Kodak Ektar 100 to Be Launched in Large Format

[Zoltan Arva-Toth]

Kodak has announced it will shortly launch Kodak Ektar 100 in 4x5" & 8x10" formats:
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_ektar_100_sheet_film/

Hope this is the appropriate place for this post.

[stompyq]

Thats outstanding news. I love this film on 35mm. Now heres hoping they won't price it too high

[csant]

Oh, good news! It is an excellent emulsion, love it in 120. I'm rather curious as to how "cheap" it will be…

[bsimison]

...and whether it will come in anything but 10-sheet boxes.

[pandachromatic]

Awesome! Maybe in a few years they could also drop the price just a little bit?

[Walter Jakubowski]

Too bad it won't be available in 4x5 Readyloads since they were discontinued.
If you would like to send Kodak a message to resurrect the Readyloads particularly for this new Ektar sheet film send an e-mail to:

brad.kruchten@kodak.com (top guy in the film business)

Maybe it's worth a shot. (Pun intended)

[Michael Graves]

Does anybody still process C41 sheet film?

[uphereinmytree]

What are the attributes of this film. I have been shooting B&W for so long that I forgot about color film.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Too bad it won't be available in 4x5 Readyloads since they were discontinued.
If you would like to send Kodak a message to resurrect the Readyloads particularly for this new Ektar sheet film send an e-mail to:

brad.kruchten@kodak.com (top guy in the film business)

Maybe it's worth a shot. (Pun intended)

The problem is that Kodak does not have the ability to make Readyloads. They outsourced that to Polaroid who had the machines to make them as the process was similar to making instant film.

Since Polaroid went bankrupt and junked those machines they can no longer be made

[Walter Jakubowski]

Praus Productions in Rochester NY.

http://www.4photolab.com/

[Walter Jakubowski]

Maybe they could contract the packaging out to Fujifilm (yeah right!) as the Fuji Quickloads are fully compatible with the Kodak Single sheet Readyload film holder.

[Eirik Berger]

That is good news. I have used the film (120-film) on my 6x9 and 6x17 backs last summer, and the results are great. Vivid colors and extremely sharp.
I will for sure try it in 4x5" for color landscape work.

[venchka]

Will the "Glass Half Emtpy" folks please not rain on our parade?

Kodak listened. To us. First there was Ektar 100 135-36. Then came Ektar 100-120. Now Ektar 100 4x5. Life is good. The glass is half full.

[Toyon]

That's excellent news. How does this emulsion differ from Kodak's existing lf color negative offerings?

[Diane Maher]

This is great! I have only tried this film in 120 size, but I like it. :D

[al olson]

Does anybody still process C41 sheet film?

Yup! I still do. As long as I can still get the chemicals.

I have never tried it in the smaller formats, but I will buy some for the 4x5, maybe some for the 8x10 as well. I look forward to its highly touted grain structure. I would be disappointed, however, if the color saturation is as gaudy as Kodak's Ultra.

Nonetheless it is great news.

[Bruce Watson]

That's excellent news. How does this emulsion differ from Kodak's existing lf color negative offerings?

Yes. What do I get from Ektar 100 that I don't already get from 160PortraVC? I realize that I'm trading some film speed for somewhat finer grain. But there's bound to be more to it than just that or Kodak wouldn't bother bringing it to LF. So what else?

[mrladewig]

Does anybody still process C41 sheet film?

Yes. In Denver, both Slideprinter and Reed Photo Imaging process 4X5 C41 and I believe Slideprinter may be able to do 8X10 now (they do not advertise the C41 sheet processing on their website, but do in fact offer this).

There have been a couple situations where Ektar has worked for me, but to be honest, I prefer Portra 160VC.

Its certainly nice to have more choices rather than less for a change.

[bsimison]

You are of course right, Wayne. Sorry for my grousing.

Even if it comes in 10-sheet boxes, I will still buy it. I'll simply open up the boxes at home and stack the 10-sheet envelopes into some old, empty 50-sheet Tmax boxes for travel.


Will the "Glass Half Emtpy" folks please not rain on our parade?

Kodak listened. To us. First there was Ektar 100 135-36. Then came Ektar 100-120. Now Ektar 100 4x5. Life is good. The glass is half full.

[mrladewig]

Yes. What do I get from Ektar 100 that I don't already get from 160PortraVC? I realize that I'm trading some film speed for somewhat finer grain. But there's bound to be more to it than just that or Kodak wouldn't bother bringing it to LF. So what else?

Ektar really does have a different look. Higher contrast more inherent saturation and a bit different color balance (usually cooler) in my scans. Portra 160VC seems to have a wider range

These are 35mm, but taken within a few minutes of each other.

Portra 160VC
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2260-1/nk_35_P160VC_20091008_15.jpg

Ektar 100
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2264-1/nk_35_EKTAR1_20091008_01.jpg

[venchka]

You are of course right, Wayne. Sorry for my grousing.

Even if it comes in 10-sheet boxes, I will still buy it. I'll simply open up the boxes at home and stack the 10-sheet envelopes into some old, empty 50-sheet Tmax boxes for travel.

Brett,

No worries. I wasn't venting in any particular direction. Mostly leftover from a very lengthy accumulation of Kodak Bashing on another forum.

I don't know who Kodak has been talking to about Ektar 100, but they sure have been listening. I think it's amazing that a new film hits the market and in 2 years goes from 35mm only all the way to 8x10.

Equally amazing: I finally bought a digital camera last month. Strange doings indeed.

Now I need to learn how to process C-41 film.

[Sal Santamaura]

Ektar really does have a different look. Higher contrast more inherent saturation and a bit different color balance (usually cooler) in my scans. Portra 160VC seems to have a wider range

These are 35mm, but taken within a few minutes of each other.

Portra 160VC
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2260-1/nk_35_P160VC_20091008_15.jpg

Ektar 100
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2264-1/nk_35_EKTAR1_20091008_01.jpgAre the labels on those images reversed? The one identified as Portra 160VC sure looks more contrasty and saturated than the other one.

[r.e.]

Kodak's FAQ on the film: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/qAndA.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328/13344

They say that it is based on the Vision2/Vision3 technology, but I'm not at all sure what parallels can be drawn with the motion picture films, none of which are ASA 100 Daylight.

[rguinter]

Are the labels on those images reversed? The one identified as Portra 160VC sure looks more contrasty and saturated than the other one.

It looks like the first was in direct sun and the second was in the shade. Perhaps the reason for the difference in apparent saturation.

I have some of the old Ektar 25 in my film freezer and when Ektar 100 came out I did a quick 4-frame test with one roll each in my 6x17 camera. Adjusting exactly two stops of course for the difference in speed.

By eye I could not tell any difference at all between the two sets of frames when scanned. So I bought a bunch of the new emulsion in 120 and I'm certainly looking forward to its availability in 4x5-inch. Bob G.

[benrains]

Big thumbs up on this! I'm looking forward to testing this in 4x5, and maybe even 8x10 if I'm feeling decadent.

[r.e.]

I have some of the old Ektar 25 in my film freezer and when Ektar 100 came out I did a quick 4-frame test with one roll each in my 6x17 camera. Adjusting exactly two stops of course for the difference in speed.

By eye I could not tell any difference at all between the two sets of frames when scanned.

Kodak says that the Ektar 100 has "significantly more exposure latitude".

[Michael Graves]

Yes. In Denver, both Slideprinter and Reed Photo Imaging process 4X5 C41 and I believe Slideprinter may be able to do 8X10 now (they do not advertise the C41 sheet processing on their website, but do in fact offer this).

There have been a couple situations where Ektar has worked for me, but to be honest, I prefer Portra 160VC.

Its certainly nice to have more choices rather than less for a change.

Thank you for the reply. In that case, I will have to try some of this. I've been wanting to play with color, and I like print film better than transparency.

[venchka]

It scans well for an all thumbs rookie like myself.

[Songyun]

How do you guys process C-41 in small amount? I mean, I can do E-6, using Kodak's E-6 kit. But I don't found any C-41 kodak kit.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

But Ektar still hasn't got nearly as much lattitude as Portra 160 VC. (That's a film with so much lattitude you can practically leave your meter at home and still be assured of getting the shot, or not worry about your leaf shutter timing so much).

What I find unworkable with Portra 160 VC is when trying to scan it from 35mm the grain seems subject to aliasing with fixed pitch CCD sensors, making for noisy scans. (May have something to do with my using the Tetanal kits with blix instead of separate bleach and fix). This may not be as much of a problem in the large sheet sizes, but I've found it to be a big problem making 160 VC too noisy for big hybrid enlargements from 35mm.

Ektar has incredibly fine grain, what testing I've suggests that even using the Tetanal chemistry it looks great when scanned from 35mm. With sheet film it's now an emulsion that works across formats, and that has a lot of appeal to me. (I'm really loving Ektar 100 as my go-to film in 120 the past six mos, but Fujicolor Pro 160S is also in my arsenal, being available in everything from 35 to 120 to 4x5 QL and 8x10 yet).

[Armin Seeholzer]

Very good news just have some 35mm rolls for testing!

Cheers Armin

[Drew Wiley]

I could certainly use this, though as a supplement to Portra rather than a replacement.
Unfortunately, haven't had a chance to print Ektar 100 yet. Have shot several rolls.

[David Luttmann]

Can't wait to try this in April. Fuji ProS160 has been my mainstay in quickloads. Still have a few boxes of that to use. But Ektar is a different animal....great for landscapes. It has such little grain at 16x24 even from 35mm that this should be nice at any size from 4x5!

[mrladewig]

Ektar really does have a different look. Higher contrast more inherent saturation and a bit different color balance (usually cooler) in my scans. Portra 160VC seems to have a wider range

These are 35mm, but taken within a few minutes of each other.

Portra 160VC
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2260-1/nk_35_P160VC_20091008_15.jpg

Ektar 100
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2264-1/nk_35_EKTAR1_20091008_01.jpg

Are the labels on those images reversed? The one identified as Portra 160VC sure looks more contrasty and saturated than the other one.

No. The labels are correct. I think a cloud passed overhead for the Ektar shot. Here is one with stronger light, but also higher saturation since there are no skin tones to be concerned with.
http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2356-1/nk_35_EKTAR1_20091109_007.jpg

I really haven't noticed any higher saturation in Ektar than Portra 160VC is capable of showing. The biggest difference in my experience has been the difference in latitude. Ektar 100 seems to have a latitude similar to most digital cameras out there today, say 10 stops. Portra has a noticeably wider latitude. It seems there is a bit more blue and cyan in the Ektar scans by default than I've gotten in the Portra 160VC scans, but I haven't shot any color targets or any other measurable thing to compare them.

[D. Bryant]

Does anybody still process C41 sheet film?

Yeah I do in my darkroom.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Kodak has announced it will shortly launch Kodak Ektar 100 in 4x5" & 8x10" formats:
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_ektar_100_sheet_film/

Hope this is the appropriate place for this post.
Hey that's great news, I really didn't think that would happen.

Don Bryant

[ThePhilosopher]

How do you guys process C-41 in small amount? I mean, I can do E-6, using Kodak's E-6 kit. But I don't found any C-41 kodak kit.

I buy the chemicals, mix them for 1 gallon containers, and then process.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Here is the official announcement in case anyone is interested, pulled from the View Camera site:

Kodak Offers New Film Choice for Large-Format Photographers with
Introduction of KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100 Film in 4x5 and 8x10 Sheet Formats
ROCHESTER, N.Y., February 16, 2010 – Large-format photographers will now be
able to shoot with the world’s finest grain color negative film, as
Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:EK) announced the upcoming availability of its KODAK
PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100 Film in 4x5 and 8x10 sheet formats. EKTAR 100 Film,
also available in 35mm and 120 formats, is the ideal choice for commercial
photographers and advanced amateurs for applications such as nature,
travel, fashion and product photography, where the emphasis is often on color and
detail.
Since its introduction in September 2008, the EKTAR 100 family of films
has won numerous industry awards, including the Technical Image Press
Association (TIPA) award (2009), Professional Photographers’ Hot One Award (2009,
2010) and American Photo Editor's Choice Award (2009).
“Large-format photographers, such as landscape and fine-art photographers,
will love the impact and flexibility that EKTAR 100 brings. It's the
ideal choice for creating high magnification enlargements for commercial
display, while preserving even the finest detail,” said Steve Decker, General
Manager and Vice President, Film, Photofinishing & Entertainment Group. “
Introducing EKTAR 100 Film in 4x5 and 8x10 further continues our commitment to
providing photographers with high quality, relevant films that support a
broad segment of the market.”
EKTAR 100 Film features high saturation and ultra-vivid color,
incorporating KODAK VISION Motion Picture Film technology to achieve its unparalleled
fine grain. It is ideal for photographers who want the superior resolution
of large-format film and look for extraordinary enlargement capability when
scanning and printing.
The new KODAK EKTAR Film in 4x5 and 8x10 sheets formats will be available
worldwide beginning in April 2010.
For more information, please visit www.kodak.com/go/professional.

[Ed Kelsey]

Those color shots look more like tranny film than neg film, I don't see the high dynamic range here.

[Drew Wiley]

Portra 160 is plenty fine-grained for any 8x10 use I can think of. Can't spot grain with
4x5 either. Don't know about scanning since I enlarge directly. The appeal of Ektar is
that it apparently offers a slightly higher contrast option, closer to soft trannies, which is exactly what I often need. C-41 dip n' dunk is easy to get around here.

[Riverman]

This is welcome news. I've enjoyed Ektar in 120. Can't wait to get my hands on some 4x5. Cheers Kodak!

[JRFrench]

Awesome, this is just what the doctor ordered for a colour film for shooting landscapes, that can be processed easily at home.

[z_photo]

Does anybody still process C41 sheet film?


http://www.chromatics.com/Film_Services.htm

[tgtaylor]

What paper (darkroom) do you think it works best with?

[SW Rick]

Scott Shephard just posted podcast about Ektar sheets with Kodak's Scott DeSabato on itunes- nicely done. Scott D offers some insights into how Kodak sees this positioned vis-a-vis Portra sheets and E-6.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

That Kodak doesn't have the resources to find cleanrooms, or replicate machinery to fold darksleeves and make crimps to manufacture RLs if they chose to-- is simply preposterous. It's much more likely it no longer exists as a viable or profitable niche, because so many commercial photographers dumped LF film for digital, precisely for the reason of no longer having high recurring film costs and lab fees (RLs accounting for much of that prior activity).

[Walter Jakubowski]

"It's much more likely it (Readyloads) no longer exists as a viable or profitable niche"

Exactly! Kodak, as any manufacturer, will respond to the voice of it's customers in as much as what they hear is in harmony with the sound of it's revenue stream. Not a slam, just the unfortunate reality of the current marketplace. Personally I was devestated when they "killed" the Readyloads. Not for the convenience but when you have to carry your equipment in a backpack for miles it is the viable solution! As much as I'd like to shoot the new Ektar most likely I wont' as long as Quickloads are still available. However I can dream about the return of Readyload. That's from the "glass half full" part of me.

Walter
http://www.wjakubowski.com

[Matus Kalisky]

No. The labels are correct. I think a cloud passed overhead for the Ektar shot. Here is one with stronger light, but also higher saturation since there are no skin tones to be concerned with.
http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2356-1/nk_35_EKTAR1_20091109_007.jpg

I really haven't noticed any higher saturation in Ektar than Portra 160VC is capable of showing. The biggest difference in my experience has been the difference in latitude. Ektar 100 seems to have a latitude similar to most digital cameras out there today, say 10 stops. Portra has a noticeably wider latitude. It seems there is a bit more blue and cyan in the Ektar scans by default than I've gotten in the Portra 160VC scans, but I haven't shot any color targets or any other measurable thing to compare them.

I am only wondering which ISO setting did you use with the Ektar ?

[John Kasaian]

ndeed this is great news! Anytime a major player like Kodak springs on a new sheet film offering is an indication that somebody in corporate thinks that the LF market is worth the pursuit :D

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

There are some interesting thoughts about Ektar in sheet form by Ctein here:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/02/kodak-introduces-ektar-sheet-film.html

[healyzh]

Those color shots look more like tranny film than neg film, I don't see the high dynamic range here.

I've read that one of the intended uses for Ektar 100 is as a replacement for Kodachrome. I never shot Kodachrome, but love my 35mm and 120 Ektar 100, and will be buying it in 4x5 as soon as it is available.

BTW, that shrieking noise you heard a short while ago was my bank account when it heard the news about Ektar 100 being available in sheet film! :D

[Drew Wiley]

I'd imagine it would print just fine on Fuji C paper. Porta does; but at times I wish I had
a color neg film with more contrast, and this might be the ticket. Really doubt that it
will replace any E-6 film for hue characteristics, however, let alone Kodachrome. But it
seems a step in the right direction. Despite the risk of turning this thread into another film vs digital brawl, Kodak knows that film is expendable - you have to keep buying it. There's still real money to be made in it. Maybe batches will be run less often than in
the heyday of sheet film, and maybe certain products will be consolidated, but LF
sheet film is still tops for print quality.

[r.e.]

...maybe certain products will be consolidated...

