Roger Hicks
Veteran
Here are three more Ektar 100 shots -- but how much can you tell about the film from a web posting? Magazines always say 'read what we write, rather than relying on the pictures', and magazine repro is for the most part far more reliable than the chain that leads to the picture on your monitor: in this case, my camera, my lenses, my lab, my scanner, my software, my monitor, my opinions on colour balance, never mind what happens to it afterwards.
A 'raw scan' (no post-processing) is meaningless: why post an image that looks a bit cyan, just because that's the way your scanner rendered it, when you could correct it? Pictures can give you an idea -- but in a proper review, they don't even tell half the story.
Also, one roll doesn't tell anyone much: I'll not be reviewing this on my site until I've shot at least half a dozen rolls, and preferably a dozen, under widely different circumstances.
The grape picture was taken with a 75/2 Summicron, the church and lake with a 90/2.2 Thambar; camera was an MP in both cases. The other two shots, on the Ektar 100 thread, were both with the Summicron.
Cheers,
Roger
A 'raw scan' (no post-processing) is meaningless: why post an image that looks a bit cyan, just because that's the way your scanner rendered it, when you could correct it? Pictures can give you an idea -- but in a proper review, they don't even tell half the story.
Also, one roll doesn't tell anyone much: I'll not be reviewing this on my site until I've shot at least half a dozen rolls, and preferably a dozen, under widely different circumstances.
The grape picture was taken with a 75/2 Summicron, the church and lake with a 90/2.2 Thambar; camera was an MP in both cases. The other two shots, on the Ektar 100 thread, were both with the Summicron.
Cheers,
Roger
