edgar_njari

Kodak Ektachrome E100VS is a very contrasty and saturated E6 film.

The blue skies (without a polarizer) will blow you away.

It turns a sunny day into a colorfull painting. It's a great film for what you are looking for

 

It's also one of the reasons I avoid it most of the time, because I am always carefull with color, too much saturation saturates the mind, so it can become boring.

But really, if you were saw brochures and ads for this film, those are not tricks, this emulsion glows.

 

Velvia 50/100 is similar but with a different taste.

 

Though not good for people, in my opinion.

 

 

I'd also recommend Ektachrome E100G, it's IMO the most versatile E6 film out there. It's good for everything.

It has enough saturation for nature, it has great skintones for portraits. Has just enough contrast to make it look punchy, but not too much, plus it feels so smooth, like silk, specially on even neutral surfaces. Plus it has really fine grain (as good as it gets, if you don't count Astia)

Really a high-tech product.

Thanks Scott

 

It's a sort of a drought over here on pro film this week, so I took 5 rolls of 400F because I couldn't find any 100F, haven't exposed any yet.

 

I really don't want too much saturation, that's why I don't use Velvia much. Seems this one will be just fine with colors for me.

I like the combination of punchier contrast and moderate (slightly enhanced, but not too much) saturation.

 

One last question:

Can I expect trouble with grain in 6x6 (cropped to 645) at say 14x18 print size?

Also, Scott, you say it's contrastier. Does it have more contrast than even Velvia 50 or is it somewhere in between Velvia and Provia 100F in terms of contrast?

Doesn't anyone read posts on this forum?

 

He says he is scanning PRINTS, and that prints look fine but his scans don't.

 

Tony C, my guess is that you haven't done anything to the scans, and just posted them raw as they came out of the scanner.

You have to use some kind of software, or at least use the scanning wizard to make corrections.

You can't expect scanners to just give you perfect results (unless you are using some presets). The best results are always gained by doing everything manual.

Thanks, and how does Provia 400F compare to Provia 100F in terms of not blocking up colors of flowers?

I haven't used this one yet

 

But I've read somewhere that it doesn't have as smooth tonality as 100F, that it

has a "jumpy" grayscale

 

Is this true? Or is it as smooth as Provia 100F in terms of tonality?

 

Also is it as good as provia 100F in terms of rendering strong colors without

blocking up (in other words, is it as good for flower photography and nature)

 

Plus, is the grain and resolution any problem in 6x6 (120) with this film?

(I wouldn't like to end up with something looking like fine grain 35mm)

The seagull TLR's of those days are not the same ones being made today. The old ones made fuzzy images, had their shutters jamed for no reason and were built like toys.

 

Really I tell you, there is nothing wrong with a new Seagull 109.

Randall

 

Be aware that this is heresay so far, and most people know about Seagull's from googling the archives like you've probably done.

 

I have one myself, and it's great.

 

First I'd like to correct Bueh.

It does not have a 3 element lens, but a 4 element tessar-type lens, which is a fine lens.

It also has a Japanese 1/500 shutter. It's the only Seagull with this shutter.

 

Here is why people say it's not reliable:

When you cock the shutter, you can't change the shutter speed. It's written plain and clear in the manual.

If you do that, you might damage the shutter or jam it for good.

That's what a lot of people have been doing, and that's what made them throw it away.

Just stick to the instructions and you won't have this problem.

 

The only problem I find is lack of a meter, but if you have an incident meter, that isn't an issue.

 

You have a choice now to buy a 30 years old TLR or a new one performing just as good but for 3 times more money.

For the price of one Seagull 109 you could get 3 old Yashicamats probably.

The problem with negative film is that you start with low gamma(contrast), and increase it in printing. And with slide film you never increase it.

 

When you develop a strip of negative and compare it to a strip of reversal film, both have the same kind of grain amplitude in general,

but when printing, reversal film has the privilege of staying in its natural contrast (it already comes in print contrast), while the contrast of negative has to be increased in printing, and increase in general contrast of the image also increases the contrast of grain (grain amplitude), which naturally makes the image more grainy.

 

Sometimes E6 images in 35mm can almost look as smooth as DSLR images when scanned due to low grain amplitude.

 

Personally, I simply can't get rid of the grain in most 35mm C41 films, no matter how much I downsize, and it also prevents from using sharpening properly, which also enhances grain.

 

Sharpening E6 scans is very easy, unless you have scanner noise in the image.

 

I think that negative film in 35mm is such a struggle that it just isn't worth it, unless the grain is the desired effect.

It's just too limiting, you have to throw away more than 50% of all image information to get rid of the grain by using it around 1600dpi or so.

What resolution is that?

Really, the stuff that Lorca does has SO nothing to do with the papers or films he uses. He has been maintaining a rather consistant surreal look for 20 years using all generations of print film and papers, and it has to do with his use of lighting.

 

He can make a street scene look like some kind of retouched advertising photograph from some brochure without any manipulation, straight from film to paper, all with the use of strobes.

 

The materials he uses really have nothing to do with it, exept maybe having typical film esthetics, but so do your summer snapshots from 90's on Gold 100, so it means nothing.

EPR is the oldest E6 film, both historically, and the oldest one in current production. It has been unchanged since 1976. It is the only true vintage product besides Kodachrome, in fact it is older than current Kodachrome (which was revised in 80's I think).

 

I don't think it's a bad film. Sure it's bad in 35mm in terms of grain and sharpness compared to modern films, but then it's no worse than avarage negative film in 35mm, specially faster emulsions, and yet people still use those and don't complain.

 

In 120/220 those problems are solved, unless for work where you are pushing the limits of MF (but for such work 4x5 is more suitable anyway)

 

So what leaves to be judged is color, latitude and crossover

 

It's colors are great as long as you use it for what it is. You can't use it as a replacement for Provia or E100G for color purity and subtlety (though I still think it's fairly accurate with colors), but you can use it as a more "classic" looking film.

 

I don't think anyone would want a "retro" look in something like landscape photography, but for example the retro thing is often used in advertising, so it has its place.

 

I don't know why 35mm shooters complain so much about grain of different films, when grain is a part of the whole look of 35mm photography. If you don't want grain, why do you shoot in 35mm anyway?

 

I use 35mm a lot, but I don't really expect any film to deliver grainless slides or negatives at that size (24x36). When I don't want grain, I simply shoot 120.

 

You can get used MF gear for the half of the price you spend on your state of the art Nikon 35mm system, and still get drastically superior results.

The moon pictures I've take look pretty neutral, like sunlight, only without ANY fill in the shadows.

The wedding stuff is probably either Fuji 160S/C or Kodak portra 160NC/VC

not because it looks like it (it's impossible to tell, the images are mostly too processed to tell) but because that's what people mostly use for that kind of stuff.

He said color images

Push 2 stops, besides increased grain you'll also get some interesting crossover anomalies in which you might find certain charm also.

Robert, have you had experiences with fogged film yourself ordered by mail, or are simply stating the theory behind it?

I'm not considering this to be a replacement for my regular film shopping (which is cheaper than ordering from US, yes), but I just wanted to know wheather it is an option or not.

 

Also the demand here is pretty low for pro film, since most pros switched to digital, and this is a small country (Croatia) so sometimes they don't have all emulsions in stock. Last time I called they didn't have E100G in stock, which is pretty much bread and butter. They usually sell every Kodak emulsion there is, even the older ones, it's just that it's sort of gambling wheather they have it this right now or not.

So I thought, when I'm buying something from BH I could squeese a bunch of rolls in the package. You know as a backup, so I don't have to wait for these guys to get what I want.

Did anyone have any experience ordering film from them to Europe?

What I'm wondering about is x-raying. Do films get damaged during a typical

shipping from BHphoto using regular mail or EMS to Europe.

 

thanks

I think that 400ISO film in 35mm is useless for any kind of work where the idea is to actually see something in the picture, to present an object. Its good for some kind of artsy high-con street work, the kind that would normally work with grainy BW film, but not as a medium to show something as it is like a face or a product.

 

A portrait is something where people are going to want to see their faces clearly and in detail. Golfball grain of fast 35mm really doesn't help.

 

Using something like Portra 400NC in 120 would be just fine, but for 35mm I'd go with Reala or Astia. In fact where it counts, I'd skip neg film in 35mm compleatly, specially if you have to scan the film, and shoot with Astia as long as you can control the light ratios.

 

If you can get a one stop difference between your fill and key, you can use any kind of film of any kind of contrast.

 

If you don't have strobes (neither do I), you could use tungsten film.

I find that Kodak 64T works wonderfully pleasing with peoples faces. And Fuji 64T is an even better film.

And if you plan on using a flash (please detach it and try to diffuse it if you can, there is nothing as anoying as seeing an on-camera flash picture) Astia would be perfect for portraits.

Phil, you have described Kodachrome

But C41 and E6 doesn't work like that, it already contains color coupler dyes

Thank's Dan

 

Yes Jeff, EB is a great film, but I'm talking 120 here.

At that size, it all depends one one's taste because there is no emulsion or the lens on the world that's going to really give sharp and fine-grain prints. There is a reason why people use medium format, or large format.

I see what you mean, but that's not posterisation, that's the way the kids skin on the cheeks is. Check your kid next time

Sounds like It would work great in colder light, or give additional warmth to late afternoon sun.

 

If it is as precise in color separation and smooth gradations as E100G is (is it?) , then it will be just fine