Ektachrome E100 Image Thread!

[Karlovak]

Jon, particularly liking the highlights on that fluorescent lamp. Nice scans.

 

[xjonstars]

Thanks everyone! Like I said, I'm really happy to shoot more with this film and get a better understanding of it. There's no denying it's a pretty high contrast film, but I didn't find it unmanageable.

@HHPhoto no I haven't done any actual testing, but I have shot around 30 rolls of Provia this year in my Contax G2, with the last few rolls of Provia and the 2 rolls of E100 being processed at the same lab and shot within 2 weeks of each other here in Los Angeles where the days tend to be very similar. Directly on the light table I find my Provia to be on the blue/magenta side of things with the Ektachrome being more neutral and occasionally warmer. I'd love to see someone do a bit more testing for a definitive answer, but this is just my experience.

@dmr I use a system that is pretty similar to what Peter Krogh recommends on his DAM Book website. It's an Arca rail system, but instead of using the Nikon PS slide holder I have mounted a Beseler 67 35mm enlarger carrier. I find it to be more streamlines and it makes it really easy to swap out to a 6x4.5 or 6x7 carrier. I also use a Dracast Daylight LED panel with a piece of frosted plexiglass for my light source. To me, it's a dream setup. I can scan a full roll of 35mm in less than 3 minutes. I'd highly recommend looking into Peter Krogh's book on camera scanning if you are interested in moving this way in the future.

Here are a few more E100 scans from the same rolls

 

[charjohncarter]

Also it's weird to me that almost every image in this thread has such a crazy amount of softness and aberration. Who's scanning this stuff? Is it DIY scans or lab scans?

I agree at least with my scans. I was disappointed when I compared them to a recent Fujifilm 200 C-41 roll that I scanned on the same day. My scanner definitely doesn't do 35mm very well as it is a flatbed. But I didn't feel like dragging out my Mirrorless digital set up.

For DMR, this is my set-up but I use a mirrorless now.

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[BLKRCAT]

I've always had not super great luck scanning transparencies in the past. It's really hard so don't take the critique the wrong way. If I get mine done I'll just get lab scans since I got no means of scanning at home.

 

[maryland_fotos]

Another Ektachrome E100, evening light in Baltimore. Nikon F6 and Nikkor 10.5cm f2.5 P.

000109010036 by Maryland Photos, on Flickr

No idea about development specs or scanner - this is a scan back from a lab.

 

[bhop73]

Also it's weird to me that almost every image in this thread has such a crazy amount of softness and aberration. Who's scanning this stuff? Is it DIY scans or lab scans?

Yeah, that's something I noticed when I scanned mine. (V700) They're not as crisp as my negative scans on the same scanner. I dunno why. I had my first roll scanned from thedarkroom.com as well and it's even worse than my V700 scans. (their color is terrible too)

I wanted to test out a couple rolls and now that I have, I probably won't shoot anymore, mostly because of the cost, but partially because of the scans. They look AMAZING through a loupe though.

If it were cheaper per roll+developing I might be persuaded to get a slide projector and shoot more, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. To be honest, I prefer 400 speed film anyway.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yeah, that's something I noticed when I scanned mine. (V700) They're not as crisp as my negative scans on the same scanner. I dunno why. I had my first roll scanned from thedarkroom.com as well and it's even worse than my V700 scans. (their color is terrible too)

I wanted to test out a couple rolls and now that I have, I probably won't shoot anymore, mostly because of the cost, but partially because of the scans. They look AMAZING through a loupe though.

If it were cheaper per roll+developing I might be persuaded to get a slide projector and shoot more, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. To be honest, I prefer 400 speed film anyway.

I think the problem with flatbed scanners is that they're fixed focus. That means the film must be exactly the right distance from the scanner's sensor. Slides are in plastic or cardboard mounts that hold the film at a slightly different height above the glass than a negative, and the mounts themselves vary in thickness.

You need a dedicated film scanner that has an autofocus lens system. My slide scans from my Nikon 8000ED are as sharp as my scans of negatives.

 

[Skiff]

They look AMAZING through a loupe though.

That is the case with all excellent reversal films: Provia, the Velvias and Ektachrome.
Excellent slide loupes and slide projectors significantly surpass computer monitor quality. Two different worlds.
And the quality problem with computer monitors is not only their extremely low resolution, but also the limited color gamut and that they cannot show real continuous tones (because of the discrete LCD structure). Furthermore the pictures look completely flat on computer monitors.
With slides on a light table under an excellent slide loupe and in slide projection the quality is much much better because
- no resolution loss by scanning
- no second step resolution loss by the limited monitor resolution
- no grain-enhancing by scanner-noise
- you get full resolution and sharpness
- full color brillance
- a very nice kind of "3D-effect", slides have much more depth in projection and under a loupe
- no expensive or time consuming scanning needed.

If it were cheaper per roll+developing I might be persuaded to get a slide projector and shoot more, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. To be honest, I prefer 400 speed film anyway.

Use this first-class E6 lab:
http://www.agximaging.com/
Only 8$ per roll. And perfect quality and service.
(Then) shooting reversal film is even cheaper compared to color negative film per shot: Because you don't need expensive scans and/or prints with reversal film.
With an excellent slide loupe (for normal enlargements) and a slide projector (for huge enlargements in 'cinema-at-home' quality) you get outstanding, unsurpassed quality, and only film developing is needed.
You can even further reduce your costs by E6 home processing. Gives perfect quality at extremely low prices. And it is very easy!

Concerning speed: Provia 100F delivers outstanding results at ISO 200/24°, and still very good results at ISO 400/27° ( I am currently testing E100 in push-processing to see how it compares to Provia).

 

[charjohncarter]

Skiff, totally agree, I still have my Kodak Carousel which isn't really an excellent projector. But I do have an excellent screen and the slide are are beautiful when projected. I have 3000+ slides (in trays) and when the family gets together I set it up and let them run the forward button: bliss.

 

[maryland_fotos]

Ektachrome 100 and a cat in the sunbeam. Checking out a high contrast subject with Nikon F6 and Nikkor 10.5cm f2.5P.

000109020024 by Maryland Photos, on Flickr

 

[bhop73]

I think the problem with flatbed scanners is that they're fixed focus. That means the film must be exactly the right distance from the scanner's sensor. Slides are in plastic or cardboard mounts that hold the film at a slightly different height above the glass than a negative, and the mounts themselves vary in thickness.

You need a dedicated film scanner that has an autofocus lens system. My slide scans from my Nikon 8000ED are as sharp as my scans of negatives.

My ektachrome isn't mounted, so it's the same height as my negative scans. I've been thinking of getting a dedicated scanner, I just hate that it's all old tech at this point and could die at any time..

 

[maryland_fotos]

One more Ektachrome E100 example with Nikon F6 and Nikkor 10.5cm f2.5 P.

000109020002 by Maryland Photos, on Flickr

 

[Fraser]

I shot some Ektachrome 200 yesterday from 1986, although I did rate it at 100iso!
Considering the age of the film and the overcast conditions not bad,
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_023 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_021 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_027 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_026 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_034 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_037 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_040 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicM4Ektachrome200_019 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr

 

[Argentia1]

I've finished my roll no. 5 last week. My experiences after these five rolls of new Ektachrome E100 so far:
- speed is about ISO 80, not 100
- very nice, neutral colors; a little bit on the cooler side (in direct comparison Provia 100F is a little bit warmer)
- extremely fine grain (but not finer grain than Provia)
- not as sharp as Provia
- lower resolution than Provia.

Detail rendition of E100 is significantly better than Ektar.
But Provia (and the Velvias) remain the top films in this respect, the unsurpassed benchmark.

 

[dave lackey]

Where are the images with people? Has anyone shot portraits yet?

So far, it appears that landscapes, for me, work quite nice/better? with Velvia. I am interested to see how E100 works with long exposures in landscapes, though.

Other interests are both low light and skin tones. Still shooting away with both expired and new Ektachrome... it may be awhile before I get mine processed.

 

[Argentia1]

Where are the images with people? Has anyone shot portraits yet?

I've shot portraits, but I am not allowed to show the portrayed people in public.
Skin tones are very good (same is valid for Provia). I liked the results, the portrayed people, too.
As with Provia, E100 can be used without problems for portrait and fashion shootings.
Both are very flexible and versatile films concerning the genre you want to shoot.

 

[dave lackey]

I've shot portraits, but I am not allowed to show the portrayed people in public.
Skin tones are very good (same is valid for Provia). I liked the results, the portrayed people, too.
As with Provia, E100 can be used without problems for portrait and fashion shootings.
Both are very flexible and versatile films concerning the genre you want to shoot.

Sounds good! Thanks!

I will be looking around for links to share. I am still shooting when I have a little time but it is more than twice as long because I am shooting expired Ektachrome in 35 and 120... And then, I realized I have a lot of 220 Ektachrome!!!

It is going to take awhile.

 

[jawarden]

A few images from today. I got the urge after having the film for a month and wanted a baseline so I ran out as the sun was setting and blew through a roll in 30 minutes. No art here, I was just pointing at colorful things without much regard to subject matter to see what would happen. This is my first roll of the new Ektachrome so I wasn't expecting much, but the colors in my hand and on the light table are quite nice. Scanning them is another matter of course, but that's always hard for me.

I exposed this roll at iso100 and the images are a touch dark so my next roll will be exposed at iso80. I'll also be sourcing a warming filter as the roll looks just a bit blue to me.

I'm glad this film has arrived and look forward to using it more.

 

[dave lackey]

jawarden,

Thanks for posting those.... what scanner did you use?

 

[LKSC]

Re portraits, the new Ektachrome is very neutral when shot in controlled conditions, but has a bluish bias outdoors when in open shade.

This is the new Ektachrome, drum scanned.