Ektachrome 64T

[edgar_njari]

I use tungsten halongen lighting, and always relied on post processing

for correcting the yellow cast for both slide and negative film with

no problems.

 

But now I decided to try out a tungsten film so that I can keep the

exposure down without loosing blue color information

 

So I've ordered a pro pack of Ektachrome 64T to give it a try

 

Anyone had any experiences with that film or Ektachrome 64 (which is I assume

the same film only made for daylight)?

 

I know it is older technology and a bit grainier than the new E-family

transperencies, but I was wondering about colors, contrast,

fleshtones, etc.

 

So can anyone comment on the tonailty and overall look of this film

(or Ektachrome 64)?

 

thank you

[helenbach]

Edgar,

 

As no-one has answered yet, I'll chip in with my experience of 64T. I use it mainly for producing slides of paintings - for which purpose it is well suited (medium contrast, fairly neutral colours). I prefer either 160T or 320T for moving subjects simply because of the speed. You should notice a big improvement in colour quality over daylight slide film shot in tungsten without a filter.

 

Best,

Helen

[jtk]

I've not shot tungsten film in a long time, but Kodak's tungsten films have historically been more accurate in genuine tungsten lighting than its daylight films have been with proper blue filters. In other words, even if their greys matched, the other colors would differ between daylight and tungsten films. Using daylight film with strobe raises other issues, including excessive UV.

[edgar_njari]

Thanks people

 

so then, medium contrast, neutral colors and accurate at tungsten light are characteristics mentioned so far

 

What about its weakneses and strenghts in colors (which colors does it reproduce best) ?

 

And one more thing. Since this is a film that is based on 80's technology, should I expect it to look that way too? Does it look like something from 80's (more classical) or does it look more modern (smoth and sleek)?