This has been Kodak's whole approach to motion picture film over the last few years, from which this emulsion is apparently derived. The application of motion picture film technology to still film is itself a consolidation. It isn't surprising that Kodak is stressing expanded latitude, because that is one of the principal things that it has been stressing in its motion picture films. Interesting that Matus says that latitude is one of this film's limitations.

[Oren Grad]

It isn't surprising that Kodak is stressing expanded latitude, because that is one of the principal things that it has been stressing in its motion picture films. Interesting that Matus says that latitude is one of this film's limitations.

Kodak is claiming greater latitude than Ektar 25 used to have. But the Portra films have greater latitude still. Portra NC, in particular, is well-nigh bulletproof. I've shot a large amount of Portra 400NC roll film in meterless cameras over the past couple of years, just winging it on the exposures. I can do virtually anything to it on the overexposure side and still come home with easily scannable / printable negatives.

[Robert Fisher]

Oren, Portra NC is just an incredible film - HUGE latitude.

Do you use a meter when shooting NC? I guess most of time for landscape and still nail it.


Kodak is claiming greater latitude than Ektar 25 used to have. But the Portra films have greater latitude still. Portra NC, in particular, is well-nigh bulletproof. I've shot a large amount of Portra 400NC roll film in meterless cameras over the past couple of years, just winging it on the exposures. I can do virtually anything to it on the overexposure side and still come home with easily scannable / printable negatives.

[JRFrench]

I have been guessing all my NC exposures lately and except for some rather long ones where I didn't give enough for reciprocity, they have been bang on.

[Andre Noble]

I tried a roll or two of Ektar 100. It scannned cyan/bluish on my Nikon ED 5000. Supposedly it is also not so great on portraiture due to off colored skin tones.
So, what's to love about this film besides the hype?

[Drew Wiley]

The problem with some of neg films is that they are so engineered to skin tones that
a lot of the neutrals simply drop into the same bucket. Good for portraiture, but odd for many other hues which tended to go off or bland. Some art photographers got
used to this and produced considerable bodies of interesting work based upon the idiosyncatic color reproduction of color neg films. But that left a vacuum for use
as a commercial or landscape film. Don't know how well this new film will suceed at
that, but I found Portra VC a distinct improvement in that direction, at least if your
standard is chromes. I match it to the contrast range of the scene, just like I do with
chromes, so in my book there's no such thing as latitude, or else something will not
print optimally. The NC film has more range obviously, but you give up quite a bit of
cleanness or saturation certain hues and get something more analgous to a portrait film. My hunch from looking at my negs (without having printed them yet) is that Ektar will take one more step further than Portra VC. What's been put up so far on
the web in terms of sample images isn't of much use for me personally, because its
all been scanned and put thru PS. I want to know the film's signature direct to print.

[r.e.]

Kodak itself says that Portra is better for portraiture. But I think that it would be interesting to look at some feature films made with Vision2/Vision3, where of course the face is important as a subject, and try to find out a bit more about the relationship between those films and Ektar 100. If it turns out that the relationship is tenuous, I'd like to understand why.

[healyzh]

The following review is worth reading. http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews%20kodak%20ektar%20100.html

On the MF side, now that I have enough backs, my plan is to have one loaded with Ektar 100, and another loaded with Portra NC. For LF I see myself having Ektar 100 loaded in some of my film holders, but where I'd use Portra in MF, I'll be shooting B&W on LF.

For 35mm I typically shoot either Ektar 100 for colour, or some type of B&W, though I do like cheap colour Fuji for shooting people.

[Gene McCluney]

Polaroid is fully back in business.


This is just so NOT TRUE.

The Polaroid "name" is owned by a company to license. There is a group called "The Impossible Project" that working with Ilford (for b/w) and another group for color is reviving the Integral Film for SX-70 type cameras in a former Polaroid assembly plant in Europe. All the USA based Polaroid film manufacturing plants are now gone, scrapped, salvage metal. Polaroid has no intention of ever making instant film again, although they have decided to contract out with an asian partner to have some new cheap Polaroid branded cameras made to use the film provided by "The Impossible Project". At this point in history there are no machines or facilities for making "Peel-apart" instant films, or readyload type materials. It should be noted that "The Impossible Project" does not have the facilities to coat a film emulsion, just the facilities to manufacture and assemble the film packs, thus they have to use existing film coating facilities such as Ilford for their films.

[David Luttmann]

I tried a roll or two of Ektar 100. It scannned cyan/bluish on my Nikon ED 5000. Supposedly it is also not so great on portraiture due to off colored skin tones.
So, what's to love about this film besides the hype?

What's so great? Well, as the film isn't designed for skin tones, the best place to start is to use it for landscape work. The resolving power is superb. Very saturated colors. Finest grain C41 there is. Far superior latitude to E6 films. Aside from those things, I don't see any hype!

The best place to start is to profile your scanner for the film. That will eliminate the cast.

[Greg Blank]

I work for Omega-Brandess, we recently merged and are now distributing Kodak materials. Our sales people were at PMA and just arrived back today. They were nice enough to bring me a ten sheet box of Ektar 100, 4x5 to test and shoot.


Kodak has announced it will shortly launch Kodak Ektar 100 in 4x5" & 8x10" formats:
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_ektar_100_sheet_film/

Hope this is the appropriate place for this post.

[stompyq]

What's so great? Well, as the film isn't designed for skin tones, the best place to start is to use it for landscape work. The resolving power is superb. Very saturated colors. Finest grain C41 there is. Far superior latitude to E6 films. Aside from those things, I don't see any hype!

The best place to start is to profile your scanner for the film. That will eliminate the cast.

+1 to what david said. This film is AMAZING for landscapes. In 35mm Their is hardly any grain and when it is visible it's very nice and tight.

[SamReeves]

When is Kodak bringing back Ektar 25??? :D

I will definitely have to check out the 100 in 4x5. ;)

[rguinter]

When is Kodak bringing back Ektar 25??? :D

I will definitely have to check out the 100 in 4x5. ;)

I'm with you Sam, I much prefer slow speed films and would like to see the Ektar 25 make a comeback... although I still have the better part of 20 rolls or so of it in MF left in my film freezer. Bob G.

[JRFrench]

I work for Omega-Brandess, we recently merged and are now distributing Kodak materials. Our sales people were at PMA and just arrived back today. They were nice enough to bring me a ten sheet box of Ektar 100, 4x5 to test and shoot.

Awesome! Report soon :)

[brianam]

Ditto, Bob. How about Kodak's print 25? Royal 25 was it? That stuff was like a C41 Velvia, though a lot more blue and a lot less green.
There were some slow films that weren't so hot though: anyone remember Agfa Ultracolor 50? that film was weird. Fun, but weird. ;-)

By the by, Ektar 100 is--as far as I have tried--the ultimate color print film for scanning. Even at 4000 dpi the grain remains really smooth, and in blue skies there's much less edgy grain exaggeration many other films are prone to.
I'm very happy to see a new film introduced (at all!), but especially one that takes into account this modern-day use.

[PViapiano]

Ektar 100 seems to have a latitude similar to most digital cameras out there today, say 10 stops.

10 stops on a digital camera?

I don't think so. Digitals have approximately the same range as transparency film.

[Jim collum]

10 stops on a digital camera?

I don't think so. Digitals have approximately the same range as transparency film.

Maybe the DSLR's, but MF digital backs and scanning backs have better than 10 stops. I consider that a better reason for using one over resolution.

[JRFrench]

Modern DSLRS are around 10 stops, but you usually have to pull the shadows a bit to get them there. The fuji sensors are around 13 stops I think, pretty amazing.

[Greg Blank]

So your priority is fuzzy pictures versus using methods to control contrast. An interesting and quite novel view point. :D


Maybe the DSLR's, but MF digital backs and scanning backs have better than 10 stops. I consider that a better reason for using one over resolution.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

If DXOMark results mean anything, the Nikon D3s is reported to have 12 stops DR at ISO 200 and holds 10 stops at ISO 1600, the Canon Mk IV about 11 stops at the base ISO and also 10 stops at ISO 1600.

[vinny]

haven't you clowns gotten a little off topic?

[Jim collum]

although not large format (i'll post one of those once i get my hands on a box :)... This is from an Xpan and 35mm format. This was scanned with an Eversmart Pro at 3175spi

http://www.jcollum.com/fm/xpan_sutro_0001a.jpg


100% crop

http://www.jcollum.com/fm/xpan_sutro_0001a-crop.jpg

[Jim collum]

although still not yet 4x5.. here's a quick test shot on a roll of 120

http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/ektar100-2.jpg

[rguinter]

Jim: Your shot of the tree looks very nice. I never seem to have much luck on cloudy days. So I guess I'll have to keep trying.

This one in my town square on Ektar 100 last November with my Widelux 1500. Bob G.