Ektachrome E100 Image Thread!

^ So I'm game , why do you find it harder than C-41 ? I'm using an Epson V-600 and can't say I find it much different than scanning C-41 .

Peter
 
Moto-Uno said:
^ So I'm game , why do you find it harder than C-41 ? I'm using an Epson V-600 and can't say I find it much different than scanning C-41 .

Peter
Click to expand...

I scan with a Plustek OpticFilm 120 using SilverFast Ai Studio. When I scan E6 film (Astia, Provia, or Velvia), the colors are almost always off, typically severely off. I have to spend a lot of time correcting these colors and so my overall scanning time is double or triple that of C41. With negative film I almost never have to correct colors.
 
Moto-Uno said:
^ So I'm game , why do you find it harder than C-41 ? I'm using an Epson V-600 and can't say I find it much different than scanning C-41 .

Peter
Click to expand...

I wasn't the guy you were asking, but I also found it harder to scan. I use a V700. I noticed with slide film I get a kind of 'soft' image, or a slight 'glow' that I don't get with negative film. It just doesn't look as sharp in comparison, although, the color is nice.
 
Finally got my scans back. I got my scans done at downtown camera in Toronto since I've switched to wet printing. Scans were decent enough. I'm a little disappointed with the color but I think that's mostly because of the film and not because of the scans at all. Also finding the biogon to produce some really dreamy effects wide open that I don't normally see on black and white film.

Leica M5, Kodak New Ektachrome 100, Zeiss Biogon 35mm F2

46791966711_04027d3716_b.jpg


45876819825_c36643850b_b.jpg


32916326578_249f2007e5_b.jpg
 
Hey all my friends, so many good pictures here! Well done!
I decided to stay with B&W for a certain time (certain still to be defined) but your photos with this film are so good...temptation is strong!
robert
PS: the film is good but the photographers are "super good" :)
 
Ted Striker said:
E6 film is much harder to scan properly with sucks a lot of the fun out it for me. I can scan 2-3 rolls of C41 for each roll of E6.
Click to expand...

If you have problems scanning transparency film then the reason is on your side (either lack of knowledge and / or a scanner / scanning software problem).
In general transparencies are easier to scan because
- you always have the original: you just look at the slide and know how the colors really are and have to look after scanning; this check is impossible with negative film
- transparency films are finer grained, and as all scanners beside real drum scanners enhance film grain by scanner noise you benefit from the finer grain of reversal film.
 
New E100 colors seem very natural IMO. I'd like just a touch more saturation though.
In the old days like others I would underexpose my slide film just a bit to achieve that.

However with this new film perhaps slight overexposure is required?
lynnb's photos at +2/3 EV seem right on. Or is it the scanning? I'm confused.

Perhaps this film's true speed is a little lower than 100.
Has anyone else tried shooting it at EI 80 or 64?

Chris
 
ChrisPlatt said:
New E100 colors seem very natural IMO. I'd like just a touch more saturation though.
In the old days like others I would underexpose my slide film just a bit to achieve that.

However with this new film perhaps slight overexposure is required?
lynnb's photos at +2/3 EV seem right on. Or is it the scanning? I'm confused.

Perhaps this film's true speed is a little lower than 100.
Has anyone else tried shooting it at EI 80 or 64?

Chris
Click to expand...

I agree with your comment about natural color, and Ektachrome does seem to have a bit less saturation as compared to the Fuji products. For these scans I've left the saturation alone, but whenever I scan Fuji slides I end up reducing the saturation, for what it's worth. It's best to try for yourself to see if you like it.

These were exposed at iso80 in overcast conditions and I used an 81A filter. Then I scanned them which changes everything of course. :)

46834384231_9eab3177b7_z.jpg


32958809248_bddb553c91_z.jpg


32958793868_78cca8b5fa_z.jpg


32958805638_1d64352c9f_z.jpg


31892942477_2f2c479fbe_z.jpg
 
Ted Striker said:
Agreed. If you are not projecting, E100 offers very little over Ektar. I see nothing in the photos in this thread that attract me to this film, because I don't project.
Click to expand...

You said you have not used this film so far by yourself.
But I have. I've shot many rolls and compared it directly to other films like Provia 100F and Ektar. Because of my test results I have to completely disagree with you.
Because
- Ektachrome E100 offers better sharpness than Ektar (same is valid for Provia 100F and both Velvias)
- E100 offers significantly higher resolution than Ektar (same is valid for Provia 100F and both Velvias)
- E100 has finer grain than Ektar (also same is valid for Provia 100F and both Velvias)
- E100 has more accurate color rendering (same is valid for Provia 100F)
- E100 has no cyan cast in the blues like Ektar (same is valid for both Velvias and Provia 100F).

As a reversal film E100 is also more versatile than Ektar/CN films. A slide can be used in more different uses / applications than CN film. You can look at a slide just by holding it into the light. You can view it enlarged with a slide viewer or under an excellent slide loupe on a light table. You can project it in unsurpassed quality with a slide projector. You can make direct BW prints with BW direct paper. You can scan it and make excellent prints from the scans (with better detail rendition than CN films).
With negative film you can only make prints and / or scans.

Ted Striker said:
Ektar will be far less expensive, offer way more dynamic range, and is much easier to process.
Click to expand...

No.
With reversal film you have a finished picture after processing. No further time consuming / expensive steps needed.
With negative film after processing you always need a further step: scanning and / or printing. Both is expansive (time consuming) if you want good quality.
Therefore the costs per shot are mostly lower with reversal film.
Processing: Doing E6 yourself at home is extremely easy and cheap. No problem at all.
Dynamic range:
Reversal film has enough DR for most situations. And you always can increase it by using several techniques like fill-in flash (with that you can reach DR of more of 15 stops), gradual ND filters, pre-flashing or pull processing.
Clever photographers don't complain about DR, they just use the appropriate technique to increase it when necessary.

Ted Striker said:
There's a reason why slide film has been on a slow death spiral for many years and why labs have been disappearing. That is because few people project slides. That is the main reason to shoot E6 film and why hardly anyone does today.
Click to expand...

Not correct.
1. Reversal film demand is increasing. Kodak currently has problems to keep up with demand. Fujifilm said at Photokina that they also have increasing interest. The number of labs offering E6 is globally increasing. The reintroduction of Ektachrome has accelerated that.
2. Reversal film use has always been much more than only projection. Professional film use e.g has been almost exclusively reversal film in printing of books, catalogs, advertising, magazines like National Geopgraphic, GEO etc.. Because of higher quality (detail rendition, colours) and much much easier workflow in the printing process (slide as original color reference).
I've worked in this business for a long time. All that has been daily work for me.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
Perhaps this film's true speed is a little lower than 100.
Has anyone else tried shooting it at EI 80 or 64?

Chris
Click to expand...

Yes, I have.
I've got best results with EI 80/20°. I've used calibrated exposure meters.
I have also shot Provia 100F and E100 side by side: Same conditions, same camera and lens. Provia 100F is perfect at box speed of ISO 100/21°.
E100 is best at EI 80/20°.
The contrast curve of E100 is also a bit steeper than Provia 100F (resulting in a bit higher dynamic range Provia has).
 
Ted Striker said:
Agreed. If you are not projecting, E100 offers very little over Ektar. I see nothing in the photos in this thread that attract me to this film, because I don't project. Ektar will be far less expensive, offer way more dynamic range, and is much easier to process.

There's a reason why slide film has been on a slow death spiral for many years and why labs have been disappearing. That is because few people project slides. That is the main reason to shoot E6 film and why hardly anyone does today.
Click to expand...

On a scan though, the grain appears finer on E100 than Ektar. I made a couple 16x20 samples and the E100 was far smoother looking
 
How about some Ice & Snow to counteract Lynn's Sunny Beaches.

First Roll, Nikon S2

NorthernExposure.jpg


BlueSnow.jpg


Love the vibrance of the blue in the sky.

Best,
-Tim
 
Nice, Tim!!!

Not the snow but the images... well you know what I mean.:)

I do love the blue sky and the images are well exposed. The more I see the better so like it. Getting ready to send mine out for processing! Can't wait...:angel:
 
Thanks Dave and Paul.

Ektachrome really does make the blues POP!!!

Same in Lynn's images where you can see the ocean in the background, that deep blue and some green, I love it.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom