Ektar - a bit dissapointed

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. von Weinberg...</p>

<p>True. As Mr. Sarile points out, there are still a few through-the-glass printers left. If those few who are left do not use thought, skill and talent to make sure the costlier results are high quality...then there will be none. Choosing the right filter pack for traditional darkroom printing and even with the older mass printing machines takes some effort. Too often carriage trade/boutique suppliers try to get the higher prices while at the same time cut labor and material costs to the point of not producing superior results justifying those higher charges. They go out of business and people say "See, that proves there was not enough market for high quality products." when there was actually just no market for overpriced crap. </p>

<p>Ms. Gava...</p>

<p>I had not thought to use a CPL filter with Ektar. I would have thought it would make shadows bluer rather than the reverse. I'll try it both on the sky and in the shadows. BTW, I see you are fairly new to the board. Nice to see some new blood wading in on the discussions. There are few dumb and obvious comments, only a few clowns who sometimes try to make others feel that way. Comments like yours that bring up something new to think about are most welcome and the type of thing that keeps Photonet worth coming back to. </p>

<p>Mr. Norris...</p>

<p>I haven't used Porta much. I usually do not do the type of shots where Porta is at its best. The few times I have used Porta for its intended/developed purpose it has certainly done the job right. </p>

<p>I was raised in the Carbo, Kodachrome and Technicolor era for the little color I saw. Back then it was the black and white age. Any color was a treat. Today, with more choices it is just a matter of personal taste and what looks normal to each of us. I have the last generation of Sony TVs that had real cathode ray tubes. For color choice I use the "Old Movies" option to watch everything. I guess that is because I'm an old guy. Most of my photofriends are a generation or two younger. They usually shoot studio portraits and outdoor/indoor weddings. They LOVE Porta and use it for most everything. They can't understand why I liked the old ASA 10 and ISO 25 Kodachrome and buy Ektar 100. Different strokes for different folks. I would not shoot a wedding with Ektar either. But, then I would not shoot a wedding if I could gracefully get out of it! So far, so good. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>First, I strongly disagree with Scott Murphy, who said "No scan/ink-jet or whatever print is going to ever be in the <em>in the same league </em>as a high quality photographic print made from a negative." I've made well over 1000 large color prints from negatives, using what was then (1970's) state-of-the-art equipment (color densitometer, etc.) and I'll testify that the degree of control one has in the darkroom (i.e. dodge and burn) is <strong>very</strong> crude compared to what we now have in the digital domain. And a professional twelve ink printer can produce prints with richer color and which last much longer than any chemical prints.</p>

<p>Second, as soon as you scan a negative, all matters of color saturation and contrast are in your hands and have little to do with the inherent characteristics of the film.</p>

<p>I use Ektar 100 (120) because it has excellent resolution and very fine grain. I scan with a Nikon CS9000 and don't fuss much with the scan settings unless I'm doing some HDR stuff. After scanning <strong>I</strong> decide what the final image will look like. <strong>Me.</strong> Not the chemistry nor the guy running the printer.</p>

<p>As an example, I messed with one of the pictures that David posted for about three minutes in Photoshop. I used the Hue/Saturation settings: Blue -50, Green +12, Yellow +10. I added a bit of sharpening (Smart Sharpen) and saved it. (See attached)</p>

<p>It could be argued that some other interpretation of the scene would be more interesting, and I might agree. My point is simply to show that you can make even a mediocre scan into a very presentable image. It's up to you.</p><div></div>

[sonja_greene]

<p>Interesting argument. I like.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>Sonja,<br>

Assuming that you're referring to my argument, thanks. </p>

<p>I support my thesis that film stock is important only for grain structure, resolution and dynamic range with the attached set of images. I put this together as a demonstration for some students. </p>

<p>It only took me a few minutes to adjust the original Ektar 100 image to emulate other films.</p>

<div></div>

[sonja_greene]

<p>Greg P, Yes, I was and sorry about the lack posting etiquette.</p>

[david_waugh3]

<p>Greg: great colour correction on my image - better than the result I ended up with. I think the point for a lot of people however, is that photos even slightly under or over with Ektar seem to take more work than other films (at the moment). It is EXTREMELY difficult to know exactly how a neg should be scanned (compared to positive of course) but I think people will eventually 'learn' how to scan Ektar - I know I am improving daily. I agree (partially) with your points and do find it extremely interesting... BUT, although I consider myself quite advanced in PS (having taught it for nearly 15 years) - it's something I think most people here don't want to resort to at such extreme levels. Can any film look like any other? Possibly these days, but hardly very fun ;-) </p>

[david_waugh3]

<p>Just one more thought... I think I almost contradicted myself in my last post... I assume the argument is that the work has to be done on Ektar because some of us simply AREN'T scanning Ektar well at all. I might be having a DUH moment, but is it really down to scanners (and their software) just not understanding the orange mask of Ektar? Is that why correction seem to be more extreme? Will new profiles say in SilverFast make any of these arguments obsolete? That's the thing I can't get my head around... gee Ektachrome was easier in that regard ;-)</p>

 

[greg_peterson3]

<p>David,</p>

<p>Ektar may have a bit less latitude than some other color negative films, but I'm sure that it's better than most, if not all, transparency films. You can over expose Ektar by a stop or two and still recover highlight detail, but it's less forgiving on the bottom (under exposure) end of the scale. (The comments that you've made make me think that your Ektar is being over developed, which would explain excessive contrast.)</p>

<p>Scanners and scanning software vary widely. I have an Epson V750, but I've only used it with 4X5 Ektachrome, where it's OK, but I always end up getting a drum scan after my client makes a selection from the V750 scans. With the Nikon CS9000 I just select "color negative" and use the resulting 16 bit TIFF file much like a sculptor uses a blob of clay. My work flow involves setting up the basic color using the gray eye-dropper in "curves" on my gray card frame, then adjusting the contrast using "levels" for subjects that aren't too contrasty, or "shadows / highlights" for those that are. (For extreme situations I use various HDR techniques.)</p>

<p>You do shoot a gray card with each scene or lighting set up don't you? If not, you're waisting a lot of time and effort. This goes for color negs and transparencies as well as digital cameras. As to extreme contrast situations, bracket. With color negative you can generally find a frame that you can wrestle into submission with the "shadows / highlight" sliders (an often overlooked control) or you can use Photoshop or any of a number of other programs to blend different exposures into an excellent HDR type image.</p>

<p>My main point is about color saturation. If you're getting prints made at the local camera shop, then you're more to be pitied than censured, and I guess that you have to choose a combination of film stock and processing facility that gives you what you want, at least most of the time. But if you have a decent scanner, editing program and ink-jet printer, there's absolutely no reason that the color saturation and balance should ever be anything but what you intend it to be, with very little concern about the particular film stock used. The "four-up" of the building that I attached to the posting above was all done with only the "hue / saturation" slider on the "master" setting. It took a few seconds for each variation, and I could have done much more (and better) using "curves" if I'd wanted to spend a few minutes on it.</p>

<p>So don't let film processing / scanning / post processing put you off of Ektar 100. I use it because it has very fine grain structure, extraordinary resolution, and, if properly processed and scanned, very good latitude. (The 70mm film stock used for IMAX motion pictures is nearly identical to Ektar 100.)</p>

<p>For the picture below, Ektar 100 actually had too much latitude. I had to limit it using "levels."</p><div></div>

[david_waugh3]

<p>Thanks Greg - great information. Much appreciated.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Peterson...</p>

<p>I am typing here to comment on your various renditions of the building where you changed the colors with the computer. Before I commented, I went to your web page. I too have shaken hands with Elvis, nobody admires my wardrobe either, but I am not as accomplished a photographer.</p>

<p>I have however been at it longer, and was more involved in the early Kodachrome era. I know different monitors hooked up to different computers are going to give the same electronic picture some very, very different appearances. That having been said, I have never seen a Kodachrome, either projected, printed or on the computer, that looked like your rendition of Kodachrome did on my monitor.</p>

<p>Coincidentally perhaps, I have seen some Ektar 100 postings on Flickr that, for whatever reason, be it poor processing, printing, scanning or whatever, look like they could have come off the same roll of film that would produce your Kodachrome effort. I've seen a lot more Kodachrome that looks more like your color negative rendition, and of course, a lot that didn't.</p>

<p>Kodachrome has gone through many changes and iterations. After 1954, it was processed by many places other than Kodak. Also at one time, Kodachrome was coated with a lacquer to help preserve it. Lacquer colors and cracks. Also the Kodak company, in their processing, used at least two different types of lacquer. Who knows what other processors used for a coating in the days that Kodachrome was coated?</p>

<p>I've looked through hundreds of my old slides and my scans of them with various scanners, and have not been able to find anything that looked like your re-colored Kodachrome example. Yes, there sure was a lot of variation in what appeared to be the color palette on my Kodachromes taken from 1939 to the present. I added a few to my "Days Gone by on Kodachrome Gone By" folder. I wanted to have a reasonably wide range of the different Kodachrome looks when I wrote this to you, so you would see the reason why I question your other film changed to Kodachrome look. The folder is here on Photonet at:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=918690">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=918690</a></p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>P.S. I asked my wife to type most of this for me which put your "Walnut - ECU" photograph at the top of the page where she was typing. She made the comment, "What a good picture."</p>

<p>As part of comment I put on one of the later pictures showing three dressed-up women, in the above-referenced folder, I mentioned their classmate John Dominis. Having been a news photographer, you may have heard the name and have probably seen his iconic "Life" photo where a leopard is about to tangle with a baboon (which can be a formidable foe and leaves those tangles victorious about 25% of the time). I last spoke with him on the phone a few years ago and we discussed how hard it is to take pictures of food, and have the viewer still want to eat it. It is probably the most difficult of all photographic tasks.</p>

<p>I was reminded of his conversation when I noted how well your walnut was done. May I repeat here, Sir, that I am obviously as not an accomplished photographer as you are?</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>Mr. Burke,</p>

<p> Thanks for the kind words about my walnut picture.</p>

<p> And I didn't mean for the "Kodachrome" label to be taken too seriously. I was emulating the reputation of Kodachrome rather than the reality. I've shot about 10,000 Kodachromes, none of which have the exaggerated color shown in my demo - I just wanted to emphasize the fact that, in the digital domain, you aren't stuck with what the film chemistry gives you.</p>

<p> I know the work of John Dominis well. All of the great Life magazine photographers were heroes of mine. Sadly, we'll never again see photography celebrated as it was in Life.</p>

<p>Thanks again - Greg</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewmoore]

<p>I bought a five pack of Ektar 120 for a fashion shoot at a beach on a sunny day. I had the images processed and scanned at a local professional lab. I was very disapointed with the results in terms of colour hue and shadow detail, it was extremely variant in terms of colour hue for shots in the same roll in the same scene. I had to post process the colours considerably to get something decent for my models portfolio. I get the feeling it's best used in scenes with an even contrast and colour palet. I don't think i'll be buying this again.</p>