 10 rolls of Ektar, take out your tripod, and go sit in the rain and take beautiful pictures.
    John
     
  71. Mauro, your test brings up a valid point. Quite often, specular, or small areas of a scene will blow out in digital capture. They don't in the film capture. Regardless of the specular areas, it's obvious which one hold more DR.
    Of course, they people questioning it to death don't seem to have anything to post, unlike those of us who have.
     
  72. Daniel, as you obviously have an issue with film capture and those who use it....based upon your posts here and at DPReview, maybe you could refrain from posting in film forums. You'll find that we really don't care what you think. Go back to the digital forums and sing the praises all you like.
     
  73. [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] This is great news! Even if I never use any Ektar in my Rapid, I'm always happy to see an expansion of film choice. Film isn't dead anymore than LP records are dead. It's just not quite as far along in the transition from mass market consumable to premium gourmet treat for the Cognoscenti as LPs are today. Business models will evolve and we will have our film...at a price.

    Neither film or LPs will ever be mass market again, but who cares? iPods and PowerShots are far better mass market products. I love 'em myself...but not like I love my Canon P. I'll pay the price and so will everyone here, so no worries about film being around and even growing over time.
     
  74. Daniel, as you obviously have an issue with film capture and those who use it....based upon your posts here
    Dave,
    Please cite which part of Daniel's post denigrates film or film users. Perhaps there is something politically incorrect about the term "step wedge" or "scientific method" that offends you?
     
  75. To divert the subject a bit. Granted that the Ektar will have a higher dynamic range than Velvia, what about a guess as to the sharpness differences between the new Ektar and Velvia 50. When scanned with a scanner such as the Nikon 8000 (which is what I have), which film would produce sharper appearing prints.
     
  76. "It really is funny to me that someone posts an excited post about a NEW film and instantly a digital troll comes out of the woodwork to bad mouth film. Really, if film trolls came into the EVERY discussion about a new digital camera things would be pretty messed up. Instead, every discussion about film posted in forums full of digi heads gets ambushed. My suggestion is that the anti-film crowd take a step back and ask yourselves this... are you upset about film because it really sucks... or are you mad at yourself for selling your great old metal and mechanical film gear and trading up for a menu-driven lumpy plasticy-feeling gadget?"
    Patrick, a big thumbs up!
    Granted, my original post on this thread might have started the this vs that debate. But, I will say that everytime someone mentions the fun of film on Pnet.Someone has to come in with a give it 6 months remark!
     
  77. Dave,
    Please cite which part of Daniel's post denigrates film or film users. Perhaps there is something politically incorrect about the term "step wedge" or "scientific method" that offends you?

    Disagreeing with Dave on any topic offends him. Tread lightly Edward, or Dave might declare that nobody cares about your opinion either!
    The horror...
     
  78. If you want HIE to come back, convince the US Department of Defense to start placing large orders.
    I don't think it's coming back unfortunately. Thank God for Efke 820c.
     
  79. Daniel,
    I think you care, I think you question things and your mind is not set on one thing, I think that's way you post. It just comes across sometimes like your purpuse is not to learn and challenge but to disrupt. It would look different if you posted your own results, and asked questions and present findings open for debate. Or counter others findings with your own.
    Regarding specular reflections in my test, the dumies only have curved surfaces so specular reflections could happen on single isolated point not wide areas. Thje areas in digital that are blown can't be specular reflections. I'm sure you and Edward would understand if you think about it.
    Regarding your theory of reducing the number of stops in the scene with the use of GND filters; did you understant why it is not possible?
     
  80. Well, if Edward and Daniel know how to do the dynamic range test "properly and scientifically", then why don't they do it and show us the results?
     
  81. Robert, I think everyone knows the reason they've never produced any samples for comparison....it's easier to present vacuous opinions rather than actually making a comparison.
     
  82. Well, if Edward and Daniel know how to do the dynamic range test "properly and scientifically", then why don't they do it and show us the results?
    Send me one of the transmission step wedges on this page and I will: http://www.stouffer.net/Productlist.htm
    I don't personally care enough to spend my own cash, but I'll put the time in. It doesn't take long.
     
  83. it's easier to present vacuous opinions rather than actually making a comparison.
    You would know.
     
  84. I think you care, I think you question things and your mind is not set on one thing, I think that's way you post. It just comes across sometimes like your purpuse is not to learn and challenge but to disrupt.

    "Disrupt"..."Challenge"...call it what you will, but that's not how you perform a dynamic range test.

    Regarding your theory of reducing the number of stops in the scene with the use of GND filters; did you understant why it is not possible?

    Do you understand people do it all the time? It's not going to work if you have random regions of extreme highlight and shadow. But the most common scene which exceeds photographic dynamic range (including film) is a bright sky or sunset with a detailed foreground. That's why GND filters were invented.

    But they are the old way. Exposure blending can handle very complex shapes and scenes, and HDR can handle anything (though the look can get extreme).
     
  85. W. Xato , Feb 19, 2009; 02:27 a.m.
    To divert the subject a bit. Granted that the Ektar will have a higher dynamic range than Velvia, what about a guess as to the sharpness differences between the new Ektar and Velvia 50. When scanned with a scanner such as the Nikon 8000 (which is what I have), which film would produce sharper appearing prints.​
    Based upon my scans, they are very, very close....but I would give the slightest nod to Velvia. Now would it show on print....I don't think so. The slightest bit of extra USM on Ektar would probably bridge the gap. As well, I don't think it'll show until you reacg 16x24 or larger....with your nose up to the print.
     
  86. Well, if Edward and Daniel know how to do the dynamic range test "properly and scientifically", then why don't they do it and show us the results?
    Fair enough, Robert. I don't have to purchase any expensive instruments and standards when Kodak has already done most of the work. I have attached a chart showing how to estimate the dynamic range of Ektar 100. The characteristic curve is taken from the technical data sheet published by Kodak.
    The dynamic range of the "subject" is represented by the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is the density measured on the film. Both are logarithmic (base 10) scales.
    Since the toe of the curve becomes nearly horizontal (zero contrast, hence zero detail), it is necessary to assume some arbitrary starting point. I created lines with a 10% and 50% slope and found the point where they just touched the curve (the tangent point). That is, a given change in exposure would change the density by 10% and 50% respectively, which is proportional to a contrast ratio. 10% contrast is very low, and image features would be barely discernible*. At 50% and low level, the contrast is closer to what you would consider "shadow detail".
    Using the Green line for reference (why not?), the low end is -2.2 and -2.0 respectively, and the high end is +1.1. The f/stop equivalent is the difference between high and low divided by log2 (0.301). My results are posted in the example.
    * In Mauro's analysis, he bumps the contrast of the low level scan results in order to demonstrate there is actually detail present. Your homework assigment is to show what kind of Photoshop curve that would represent. (hint: think of a famous Coney Island ride)
    00SVah-110597684.jpg
     
  87. Daniel,
    "Regarding your theory of reducing the number of stops in the scene with the use of GND filters; did you understant why it is not possible?

    Do you understand people do it all the time?"
    Sadly your understanding is very limited to be discussion this subject. A GND filter does not reduce the number of stops in the scene.
     
  88. Edward, can you explain to Daniel why a GND filter does not reduce the number of stops in a scene?
     
  89. Edward, don't complicate yourself,

    10^1.2-10^(-2.2)=15.8
     
  90. "Dave Luttmann [​IMG] , Feb 19, 2009; 11:58 a.m.
    W. Xato , Feb 19, 2009; 02:27 a.m.
    To divert the subject a bit. Granted that the Ektar will have a higher dynamic range than Velvia, what about a guess as to the sharpness differences between the new Ektar and Velvia 50. When scanned with a scanner such as the Nikon 8000 (which is what I have), which film would produce sharper appearing prints.​
    Based upon my scans, they are very, very close....but I would give the slightest nod to Velvia. Now would it show on print....I don't think so. The slightest bit of extra USM on Ektar would probably bridge the gap. As well, I don't think it'll show until you reacg 16x24 or larger....with your nose up to the print."
    Agree with Dave unless you use scanners better than the Coolscan where Velvia 35mm will resolve 30MP+ of information taking a material edge on Ektar.
     
  91. To all you digital photographer, I truly never believe that film was ever going to be dead. I still have three rolls of Ektar 25 in 120 format and waiting for a special event to use it. Not that ektar is back and has the iso of 100 and in 120 format, I am going to start shooting it now, Rufus.
     
  92. Mauro, you seem to have slept through algebra :)
    A difference of one f/stop constitutes an absolute ratio of 2, two f/stops a ratio of 4, ... 2^x is the ratio expressed by "x" f/stops.
    The ratio of exposure of two points on the characteristic curve can be expressed in linear terms as follows (using your numbers, which do not agree with my interpolation of the chart)...
    2^x = 10^1.2 / 10^-2.2 (notice it is the ratio, not the difference)
    Expressed in logarithmic form...
    x*log(2) = log(10^1.2) - log(10^-2.2) = 1.2 - (-2.2)
    It follows that the ratio expressed as the number of f/stops (x) is ...
    x = (1.2 + 2.2)/log(2) = 3.4/0.301 = 11.3
     
  93. Edward, can you explain to Daniel why a GND filter does not reduce the number of stops in a scene?
    It depends on the scene. In a typical application you have a bright sky and a relatively dark foreground. If there is a dividing "line" of sorts, a graduated neutral density (GND) filter reduces the range of exposure reaching the film. It won't do much for a bright, sunlit rock in the middle of a dark stream (to my dismay and the detriment of Velvia), or a tin soldier against a dark background, but when it works, it works well. An incident light meter (like a Sekonic 358) won't help much either, as shown Mauro's experiment.
     
  94. Edward - You beat me to it :)
    Mauro - Sadly your understanding is very limited to be discussion (sic) this subject. But if the math scares you, just count the little thick lines between the toe and the shoulder and divide by 0.3.
     
  95. Edward - It won't do much for a bright, sunlit rock in the middle of a dark stream (to my dismay and the detriment of Velvia)
    I'm not a HDR fan, but I love manual exposure blending. No more trying to line a filter up with a horizon and cursing the rock or hill that's going to be black because it's over the line. Just shoot a couple frames, sometimes 3 or 4, put on some music, and paint on some Photoshop masks. Great stuff. I haven't tried it with film scans but I'm sure it would work just as well.
     
  96. Of course you can use half clear half neutral density to darken the sky and that's it. If you really don't see the value in having more dynamic range for the pictures you take, or don't feel digital is handicapped in this respect, more power to you. Same goes for resolution.
    It is a personal choice after all. People have set aside not only their 35mm cameras but their medium format film as well as soon as the purchased their first 6+MP crop sensor DSLR. And argue why a crop sensor is better.
    But here we are in 2009, all accepting (I believe) that just 35mm negative film has more resolution and dynamic range than the very latest 24MP full frame DSLR. Ironic.
     
  97. Daniel, I agree with you there, HDR is not good for more than a postcard size print. Manual blending is what I also do if needed.
     
  98. Look at this on the Ektar web site. Very surprising that Kodak would go to the trouble and expense to promote a film by sponsoring a contest with Disney. The winners get photo ops and workshops at Disney World: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/US_disneyPromo.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328/14887
     
  99. Expressed in logarithmic form...
    x*log(2) = log(10^1.2) - log(10^-2.2) = 1.2 - (-2.2)
    It follows that the ratio expressed as the number of f/stops (x) is ...
    x = (1.2 + 2.2)/log(2) = 3.4/0.301 = 11.3​
    Edward,
    This is why I prefer to test myself….as has Mauro. I interpret the chart in a slightly different manner:
    x = (1.2 + 2.6)/log(2) = 3.8/0.301 = 12.6 stops

    Depending upon the actual exposure (or overexposure) one uses, the range can be extended somewhat. What I have always found is that if the chart gives me one figure, which is my interpretation, it’s fairly safe to add 1 to 1.5 stops to that in real world use. This would mean that the real DR of the film is between 13.6 and 14.1 stops. Of course, I normally make real world tests rather than analyzing a chart.
     
  100. it’s fairly safe to add 1 to 1.5 stops to that in real world use.
    Interesting. What is your basis for this statement?
    Of course, I normally make real world tests rather than analyzing a chart.
    I take it you have a step wedge and densitometer. I know of no way to do this otherwise. We're talking about limits of the medium, not composition or beauty, and how would you know, objectively, the dynamic range of a scene. Given your propensity for "fudging" the results (see the first quote), your "real world" results would be whatever you wanted them to be :)
    I disagree with your choice to measure that far down the toe of the curve. IMO, there's no contrast there, hence it is of no photographic significance. Did you bother to measure the slope at that point? At least you stated your assumptions in a way anyone could reproduce - that's a step in the right direction.
    Fun aside, there is nothing to be gained by publishing exaggerated and unsubstantiated data, whether financial or scientific. The film does what you want or it doesn't. You like the results or you don't. It compares well or poorly against competing media. My priorities may differ from yours. The specifications merely help us understand (and potentially use) the natural limits of the medium.
     
  101. A case in point of this is the charts for Tri-X indicate a range of approx 12.8 stops, yet when I did step wedge tests a number of years back with a 2 bath method of processing, I obtained a decent 14 stops....which is more than the chart suggests. I have always found that analyzing the charts is kind of a waste of time. If the charts told you 10 stops for the film, and everyone only ever got 7, then there's no point in quoting the charts, is there?
    Regards,
     
  102. If the charts told you 10 stops for the film, and everyone only ever got 7, then there's no point in quoting the charts, is there?
    Assuming the manufacturer wasn't fudging the data - a poor move for a technical company - I'd want to know why I wasn't able to get there myself. Actually, 7 stops is a pretty wide range for useful detail in any scene. How would anyone actually know they were only getting 7 useful stops?
    The processing chemistry and method is part of the specifications behind the chart. This is fairly fixed for C-41 film. However it is possible to push or pull the speed, which affects the contrast, dynamic range and, unfortunately, the color balance.
    It is much simpler and more reliable to do this with Tri-X (or silver-based B&W in general). It is an integral part of the Zone System as expounded by Ansel Adams and others. At one point in time, Kodak published several processing scenarios along with characteristic curves, for Tri-X. Perhaps they still do.
     
  103. Edward, I add that 1 to 1.5 stops to what I get from a chart based upon testing. Different processing methods effect the range as well. That is why using one chart as the reference point is hardly accurate. As to measuring that far down the toe, the same can be said for digital tests where once the 9th, 10th or 11th stop of quoted range is measured, the bit depth is leaving 4 or 8 tonal values to work with.....hardly useful either.
    The tests I did a number of years ago where done with a step wedge and a freshly calibrated Macbeth TD 1224 transmission/reflection densitometer.
    Kodak does still post different charts....but not many. Still better than one I guess.
     
  104. Why don't we now just wait until it is available, and then run it through our cameras?
     
  105. Log2(10^1.2 / 10^-2.2) = 12.6 stops
    The problem is that we are using a chart of tiny size that was meant to show the density/exposure charateristics to accurately determine the number of stops it can capture.
    for example
    if you look at the publication of TMX 100 you would come up with similar values 12.6 stops, given the tiny chart.
    ___________________
    It is easier and truer to run your own test. Run a roll of Ektar you can develop at Costco for $1.5 and shoot something doubling the shutter speed every time. Shoot your DSLR alongside. Compare.
     
  106. Log2(10^1.2 / 10^-2.2) = 12.6 stops ??
    No, you still don't get the math. Read my post again - I developed the entire proof in meticulous detail. At least you something written for a reference. When I taught (chemistry), I would write with one hand and erase with the other, or just say "It can be shown..." ;-) The proof would be your homework assignment.
     
  107. Well, ignoring the pissing contest above, I for one am looking forward to just shooting the stuff! Thanks Kodak!
     
  108. What power do I need to rasie 2 at, in order to get bright to dark ratio of 10^1.2/10^-2.2...
     
  109. Actually, I get a dynamic range of 9.3 stops for TMax 100 developed in D76 for 7.5 minutes at 68 deg F. Slow, fine-grained film usually has more contrast and a smaller dynamic range than the old standby - Tri-X.
     
  110. Waste of time pursuing this further. It's agreed the film is better than the digital. It's a film thread. Let's all go and expose a few rolls of this and quit bickering.
     
  111. What power do I need to rasie 2 at, in order to get bright to dark ratio of 10^1.2/10^-2.2...
    x = (1.2 + 2.2)/0.301 = 11.2946
    To check the results (there is a roundoff error in x, if anyone cares about 1/10,000 of an f/stop)...
    2^11.2946 = 2512
    10^1.2/10^(-2.2) = 15.849/0.00631 = 2511
    Dave said, "...It's a film thread..."
    This is a technical question with regard to film. Would you care to participate or just sit on the sidelines and complain?
     
  112. Sorry. Here is the T-Max 100 chart, JPEG this time...
     
  113. I will try one more time, then get back to work...
    00SVzp-110700084.jpg
     
  114. I doubt that many people are going to read through all 118 posts in this topic now.

    But here is something that should clear everything up...all you have to do is look at the posting history for people who wander into film topics to bash film. That explains it all. They're all digital. They never post in any of the film forums at all. It's a pattern that I see every single freaking time. You look at someone who says they're not "bashing film" but they keep repeating the same, old, tired crap about "film is going extinct" "film is dead"...blah blah blah. Oh, they may not come out and say that exactly. But they'll make neat little analogies...like comparing Kodak to a mammoth. Then you look at their posting history, and you see that ALL of their topics are in the digital forums. They NEVER post in any of the film forums. They could care less about film. They only post comments in film topics to make an anti-film remark. So no surprise there.

    In fact, in the past two years or so that I have been on Photo.net, I have already seen the same pattern happen over and over again. What always happens is that as soon as a film topic shows up in the "active threads" on the Photo.net front page, inevitably someone will wander in from the digital forums to start making remarks. It happens every single time. Someone will post an optomistic news article about film, and everyone will get excited...and then like clockwork, a troll wanders in from the digital forums and decides that it's their job to 'set everyone straight' and 'remind' people that "oh, film is dead" "Kodak doesn't make any money from film" blah blah blah.

    How about this...how about the film users go to the digital forums and 'remind' them that the large majority of the average digital camera users are emo kids taking lame "kewl pics" (usually of themselves, in front of a bathroom mirror with the flash on and the camera tilted) for their MySpace page? That the average digital user is people getting their blurry, pixelated snapshots printed at Walmart, and they have absolutely no real interest whatsoever in photography? Guess what....THOSE are the people who are mostly buying digital cameras. Should we do that?

    No, of course not. But to me, it seems just as fair. How about this...if you don't use film, then don't post in a film topic. I'm not interested in digital cameras (I have one, but I only use it for quick snapshots)...so I don't post in the digital forums. I have never seen a film user wander into the digital forums and start bragging about the pictures he or she took with Ektar 100 or Plus-X. So tell me...WHY do digital users feel the need to constantly wander into the film forums to say "film is going extinct" and nonsense like that? If you don't like film, if you don't use film...then don't go into the film forums. Stick with what you enjoy. And I'm also completely fed up with seeing people wander into the Film and Processing forum, just to make smart remarks.

    If you don't use film...then don't go into the film forums. How hard is that??

    ANYWAY...

    There is a good discussion about Ektar 100 right now, in the Film and Processing forum...you know, for people who actually LIKE film and actually USE film.
     
  115. They could care less about film.​
    For non American readers, he means 'couldn't care less about film'.
    Not being picky (yes I am) but it just sounds odd.
    Anyway, I agree with everything you said in the post above.
     
  116. I think the thing that bugs me most is not the film + digital thing (I couldn't care a less, I use film -- but use whatever you want, it's a free country) - but it's the thread crapping.
    This was a thread about Ektar 100 now being available soon in 120 format.
    Now it's a thread about dynamic range, the EOS 40D DSLR versus other films and some graphs which I personally have never encountered and am not interested in personally, especially what was a discussion about the nice news that a very good C41 film will be released in 120 format.
    Would I be out of order to suggest that the conversation about graphs and maths and stuff like that was moved into a new thread which is devoted to that discussion.
    Or do the interesting threads have to all be crapped on eventually with some other discussion to suit the most dominant voice that shouts the loudest?
     
  117. Edward Ingold [​IMG] [​IMG] , Feb 19, 2009; 10:58 p.m.
    Dave said, "...It's a film thread..."
    This is a technical question with regard to film. Would you care to participate or just sit on the sidelines and complain?​
    Considering I started this thread, and considering your post has NOTHING to do with what I posted as the OP, maybe you could sit on the sidelines or stay on topic. Thanks.
    And Chris, I agree with you 100%. The one thing yo didn't mention is the how they do it. They post in a film thread, and while not always directly bashing film, they try to do it in a subtle way. Then when you protest in the least.....they act all innocent and make out like you're attacking them because of some fault of our own.
    I don't mind the dynamic range test stuff as it interests me. The funny thing is that some of these people have posted elsewhere that digital beats film DR....now they just argue over the math, whule agreeing that some films win out. It's been interesting watching some of the opinions change over the years as these people have educated themselves or tried film.
     
