David_Manning
Well-known
I think I like Ektar 100 in 35mm a lot.
That being said, it's hard to see "true" color with negative film using non-optical methods. The scanner software does all the heavy lifting, so it'll decide what the colors should look like. We all know that.
My first roll of Ektar back from a cheapo minilab showed prints (and scans) that looked hyper-real, like a digital P&S camera. I definitely didn't like that look. But I found out they just printed and scanned using a generic channel in their equipment.
My second roll (from a different minilab) looked less hyper, but had a slight red tint to all the images and scans.
Here is a non-color corrected scan from my Epson 4990:
It looks pretty good, I think. I have a Plustek 7600i on order, and I'd like to see what Vuescan's Ektar 100 profile looks like. Overall, I like the sharpness and low-grain, and I shoot it like chromes...metered pretty carefully with plenty of light, at box speed.
That being said, it's hard to see "true" color with negative film using non-optical methods. The scanner software does all the heavy lifting, so it'll decide what the colors should look like. We all know that.
My first roll of Ektar back from a cheapo minilab showed prints (and scans) that looked hyper-real, like a digital P&S camera. I definitely didn't like that look. But I found out they just printed and scanned using a generic channel in their equipment.
My second roll (from a different minilab) looked less hyper, but had a slight red tint to all the images and scans.
Here is a non-color corrected scan from my Epson 4990:
It looks pretty good, I think. I have a Plustek 7600i on order, and I'd like to see what Vuescan's Ektar 100 profile looks like. Overall, I like the sharpness and low-grain, and I shoot it like chromes...metered pretty carefully with plenty of light, at box speed.
