[Archimedes the Dog]

Accurate exposure. Ektar's color rendering is more similar to Kodachrome rather than, say, Velvia and Kodachrome was capable of very subtle color rendition when properly exposed.


Steve

I like the qualities of Ektar, for sure, I even like the saturation at times. But I would love to have more control over it. Next time you're up here, I'll exchange coffee for pointers.

[stevebrot]

Next time you're up here, I'll exchange coffee for pointers.

You're on.


Steve

[fearview]

@fearview: Nice colours and fabulous point-of-view

@LaHo -- thank you


===




Pentax *ist + smc Pentax-M 1:4/20 + Agfa Precisa 100

.

.

[John Poirier]

Accurate exposure. Ektar's color rendering is more similar to Kodachrome rather than, say, Velvia and Kodachrome was capable of very subtle color rendition when properly exposed.


Steve

Yes, exposure is very important. Underexposure in particular can be disastrous in terms of proper tonal rendition. Given a properly exposed neg, you can have a great deal of control over the "look" of an image. As usual, Steve has hit the nail on the head in terms of what is important in practical terms.

In my view, these days it is more useful to have a clear view of what you want as a finished product, and some inkling of how you are going to get there in terms of scanning and image corrections, than to worry about the colour characteristics of a given film.

Steve's comment about Kodachrome's subtle colour rendition reminds me of something I've been thinking about.

It's quite true that Kodachrome could produce beautiful results under many conditions. It could also be a real bear in harsh lighting. And it changed in character somewhat over the years.

In the old days, choice of lens/film combinations could be very significant in terms of the character of final results. Slide films were the professional standard. Properly stored and processed slide films had very predictable characteristics, and professional photographers placed great reliance on being able to produce a consistent look with a given lens or set of lenses. Pre-digital technology allowed very little flexibility in the reproduction process, so the "look" of a slide could often have a significant effect on the finished product in a high-quality printing workflow. (Not that the term workflow was widely used back then.) I did colour separations for printing, as well as printing Cibachrome back in the seventies, so I know a bit about it.

Colour negative film was viewed as strictly amateur stuff for a number of reasons, including the fact that printing was a highly subjective process with great limitations in terms of colour and contrast control. Prints were crap for reproduction purposes. (Scanning and printing colour negatives continues to be highly subjective, although we have a lot more control now.)

These days, so much control is available through scanning, and through image editing software, that the character of film and of lenses in terms of colour rendition and contrast have become much less of a factor in terms of determining the qualities of a finished image. Frankly, I find the tendency of some individuals to go on and on about particular lenses or films based on characteristics that can easily be changed by nudging a few sliders in Photoshop a bit weird. Or maybe more than a bit weird.

I'll add that as someone who did imaging in archives for 20 years I'm well aware of the need to respect the character of vintage film images for reproduction purposes. Had the privilege of working on some 1930s Kodachromes from the Arctic, among other things.

Anyhow, take advantage of the great exposure latitude, sharpness and fine grain of films like Ektar to produce technically excellent images. Don't get sidetracked by claims that negative films have particular biases in terms of colour balance, saturation and contrast. Yes, they do, but the ultimate look is largely in your hands. In 2013 it's your artistic vision, not the film or the lens, that should determine the final product.

It's up to you to define what you want as an end result, and to identify the skills and knowledge required to get there.

My two cents' worth. ( Which will soon be worth nothing, as pennies are obsolete in Canada.)

[arnold]

Here's another from the Contax.

An appealing picture this. Question: I notice so many pictures have a rather shallow depth of field these days, and I wonder what your thoughts were when you decided on this, with this picture. Certainly, sometimes one wants the background faded out, but here I wanted to see more of the cabin as well. All rather subjective I know.

[Swift1]

An appealing picture this. Question: I notice so many pictures have a rather shallow depth of field these days, and I wonder what your thoughts were when you decided on this, with this picture. Certainly, sometimes one wants the background faded out, but here I wanted to see more of the cabin as well. All rather subjective I know.

Funny you should ask...
I actually get a little tired of the trend for super shallow depth of field, not because I don't like shallow depth and bokeh, but because I see so many photos where the entire point is bokeh and the subject is secondary. A friend recently sent me her wedding invite which was a professionally done outdoor portrait of her and her fiancee. For the sake of bokeh, her fiancee was actually noticeably out of focus.

On any normal day, I would have looked this shot (the truck), chose f/5.6, taken one shot and been done. That day I was testing a new camera and lens, so I took two shots. One at 5.6 and one wide open (f/2) just to see how the lens did. I fully expected to prefer the 5.6 version, but once both frames were scanned, I liked the f/2 version much more. C'est la vie!

[rob1234]

These days, so much control is available through scanning, and through image editing software, that the character of film and of lenses in terms of colour rendition and contrast have become much less of a factor in terms of determining the qualities of a finished image. Frankly, I find the tendency of some individuals to go on and on about particular lenses or films based on characteristics that can easily be changed by nudging a few sliders in Photoshop a bit weird. Or maybe more than a bit weird.

I agree nearly entirely with your post - but I'd argue certain lenses have rendering it is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate/negate in post. I also include colour in this rendering - my FA*24 used to have a warm cast that was (I found was) impossible to remove, or replicate, in PP.

[stevebrot]

As usual, Steve has hit the nail on the head in terms of what is important in practical terms.

Steve

[Archimedes the Dog]

Yes, exposure is very important. Underexposure in particular can be disastrous in terms of proper tonal rendition. Given a properly exposed neg, you can have a great deal of control over the "look" of an image. As usual, Steve has hit the nail on the head in terms of what is important in practical terms.

Fair points, all, but there is also a difference of perspective.

You are looking at it from the view of an experienced professional who understands the principles. I am still trying to learn the principles. I'd like to better understand what I have to work with. I have been using Photoshop professionally for nearly 20 years (for video games, not photography), so I understand it fairly well and have lots of experience with it; hell, a college friend of mine is a lead programmer on Lightroom. I want to learn more about the part before that stuff.

In addition, you are looking at it from a pragmatic sense, it at least seems, and many of us are hobbyists doing this for fun. To analogize, I want to go sailing: I have a motor, and can use it if I am in trouble or need to get somewhere, but I want to sail for the fun of it. You have a schedule and have something to deliver, being beholden to the wind is pointless, especially since you used to be so.

[stevebrot]

...to analogize, I want to go sailing: I have a motor, and can use it if I am in trouble or need to get somewhere, but I want to sail for the fun of it.

This is a lot easier than sailing. Color photography film photography does not present a lot of opportunities for tweaking either at the time of exposure or in development. If you want appropriate contrast and color rendition with Ektar, accurate exposure is the shortest route to good results. The tests I did early on indicated that shooting at box speed was best and that rating at EI 80 (1/3 stop over) would yield acceptable results with better shadow detail*. The reasons are complex, but it is enough to say that the different color sensitive layers of all color films have different response curves. Too much or too little light and you get color shift or a color-specific change in contrast (cause of the garish reds/oranges).

While John (above) is essentially correct regarding manipulation at scan time or in PP, it is good to remember the old adage of computer science, "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Your success in PP is only as good as what you have to work with. If an inappropriate exposure results in a gap in response for a certain range of wavelength, all the manipulation in gain or saturation boost in the world cannot add appropriate color where none exists. Bottom line is to expose correctly in order to help the film capture as much data as the subject has to offer.


Steve

* Ektar differs from more forgiving color negative films where a full one stop shift to overexposure is standard practice for many photographers.

[Archimedes the Dog]

This is a lot easier than sailing. Color photography film photography does not present a lot of opportunities for tweaking either at the time of exposure or in development. If you want appropriate contrast and color rendition with Ektar, accurate exposure is the shortest route to good results. The tests I did early on indicated that shooting at box speed was best and that rating at EI 80 (1/3 stop over) would yield acceptable results with better shadow detail*. The reasons are complex, but it is enough to say that the different color sensitive layers of all color films have different response curves. Too much or too little light and you get color shift or a color-specific change in contrast (cause of the garish reds/oranges).

While John (above) is essentially correct regarding manipulation at scan time or in PP, it is good to remember the old adage of computer science, "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Your success in PP is only as good as what you have to work with. If an inappropriate exposure results in a gap in response for a certain range of wavelength, all the manipulation in gain or saturation boost in the world cannot add appropriate color where none exists. Bottom line is to expose correctly in order to help the film capture as much data as the subject has to offer.


Steve

* Ektar differs from more forgiving color negative films where a full one stop shift to overexposure is standard practice for many photographers.

Well, I'll still buy you coffee, anyhow.

[Nesster]

... and really, what you measure is at least as important as what EI you use

[gofour3]

Ooops...

Pentax 645, Planar 80/2.8, Fuji Velvia 100F

Great shot!

Phil.

[LesDMess]

Took some snaps at a birthday celebration using the Pentax LX+AF280T+M 40mm f2.8 pancake and long expired Kodak 400UC. I am pleased with the competent TTL flash system in aperture priority mode. That and the film rendered good skin tones. The lens is easy to use even in dark settings and the system allowed me to snap at will without the typical measuring preflash.


Colorful


Slow focus and preflash. I had taken the shot and moved on before he could focus and preflash . . .


Air guitar. Bright viewfinder and no preflash allowed me to capture motion stoppage at the right time.

[Swift1]

Zeiss Ikon Nettax 513/16, Novar-Anastigmat 75/4.5, Kodak Portra 160