Ektar 100 now in 120 format

[xato]

<p>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.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<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?"<br />Patrick, a big thumbs up!<br>

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!</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>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?</em></p>

<p>Disagreeing with Dave on any topic offends him. Tread lightly Edward, or Dave might declare that nobody cares about your opinion either!</p>

<p>The horror...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

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

<p>I don't think it's coming back unfortunately. Thank God for Efke 820c.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p> </p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>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?</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>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?</em></p>

<p>Send me one of the transmission step wedges on this page and I will: http://www.stouffer.net/Productlist.htm</p>

<p>I don't personally care enough to spend my own cash, but I'll put the time in. It doesn't take long.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>it's easier to present vacuous opinions rather than actually making a comparison.</em></p>

<p>You would know.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>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.</em><br>

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

<br /> <em>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?</em><br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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).</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=411849">W. Xato</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 19, 2009; 02:27 a.m.<br>

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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>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?</em></p>

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

<p>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".</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>* 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)</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>"<em>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?</em> <br /> <br /> Do you understand people do it all the time?"</p>

<p>Sadly your understanding is very limited to be discussion this subject. A GND filter does not reduce the number of stops in the scene.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Edward, can you explain to Daniel why a GND filter does not reduce the number of stops in a scene?</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Edward, don't complicate yourself,<br>

<br /> 10^1.2-10^(-2.2)=15.8</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p >"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Feb 19, 2009; 11:58 a.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=411849">W. Xato</a> , Feb 19, 2009; 02:27 a.m.<br /> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[bigrue]

<p>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.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Mauro, you seem to have slept through algebra :-)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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)...</p>

<p>2^x = 10^1.2 / 10^-2.2 (notice it is the ratio, not the difference)</p>

<p>Expressed in logarithmic form...</p>

<p>x*log(2) = log(10^1.2) - log(10^-2.2) = 1.2 - (-2.2)</p>

<p>It follows that the ratio expressed as the number of f/stops (x) is ...</p>

<p>x = (1.2 + 2.2)/log(2) = 3.4/0.301 = 11.3</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>Edward, can you explain to Daniel why a GND filter does not reduce the number of stops in a scene?</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Edward - You beat me to it :-)</p>

<p>Mauro - <em>Sadly your understanding is very limited to be discussion (sic) this subject.</em> But if the math scares you, just count the little thick lines between the toe and the shoulder and divide by 0.3.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Edward - <em>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)</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>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.<br>

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. <br>

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.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>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.</p>

[michaelphelan]

<p>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</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p>Expressed in logarithmic form...<br>

x*log(2) = log(10^1.2) - log(10^-2.2) = 1.2 - (-2.2)<br>

It follows that the ratio expressed as the number of f/stops (x) is ...<br>

x = (1.2 + 2.2)/log(2) = 3.4/0.301 = 11.3</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Edward,</p>

 

<p >This is why I prefer to test myself….as has Mauro. I interpret the chart in a slightly different manner:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >x = (1.2 + 2.6)/log(2) = 3.8/0.301 = 12.6 stops</p>

<p > <br>

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. </p>