Treatment of Ektachrome E100 ?

[Alan Klein]

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.

Your processes, Drew, are traditional analog. You don't scan. He does. So he's using a different tool set that you have no or little experience with. But his methods give him what he needs when he scans. Maybe the point you should make is that if a photographer intends to use traditional analog print methods, they should stick to box speed of 100 with Ektachrome. Even in the old days, many pros use to shoot 1/3 less exposure to protect the highs and increase color saturation for effect. There are different flavors for every taste.

I wasn't clear about the 80 and 64 ISO settings. It's not that he uses it for the highs, but that it provides more exposure for opening up the shadows. He shows a comparison of Ektachrome vs Velvia 50. The shadows have more detail in the Ektachrome. So because there are more stops available in Ektachrome, and you won't burn out the highs by adding a little exposure, you can reduce those blocked-up shadows that we suffer from with Velvia. I understand your point about color shifts that could occur by changing the ISO from box speed. But then again, scanning and digital allow more corrections of those shifts that may not be available with analog printing.

I know you're opposed to scanning. But it would really be great if someone with your long and expert experience with analog work through printing spent some time with scanned images and digital editing. Then you could provide an analysis based on experiences with both processes. I have little analog experience myself. But even with my limited ability with digital editing, I've been able to correct color fading and shifts in old photos and chromes. I also have seen details exposed in shadows with digitally edited scans, that could not be seen when looking at the original chromes. Digital processes seem to have tools that provide results not necessarily available with straight analog.

[Alan Klein]

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

Only the settings would be different. If your setting at mountain elevation was let's say 1/125 at f/16, the less bright lighting at sea level might cause the Nikon to set it at 1/125 at f/11. But the exposures should look similar.

[Drew Wiley]

Alan - I know perfectly well what scanning does and how curve adjustments and so forth work. I've had my share of high end drum scanning done for commercial assignments involving publications or advertising applications, even had my own slide scanner too, still laying around somewhere. Just because I don't go that route for my personal work doesn't make me ignorant about it. In this case, concerning E100 exposure, it has nothing to do with "digital" versus "analog". The film has a native range, an inherent set of sensitometric curves of its own, which is then subjected to chemical interaction - entirely "analog" up to that point. That gives you the chrome which you can visually assess; and there's only so much you can bend during processing. Information at the nether regions of the contrast range can potentially be retrieved by any number of methods, including with advanced darkroom methods; but fishing things up from the depths or trying to pull it down from the very top seldom equates to quality content. One learns over time to seek out and use specific films for what they can actually do well, and not are unnaturally forced to do under torture.

Of course, many PS practitioners essentially add content that is not really there by artificially enhancing color or tonality in a manner the film itself does not; and that should not be mistaken for the real color signature and dynamic range of the film itself. An awful lot of outdoor photography seen over the web looks quite colorized to me, as well as a lot of what I see in inkjet prints. And frankly, it's kinda numbing when someone looks at a print attempting to communicate something I actually saw, and then say's, "Well, I done coulda done better just using the saturation slider more" ....I just think to myself, they never really saw anything like that in their life, never really experience that kind of light itself, missed the whole point ....

This Burke fellow knows what he wants, knows how to do it, and apparently enjoys it; so I hope he can make a decent living at it too. He can skew his own methodology any way he pleases. But when it comes to explaining particular films to others, and passing premature judgment on a product which, at that point of writing at least, he barely knows, it would be more helpful to make comparisons based on accepted objective standards rather than personal idiosyncrasies of - who knows? - how accurate a metering style or personal E6 processing variables ??

[Thad Gerheim]

I'm not an expert, but I love E-100 and here is my experience with it. I don't use filters, I expose 5x7 film using ASA 100 and try to place the highlights at no more than zone 7.5 or 8 and let the shadows fall where ever. I use a Tango drum scanner and wish I had the raw scan for the below crop for comparison. My scans come out fairly flat with a lot of information and room for highlight and shadow adjustment. I work in LAB mode for corrections in tonality, color and contrast. There isn't any problems with color shift when adjusting contrast while working LAB. The below crop of a whitebark pine was taken on a ridge above 9000 feet.

E-100 crop by Thad Gerheim, on Flickr

[Dave Wooten]

Touch base with Keith Canham for next order

[Leszek Vogt]

Touch base with Keith Canham for next order

Upon your and Bernice's suggestion (thanks), I contacted him yesterday about E100 and a full order (months) is required. I also got an email from Freestyle echoing the requirement. Yep, there is that....I'm reduced to 4x5 on this trip and 120.

[Bernice Loui]

Option number two, cut down 8x10 film to 5x7 as needed. Not as difficult as it might appear.


Bernice

Upon your and Bernice's suggestion (thanks), I contacted him yesterday about E100 and a full order (months) is required. I also got an email from Freestyle echoing the requirement. Yep, there is that....I'm reduced to 4x5 on this trip and 120.

[PatrickMarq]

This Burke fellow knows what he wants, knows how to do it, and apparently enjoys it;

Is this not the most important?

[Leszek Vogt]

Option number two, cut down 8x10 film to 5x7 as needed. Not as difficult as it might appear.


Bernice

Bernice, good idea (Plan B), but there is scarcity of 8x10 in E100 as well and B&H doesn't even carry it. Freestyle has it, but there is no one nearby (horse/buggy area) who could chop this down to size.....and I don't have a decent cutter to accomplish this feat. No excuses....just extra complications.

[Drew Wiley]

At one point, Glass Key in SF had E100 8x10 in stock. You might call them. Otherwise, get onto Keith Canham's list or else wait for B&H to restock it (they often temporarily de-list things they don't expect back in stock anytime soon, but will make available again when Kodak offers a batch cut). But by that time, perhaps an actual 5x7 volume cut will be made as well for Keith. Dunno. Cutting a sheet down from 8x10 obviously involves two precise cuts, plus a token cut corner in lieu of a code notch to indicate the emulsion side, so might be a bit of a chore if you need a lot of clean usable sheets.