Contact Keith Canham, very likely they have some 5x7 E100 in stock:
https://www.canhamcameras.com
Only way to know if E100 meets your image making needs is to get some then do testing.
Bernice
Originally Posted by Leszek Vogt
Contact Keith Canham, very likely they have some 5x7 E100 in stock:
https://www.canhamcameras.com
Only way to know if E100 meets your image making needs is to get some then do testing.
Bernice
Yeah Drew - Carson Peak is on the right with snowy San Joaquin Mountain beginning to appear on the right. It was taken from the far eastern end of Grant Lake a couple of months ago while I camped at Silver Lake. Rush Creek flows into Grant Lake which collects most of the water that flows into Mono Lake. However, most of that water is diverted to LA by the aqueduct which is located about 300 meters immediately to the left of the camera in this view. This view didn't work out for the Kallitype that I was trying for so after taking the 35mm shot I drove further west and took the Kallitype that I posted in the Kallitype thread with the 300mm Nikkor-W, 95mm B+W UV, and Tiffen Deep Yellow. That's probably San Joaquin Mtn in the background which at the time I thought was Reversed Peak.
Thomas
Why color sheet film instead of digital, Bernice? - A far richer image in terms of enlargement capacity, while still allowing use of extant view cameras, their advantages in terms of movements, and use of their own lenses. Yes, all that might be overkill in terms of simple magazine or advertising content, but it still offers the most realistic choice when optimal qualitative results or bigger scale are needed. MF digital backs are a very distant cousin in that respect, and certainly not cheap, and might well require their own new set of lenses, yet would seem to appeal to stock photographers due to all the sheet film expense alleviated. But there are those who simply appreciate the native color signature of certain films and are accustomed to working in that manner. The discipline of a degree of restriction can often be of real technical and aesthetic benefit. And with chrome film especially, when you've got it, you've got it. It isn't drifting around somewhere in cyberspace.
Color temp wise, with just one Kodak daylight product now, true 5500K is it. Fuji is a more complex question. Other than their now discontinued dupe films and other tungsten balanced films, the Provia products seem to me to be have been balanced for around 5200K instead, maybe Velvia too, though the nature of its dyes visually comes out a bit warmer still.
I returned to the morning later that afternoon and found the lighting much better and the fishermen gone so I took the following with the 360mm Symmar-S while holding the Tiffen Deep Yellow against the front element of the lens. The light streak running down the left side probable came from the filter which I wasn't able to shield with the dark slide. That and the out of focus vegetation in the lower right hand side ruined it for me but otherwise it is a reasonably good print notwithstanding the light flare in the upper right corner (from the filter?). The sky directly above the ridge lines blends in nicely and is not exaggerated like in the scan. I plan on reshooting this.
Thomas
Wouldn't the higher altitude this was shot at mean that the box speed at lower altitudes is less than 100. Alex Burke in the link provided by Patrick seems to think it's actually 80 or 64. Burke also mentions he thinks you can get an extra stop from the highlights instead of the normal +2 expected.Box speed - no need to test. This was taken with a Nikon 37-70 AF 2.8D with Hoya UV filter at box speed with an F6:
This was shot in the morning which was not the ideal time for this composition as the Sun's position held the moraine at the far left and the canyon's south wall in shadow.
Thomas
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
NO. Alan. Altitude does not affect film speed. No way it could morph into 80 or 64 unless that metering adjustment includes some FILTER FACTOR (mild skylight and warming filters do have about a third stop factor). And if one overexposes for the potentially deeper shadows of clearer air at high altitude, that just pushes the highlights further onto the shoulder, and away from decent capture. One can, and should, intelligently strategize such options; but none of it changes the native engineered-in film speed itself.
You only get about a stop and a half above middle gray before things begin to wash out - above that, just depends on what is acceptable to you, provided it's reproducible at all. But E100 has a little more wiggle room up there than Velvia. Sure, a digital curve re-profiling crowbar could be put to it after scanning; but that can't bring back texture or hue that's not captured in the original chrome itself.
If I stated what I really think about that half-baked shoot-from-the-hip Burke review of E100, I'm sure the moderator would show up with his tinsnips again. I did very careful tests with a MacBeth Chart under various outdoor light conditions, appropriately color temp filtered with color temp meter in hand, grayscale portion of chart densitometer read afterwards, and visual analysis on a true 5000K CRI 98 light box (you don't run into many of those). Also a number of indicative shots in the field locally, to find the limits (which are pretty much identical to prior E100G). Then did it all again a year later with a different batch of E100 to confirm the quality control (rolls, not sheet film - just for testing purposes).
Thomas - Sorry, but Grant Lake always makes me laugh. We don't bother with cable TV here. But during a little downtime relaxing after a snorkel in Maui I was watching one of those ridiculous History Channel pseudo-documentaries. They were taking plaster casts of Bigfoot prints all around the boat dock at Grant Lake. Then they claimed the creature came out of hiding from the "extremely remote" wilderness of Lundy Canyon. You've no doubt seen him with a thumb out, hitch-hiking on Hwy 395 near LeeVining. But I figure nobody spots him during daylight because Bigfoot apparently hangs out at the June Lk resort bar during daylight hours. Finally, they had actual visual footage of Bigfoot appearing from behind a particular tufa tower, one which I specifically recognized as being about ten yards from the parking lot on the south side of Mono Lk. Musta been hot in that big monkey suit.
But Alex Burke's shots look terrific. He's backed up his comments with his pictures. Why would he say ASA 80 or 64 if his pictures came out differently? Maybe you and he process film differently? Also, he scans and you don't. That could account for the differences as well. What have others here found about which ASA to use? He also mentioned that he sees an extra stop at the top with the new Ektachrome. So maybe that's why he can lower the ASA to 64 or 80 1/3 or 2/3 stops without burning the highlights.
In any case, I think it's unfair of you to just brush aside the actual samples of his Ektachrome results which are professionally done. Arguing that technical analysis of the film provides better analysis than actual real-world results is not a strong argument. especially when you show no actual results. People are concerned with real results with real pictures, not densitometer and other technical readings. In digital, we call that pixel peeping.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Neither you nor I have any idea of what those chromes actually look like prior to digital tweaking. Besides, the web is fairly worthless for making such assessments. E6 is a standardized process - or is supposed to be - just as the speed of the film itself is tightly controlled in manufacture. Since Burke's main objection is that the processed chromes look too dense, and he's the one doing the processing with a home kit, as well as overexposing it, well, that does point a finger a different direction than the film itself. And you've got the reasoning all backwards. If he's rating the film lower, at 64 or 80, that means he's overexposing it, and automatically getting less highlight control, not more. You also totally misunderstand the role of densitometry. Film exposure is 100% bound to its actual sensitometric characteristics. And in this case, you can't fiddle with the tonal range like with black and white film more than a tiny bit before there's a serious penalty to the color reproduction itself. Yeah, all kinds of colors and things can be dubbed in using PS afterwards, even a giraffe on an iceberg if necessary; but that's not the same thing.
He provides one nice desert shot resulting from use of a Tiffen 812 filter. That's kinda nuking the subject to remove blue; so while it works to achieve the look he wanted, it hardly belongs in any allegedly objective film test. I'm not implying it's wrong esthetically; but in this case it lies outside basic color temp correction and says more about his taste than the film itself. Likewise all kinds of comments in that brief article. And if he thinks E100 is neutral with broader scale, guess he's never used Fuji Astia.
As far as "real pictures" and "real results", I've shot almost every variety of chrome film that has been made during in my lifetime, and I've printed quite a few to very high standards. And a long time ago I learned there's a huge difference between getting something to look good on a light box or during a slide projector show, and getting it to look good on a wall or in a magazine spread. I wan't born yesterday. I do have actual results, decades worth, and have shown a number of them. That's why I also have my own picture framing facility. Nobody goes to the web to appraise nuanced qualitative issues. We might discuss those, or provide certain practical illustrations, or how-to stuff. The web can be a good educational tool, but has very serious limitations in terms of accurate and detailed visual presentation like that essential to fine printmaking.
And if someone's "technical analysis", as you phrase it, were not spot on in the first place, then you'd never have any kind of reliability to a particular film. Why would you buy it?
Kodak knows what it is doing, has the necessary instrumentation and protocols in place, and has a valid reason for marketing E100 with a speed rating of 100, and prescribing it as such in their tech sheet as well. That's what hard objective tests using standardized procedures are capable of verifying. In my case, I was personally verifying Kodak's own specific claims to actual film speed, color temperature, and also affirming their high standard of quality control. But web jockey opinions are a dime a dozen. I prefer to let Kodak do the heavy lifting, and will stick with their own tech sheet. All I did is confirm it.
Last edited by Drew Wiley; 5-Aug-2022 at 22:33.
In this case I let Nikon determine the exposure. For the Kallitype I let the spot meter and grey card determine the exposure. If the scene were at sea level, the resulting exposures may have been different due to the different physical conditions present.
Thomas
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks