[LesDMess]

I had a roll of Ektar which i mixed up with Porta 400, had it pushed the extra 2 stops in processing to see what it would turn out like?
Not good! the waste bin was the best place for it! so i think even +1 stop wouldn't be good.

I have not tried any push processing Kodak Ektar 100 and Kodak's publication doesn't mention push/pull processing for it. In fact I only see Kodak listing push processing for Portra 800 up to two stops. I wonder if Ektar - or other than Portra 800, can be push processed?

Anyway, this is the latitude test I did for Kodak Ektar 100. I metered the scene with the gray card on my Sekonic spot meter for ideal exposure and varied shutter speed down to EV -4 and over to EV +7. I then scanned using Coolscan autoexposure mode with no color/exposure/contrast adjustments during scan or post. I can easily get usable results down to -2 and up to +5 with minor scan and post adjustments.

[cooltouch]

Ektar is the one negative film that I wouldn't ordinarily push or pull. Well, I might push it a bit, but I wouldn't pull it the way I would with just about any other color print film I can think of. In fact, your tests seem to be more indicative of slide film than print film, especially Kodachrome. Note the deeper color saturation in the -1 and -2 stop images. In fact, I could easily call the -1 stop image "normal," whereas the +1 stop is starting to look a bit washed out.

Back in the day, when Kodachrome was often my film of choice, I would routinely expose it at EI 80 instead of 64. The extra third of a stop helped a bit with shutter speeds, but it also gave a noticeable improvement to color saturation.

As for my aversion to Fuji's Superia 400, I guess I need to go out and shoot some more of it. What I recall most about it, though, was the clumpiness of the grain at higher magnifications -- clumpiness I wasn't used to seeing with slower speed films. Maybe what I should do is shoot it at ISO 320 and see if that has an effect. I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

[LesDMess]

Ektar is the one negative film that I wouldn't ordinarily push or pull. Well, I might push it a bit, but I wouldn't pull it the way I would with just about any other color print film I can think of. In fact, your tests seem to be more indicative of slide film than print film, especially Kodachrome. Note the deeper color saturation in the -1 and -2 stop images. In fact, I could easily call the -1 stop image "normal," whereas the +1 stop is starting to look a bit washed out.

Back in the day, when Kodachrome was often my film of choice, I would routinely expose it at EI 80 instead of 64. The extra third of a stop helped a bit with shutter speeds, but it also gave a noticeable improvement to color saturation.

As for my aversion to Fuji's Superia 400, I guess I need to go out and shoot some more of it. What I recall most about it, though, was the clumpiness of the grain at higher magnifications -- clumpiness I wasn't used to seeing with slower speed films. Maybe what I should do is shoot it at ISO 320 and see if that has an effect. I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

My test on Kodak Ektar 100 -and all the other films I have tested, allows me to shoot a scene in range of latitudes knowing what I can get out of the frame using my metering technique and workflow. For instance I came upon a scene that my meter recommended a 1/60 shutter speed but I wanted 1/4 in order to slow the water down. I didn't have an ND filter with me but I know that is well within the tolerance of Kodak Ektar 100 so I shot it at 1/4 and got this out of it with very little exposure compensation done during scan and simple levels adjustments in post.



With regards to Fuji Superia 400, it is not my preferred film at 400 but I would certainly not say that it's grain is anywhere near clumpy. How are you evaluating the grain? Have you you used Neat Image or Noise Ninja for grain reduction?

BTW, in my previous post I provided a full 4000dpi scan of that frame of Fuji Superia 400 with lots of sky for better evaluation of grain and no grain reduction. Anything past 100% view will show more JPEG artifacting - squarish patterns, and should not to be mistaken for grain. I'd post the TIF file but it would be about a 60Meg file. I also have 20" X 30" optically printed poster of most of the films that I use for comparison to my scans.

[Colorado CJ]

Here's one I just scanned in. From last weeks hike in Rocky Mountain National Park.

Taken with a Zone VI 4x5 and Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7 lens and minus blue filter. Shot on Foma 200 developed in Pyrocat MC for 8.5 minutes.

[Cuthbert]

Pentax LX, K 55 mm f1.4 at f22, Portra 160, f16 and 1 sec exposure.



I kinda like it...it's very crisp but I should clean the forniture more often.

[Colorado CJ]

Pentax LX, K 55 mm f1.4 at f22, Portra 160, f16 and 1 sec exposure.



I kinda like it...it's very crisp but I should clean the forniture more often.

Real nice shot! Like the added addition of the cards on the dark wood table. Tells the story much better than if it were just a pistol picture.

What model break action is that?

[Cuthbert]

Real nice shot! Like the added addition of the cards on the dark wood table. Tells the story much better thank if it were just a pistol picture.

What model break action is that?

I don't know if you noticed it but it's the infamous "Dead man's hand", the cards that "supposedly" Wild Bill Hickok received before being shot at the back.

The gun is an Uberti, replica of the Smith and Wesson model 3 Schofield, that Hickok "supposedly" owned (even if in all the pics he sports two 1851 Navy).



The same shot taken with a Nikon F2AS and Neopan 400.

[Colorado CJ]

I thought it looked like a Schofield, but wasn't sure.

As for the "dead mans hand" I've heard about it, but it didn't pop into my head (don't play cards much). Makes the photo all the more powerful!

[cooltouch]

Actually, to be picky, it's only an inference that it's a dead man's hand since only four cards are showing. Just sayin'. Yeah, that's another nice Uberti copy, of a Schofield this time. I have an Uberty "Cattleman's" in 45LC with the 4-1/2" barrel. A really pretty, well-made piece.

About Superia 400, honestly, it's been too long ago since I first formed my initial impression of it. But I did notice some of what I was talking about in` your 4000ppi image. In the shadows especially, the grain is large and clumped together in places. Not so in the highlights and brighter areas, which is what leads me to think that it might benefit from about a 20% reduction in ISO speed. I've just gone back and looked at some other images of it -- all I have access to at the moment are the web-based images, which are, at the most 1000 ppi wide, so there's not much critical evaluation that can be done in that case. But I must say that, at 1000 ppi width, they do look fine. So I guess I should hold off on any further criticism for now.

BTW, Andrew, I just took a closer look at your B&W photo of inside the Rocky Mountain National Park. Wow, the detail is impressive! Years ago, back in my camera dealer days, there was another regular at the camera shows. Can't remember his name anymore, but he was an older fellow and would always rent four or five tables. He just had yards upon yards of old enlargers and large format stuff. I recall him holding forth one morning with an impromptu lecture on the quality of Kodak lenses. He was especially fond of the Commercial Ektars. He was telling me that Kodak's production of quality lenses had become pretty much a lost art (this was in about 1990) because the manufacturing facilities were gone and all the people who made them were either dead or retired. This was sad news to me. It's always sad news when I hear of a technology that's been abandoned, especially if the ultimate reason for abandonment amounts to dollars and cents. Like what happened to Kodachrome and more recently Ektachrome and Elite Chrome . . . Astia . . . Provia 400X . . . *sigh*

[LesDMess]

Here's one I just scanned in. From last weeks hike in Rocky Mountain National Park.
Taken with a Zone VI 4x5 and Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7 lens and minus blue filter. Shot on Foma 200 developed in Pyrocat MC for 8.5 minutes.

Beautifully seen and executed - dramatic scene! I have heard how the weather can turn quite quickly there.

---------- Post added 02-02-15 at 12:33 PM ----------

Pentax LX, K 55 mm f1.4 at f22, Portra 160, f16 and 1 sec exposure.
I kinda like it...it's very crisp but I should clean the forniture more often.

I don't know if you noticed it but it's the infamous "Dead man's hand", the cards that "supposedly" Wild Bill Hickok received before being shot at the back.
The gun is an Uberti, replica of the Smith and Wesson model 3 Schofield, that Hickok "supposedly" owned (even if in all the pics he sports two 1851 Navy).
The same shot taken with a Nikon F2AS and Neopan 400.

I like the composition and perhaps either cleaner furniture or much dirtier may be more appropriate?

I am inclined to favor the color version but maybe it is because it is darker/contrastier than the b&w? It also doesn't show the reflection that may be to me is distracting?

[LFLee]

Another Canon EOS 3, 50mm, Kodak Gold 400.

[malinku]

got my first roll of extar 100 back. and here is one of the shots.

[Jonathan Mac]

got my first roll of extar 100 back. and here is one of the shots.

Looks good but you have a light leak or something on the left there, a bit of dust and some Newton rings at the top (caused by the film touching the glass of the scanner).

[malinku]

Looks good but you have a light leak or something on the left there, a bit of dust and some Newton rings at the top (caused by the film touching the glass of the scanner).

Most likely dust as this was a quick scan to just check the film.

The rest was most likely caused by scanning through a plastic archival sheet. As I currently don't have a film hold for my Epson 3200 photo scanner. Which makes scanning for quality nearly pointless.

[Cuthbert]

I like the composition and perhaps either cleaner furniture or much dirtier may be more appropriate?

I am inclined to favor the color version but maybe it is because it is darker/contrastier than the b&w? It also doesn't show the reflection that may be to me is distracting?

Thanks for the comments, I on't have a real studio so I used what I had in hand, I think the reflection is more blatant in the B&W pics because in colour brown is dominant.

However, here there are other pics of the same film.