  118. Edward Ingold
    Since the toe of the curve becomes nearly horizontal (zero contrast, hence zero detail), it is necessary to assume some arbitrary starting point. I created lines with a 10% and 50% slope and found the point where they just touched the curve (the tangent point). That is, a given change in exposure would change the density by 10% and 50% respectively, which is proportional to a contrast ratio. 10% contrast is very low, and image features would be barely discernible*. At 50% and low level, the contrast is closer to what you would consider "shadow detail".​
    >
    Why use ANSI standard curves and estimate a starting point? You do realise there is a formula laid down in the ANSI standard for the calculation of that point?
    Picking your own 'arbitrary' start point means that you are just guessing the latitude of the film, you can't find absolutes from estimates.
    Dave L used a figure from lower down the curve which you didn't like 'because it contains no photographic detail'
    His start point is no less valid (and actually a better guess when you use the correct formula) than yours as they are both guesses.
    In pictorial photography you would generally put the shadows on the toe of the curve, and the highlights on the shoulder as the eye can't detect the non linear values in those parts of the image.
    This leaves the linear part to represent the mid tones where the eye is more sensitive to change in tone, it is a mistake to only count the linear part, in fact many well known experts place zone 0 on the far left so the first detail containing tone step normally (1-2) falls on the up-tick of the curve.
     
  119. Very true Mark. That is why when I simply do the math from a chart, I add 1 to 1.5 stops to what I can achieve in real life as using the chart is simply a latitude guess as you stated. But in the end, it doesn't really matter though. Ektar was designed to be a higher contrast, saturated film. DR and latitude were not really as much a consideration. Of course, Ektar still appears to beat out what most DSLRs can obtain.
     
  120. Mark said...
    you can't find absolutes from estimates ... it is a mistake to only count the linear part, in fact many well known experts place zone 0 on the far left so the first detail containing tone step normally (1-2) falls on the up-tick of the curve.
    I 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.
    You will notice that I did not choose an arbitrary starting point, rather a minimum contrast, which is proportional to slope of the curve. The "linear" or mid-part of the curve is not a consideration. If there is an ANSI standard with respect to the minimum contrast value, I would be easy to start from that point. Please provide some details if you have that standard in hand (ANSI publications are only available on a subscription basis, and are very expensive).
    In order to determine the tangent point, I drew a line (in Adobe Illustrator) with a specified slope (Transform/rotate/arbitrary), then moved it until it just touched the curve. You can bump an object one pixel at a time with the arrow keys. The line is sharp and the curve is fuzzy, but it's not hard to get a good match. The uncertainty in the X direction is probably less than 0.1 units. The slope setting is in degrees, which is equal to the arctan of the slope in units of the graph.
    Dave states (again) that he adds 1 to 1.5 stops to the measured range. Now that is truly arbitrary, and hardly qualifies as an assumption in the scientific sense ;-) It is not hard to understand why unnamed "experts" would measure from the extreme left end of the curve. It is a quasi-scientific way to exaggerate the dynamic range. I'm not sure that's what happens. By convention, there is no detail visible in Zone 0, so it is rightfully placed one step to the left of the last visible border between steps, which is probably about the 10% contrast point, not the end of the curve. When shooting a step wedge, there are usually several steps to the left of Zone 0.
    An acquaintance who regularly posts on PNET (and is truly an expert) said it would be a waste of time to explain how characteristic curves work. In once sense he was right, because it's easier to repeat mantras than to search for the truth. However photography is as much craft as art, and much of that craft is based on science.
    ommmm...ommmm
     
  121. Edward - I appreciate your posts, work, and explanations. Much of it I've seen before in various sources and to the best of my knowledge you have presented an accurate explanation of curves, and an accurate evaluation of Ektar's published dynamic range. At this point the people disagreeing with you are not disagreeing based on any finding of fact, but on baseless personal opinions quite likely shaped by bias. Human nature...
    it's easier to repeat mantras than to search for the truth
    Yep.
     
