Saturation is color contrast, so contrast is indeed the issue.
Saturation is color contrast, so contrast is indeed the issue.
I've seen some very cool Ektar portraits that were overexposed by a stop.
That said, the be-all-end-all color neg film for me is now (the new) Portra 400. That stuff is just stupid good. And it scans sooooo easily as well.
So now that I love E100G and Portra 400 and Kodak is going to announce their earnings tomorrow and get killed, I might have to cry... because maybe this will all go away. At least the other film I now love is Ilford HP5!
Those are words-of-wisdom that should be applied to every "magic bullet" film.Originally Posted by vinny
Here goes your weird terminology again, Ben. I guess you could phrase it that way,
but from the ordinary standpoint, Kodak compares their different films according to both saturation and overall contrast, and like color photography traditionally, does not
use these terms synonymously. At a micro-contrast level in relation to scanning, I guess overlapping these terms might have merit; but in terms of general highlight to shadow range, contrast is a term which should stand on its own. Kodak gives some
distinct graphs comparing Ektar to their current and previous Portra films showing how
to compare these basic characteristics, as well as resolution.
Saturation pertains to chroma. Film and the eye are not the same thing. We're talking about terms which have been standardized mfg to mfg for a long long time. Increasing/decreasing saturation might or might not be proportional to overall contrast, which seems to have been the nature of the original question regarding Ektar. When one gets into the details, any effective change in the film curve shape or response will affect the final visual output of both. But then you look at the curve itself, and placement of specific values on it, instead of general industry terminology, which is trying to help you quickly decide between
typical applications of respective films, and assumes that "more contrasty/less contrasty" has to do with the pleasingly reproducible range of a given film under
"typical" lighting. Ektar is certainly amenable to contrast increase and reduction tricks.
But something might split in the chroma attempting to do so - shadows might go harsh
in color or highlights burn out. It's a more "realistic" and less forgiving film than Portra.
I certainly like it. I'd rather have the extrra uumph, and then modify it with supplementary masking. But you have to be extra careful in portraiture.
in the shade... one stop over.... scanned.... shows detail that you never thought possible.... been shooting with 4x5 120 and 35mm Ektar... direct sun not so good.....but nice dynamic range detail.... next best fuji 400h... always shade with some warming post process
http://www.mikepic.com
Eh, you say tomato, I say tomato correctly.
Saturation can be easily shown to be tied to contrast. Take a "normal" color image and increase the contrast, either by darkroom means, or by manipulating Levels / Curves. You'll see apparent saturation jump up.
That's because "Saturation" is a measurement of color contrast. A B&W image has no contrast between the color components, thus it has no saturation. A Velvia image has high contrast between color components, thus high saturation. If you take a Portra 160 image and increase the contrast to match the Velvia image, the saturation will be more or less identical.
Film doesn't have "chroma." That's a video term.
Even our eyes have a contrast factor independent of color saturation - it's called
rods. With color mapping and pigment terminology you have tone and tint described independent of chroma. In certain graphics processes you need CMYK. And with film
curves there's a certain point at which things are just going to get dumped. "Chroma"
is a universal term in color theory and communication, and has around been long before you or I were born, and long before video was even invented. I know what you are saying, Ben, and it is valid within certain workflows, namely, using the more predictable part of the film curve. But with every color film out there, there's a limit, again with respect to what would nomally be termed "overall" contrast. Where the boundaries are depends on a lot of things such as the actual quality of the scan and
the output medium itself. But then at the extremes you enter territory where significantly altering contrast will not proportionately affect saturation, but will have an independent effect. In portraiture this can be significant in both the highlights and shadows in a open sun setting, for example. In the darkroom, overmasking the highlights will simply overwhelm the chroma and you will gray out your hues rather than dodging or burning them with mask density - that's why we sometimes use highlight masks too. With PS you reconfigure parts of the curve asymmetrically. Take the shot in more subdued "softbox" light like a chrome, and you are using less of the curve and it becomes way more cooperative. So in practical terms and the original question about Ektar, it is important to distinguish these factors. Or just shoot under softer lighting appropriately filtered, or just choose a lower-contrast film to begin with.
More generally, it is a color model term. Anything the model is applied to has it.
You only have so much dye saturation built into a particular film. Raise the contrast as
much as you want with Portra, and it still will not be as saturated as Ektar under
analagous circumstances (unless you commit fakery in PS, which is really independent of film characteristics). I can spot this visually even in the distinction between 160VC and Ektar. And Ektar really is an attempt to make a neg which can reproduce more like
a chrome in terms of saturation. But both these aforementioned films will at a certain
point dump the shadows quite hard, or bleach out highlights, though within a broader
exp range than a chrome. For those folks who judge the palate or chroma based upon
marketing shots of a box of crayons, it might seem like all these films are cleanly
saturated, but just compare a best scenario print of any of them to something like
a dye transfer print from a chrome and all of a sudden they start looking really muddy.
Ektar is the cleanest neg film yet.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks