Ektar 100 now in 120 format

[wentbackward]

<p>Yay! Can't wait to try it - shame I can't find anywhere tobuy it in HK :(</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Agreed Randall. Now that they've released it for 120, I'll have to complain that they don't have it in 4x5 ;-)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>The test may be flawed Edward, but regardless, the film beat the 40D.</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Edward,you must have a liking for self punishment...<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Email me at franicma@yahoo.com if you have more questions or need more data about this test.</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>Also regardless of how figurines reflect light, they cannot reflect more than what comes at them.</em><br />True, but how much of that light is reflected depends on many factors, including the angle of incidence.</p>

<p><em>If you see detail in the shadow and then also in the highlights without any blown areas...</em><br />It's not a stretch goal to overexpose with a DSLR, nor with film for that matter. Are you testing range or ISO?</p>

<p>Why don't you borrow a densitometer and calibrated step wedge, and start over again?</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>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! </p>

<p>But, then again, it's not like I'm shooting Medium Format for its expediency! </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Edward, if you have a true interest email me and I will respond. Let's not disrupt the thread.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>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?</p>

<p>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! ;)</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>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!)</p>

[william_livingston]

<p>"ektar 100 now in 120"--never thought such a simple statement would warrant so many responses--including this one.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Edward, before you keep dissing this film, which you've never tried, why don't you just try the stuff?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>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.</p>

[db1]

<p>Thanks to everyone for the entertainment. Who should I tip?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Mauro,<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Benny,<br /> <br /> <em>Anyway....this is truely great news.</em> <br /> <br /> Ektar in 120 format is good news indeed.<br>

Now if only Kodak would bring back HIE and offer it in 120 :-(</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>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. </p>

<p>Like I told Edward, if you have a valid interest in understanding light, email me and I will respond.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>If you want HIE to come back, convince the US Department of Defense to start placing large orders.<br>

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.</p>

[john_lorang]

<p>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......</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>John</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Of course, they people questioning it to death don't seem to have anything to post, unlike those of us who have.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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.</p>

[paul_de_zan]

<p><img src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/PAULDE~1.VAI/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/PAULDE~1.VAI/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/PAULDE~1.VAI/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpg" alt="" /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>Daniel, as you obviously have an issue with film capture and those who use it....based upon your posts here </em></p>

<p>Dave,<br>

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?</p>