  122. Dave states (again) that he adds 1 to 1.5 stops to the measured range. Now that is truly arbitrary, and hardly qualifies as an assumption in the scientific sense ;-) It is not hard to understand why unnamed "experts" would measure from the extreme left end of the curve. It is a quasi-scientific way to exaggerate the dynamic range. I'm not sure that's what happens. By convention, there is no detail visible in Zone 0, so it is rightfully placed one step to the left of the last visible border between steps, which is probably about the 10% contrast point, not the end of the curve. When shooting a step wedge, there are usually several steps to the left of Zone 0.​
    You know Ed, I really wish people in forums would learn to read. It is not arbitrary....it is based upon how I read the chart, do the math, and then compare that to what I achieve in the real world with a Densitometer test.
    Just to be clear yet again....I add that 1 to 1.5 stops to the figure I get from charts because that is what I achieved in testing with the films. I don't think I can be more clear that it is not arbitrary. You can parade terms like "unknown experts" all you like.....I would much rather be an unknown expert obtaining accurate results than the links we've seen posted by people to sites that have been proven incorrect so many times that I have to wonder at the intelligence of those who continue to quote them.
    The question I have for you is other than guessing at where to begin your measurement from a chart....have you ever done any deenity tests yourself that refute the figures that a number of us have obtained....and some have even posted? I have to wonder as the information you keep posting is quite contrary to those of us who scan film regularly and have tested many films over the years.
     
  123. Daniel Lee Taylor [​IMG], Feb 20, 2009; 11:05 a.m.
    Edward - I appreciate your posts, work, and explanations. Much of it I've seen before in various sources and to the best of my knowledge you have presented an accurate explanation of curves, and an accurate evaluation of Ektar's published dynamic range. At this point the people disagreeing with you are not disagreeing based on any finding of fact, but on baseless personal opinions quite likely shaped by bias. Human nature...​
    Coming from someone who doesn't even own a step wedge nor densitometer....and hasn't done any testing.....those of us who have find the above to be completely laughable.
     
  124. Did you guys see this test from Les?
    http://www.fototime.com/12BB4E2FD043EF4/orig.jpg
    00SWGi-110777684.jpg
     
  125. Mauro,
    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.
    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.
    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!!!
     
  126. 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.​
    You will notice that I did not choose an arbitrary starting point, rather a minimum contrast, which is proportional to slope of the curve
    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
    I have the ISO specifications, but if you would like to read further there is a good introduction to sensitometry here:
    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_education_sensitometry_workbook.pdf
     
  127. Want something to wax scientifically over? Try this:
    Who cares how it stacks up to something else: if we like it, we like it. If we don't, we don't.
    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.
     
  128. 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.
    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.
    We live in exiting times choice is good Film lives! (alongside digital)
     
  129. 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.
     
  130. It looks like what you are doing is measuring the contrast Index, not the latitude
    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.
    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.
     
  131. Edward
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Expose for the shadow develop for the highlights, take a mid tone and then close down two stops, etc etc.
    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.
    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)
    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.
    Shadow and highlight compression is really liked (accepted readily) by the eye as is the highlight compression on the shoulder.
    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.
    Like the Kodak workbook says;- place your shadows on the toe and your highlights on the shoulder, everthing else just drops into place.
    Mark
     
  132. All I can say is "thank god"...
    I am going to get myself a nice Rollei SL66 soon. I was looking for a nice film to try it out with.
    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!
    I want to squeal in delight, you guys have just made my year :D
     
  133. 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.

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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).
    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.
     
  134. Dave,
    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 ;-)
     
  135. 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.​
    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.
    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
     
  136. 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 ;-)​
    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.
    If you are going to use the curves supplied by Kodak you need to conform to the same standards they use.
    Using your own to get results you think are correct and questioning Daves looks like– double standards.
     
  137. Why don't we now just wait until it is available, and then run it through our cameras?​
    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?
    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.
     
  138. 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.
    Cheers
     
  139. Dave,
    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 ;-)​
    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.
     
  140. 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.
    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​
    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.
    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.
    I prefer it's look. There is no formula at the back of the book to prove me wrong.
     
  141. 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.
     
  142. Stuart there is no Ektar 120 on the market yet (which believe it or not is the reason for this thread)
    Just for you here is a picture taken on a dull winters day on a Leica M4P with 35mm 1958 Canon lens
    [​IMG]
    Good colours for a minilab process.
    The film is nice, will be amazingly fine grained in my 6x7 RF
     
  143. I hope the film won't be as dull as this thread!
     
  144. I never saw a picture of a step wedge that did it for me.
     
  145. 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.
     
  146. Let me ask you people this: What is happening at the far right of the density/exposure plot?
    All the nasty snarks about 'bad math' are missing a very basic observation, that the dynamic range contained in the shoulder is being ignored.
    [​IMG]
     
  147. 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'?
    00VqLv-223159584.jpg
     

Share This Page