[Swift1]

Wild. Must be a good restaurant. The chains all over the place with the geometry of the signs and architecture is great. Love the color, too. Nice one.

Thanks, David.

[arnold]

Taken with a Yashica Lynx 14

[Cuthbert]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 50/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

Sooner or later I'll experiment a "colton shot" with some photogenic roadsign.

[skyer]

Here are the images of my first roll of Fujifilm Velvia 50 I shot last Autumn with a Pentax Z-1p + 31Lim and 77 Lim. The images were scanned on Noritsu and are without any PP except resizing. I liked the colours very much!

---

Last edited by skyer; 04-06-2015 at 04:08 AM.

[baro-nite]

Here are the images of my first roll of Fujifilm Velvia 50 I shot last Autumn with a Pentax Z-1p + 31Lim and 77 Lim. The images were scanned on Noritsu and are without any PP except resizing. I liked the colours very much!

Very nice. Velvia scans amazingly well. It's also addictive.

[skyer]

Thank you!
Yes, I'm already awaiting a new bunch of Velvia coming to me I am also think on ordering Provia 100F.
To be honest, I don't like a colour rendition of many film shots I see. The main reason of this is because of a poor scanning. Images look like they are from Instagram. To me, such images don't have almost any advantages in comparison to applying different film like presets to digital images. Most people shoot on negative film and it's hard to get really good scans from them. That's why I want to move to shooting slides.

[rob1234]

Thank you!
Yes, I'm already awaiting a new bunch of Velvia coming to me I am also think on ordering Provia 100F.
To be honest, I don't like a colour rendition of many film shots I see. The main reason of this is because of a poor scanning. Images look like they are from Instagram. To me, such images don't have almost any advantages in comparison to applying different film like presets to digital images. Most people shoot on negative film and it's hard to get really good scans from them. That's why I want to move to shooting slides.

Nice shots. I think you'll like Provia 100F - great colour, great sharpness, good DR (for slide film) and scans brilliantly. Here's an old shot I scanned myself - if you click for the full image, you can see the crystals of the frost:



Z-1P
DA*55
Provia RDPIII
4000dpi scan

---

Last edited by rob1234; 04-06-2015 at 11:01 AM.

[Swift1]

Thank you!
Yes, I'm already awaiting a new bunch of Velvia coming to me I am also think on ordering Provia 100F.
To be honest, I don't like a colour rendition of many film shots I see. The main reason of this is because of a poor scanning. Images look like they are from Instagram. To me, such images don't have almost any advantages in comparison to applying different film like presets to digital images. Most people shoot on negative film and it's hard to get really good scans from them. That's why I want to move to shooting slides.

I tend to agree, except that with some work and understanding, you can get good scans from color negative films. Slide films are simpler because you don't need to deal with the inversion and color interpretation that involves.
I'd take Kodak Ektar over slide film any day, if I had to choose only one.

Zenza Bronica ETRSi w 135W back
Zenzanon MC 50/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

[skyer]

Nice shots. I think you'll like Provia 100F - great colour, great sharpness, good DR (for slide film) and scans brilliantly. Here's an old shot I scanned myself - if you click for the full image, you can see the crystals of the frost:

It's also a good shot. As for the Provia 100F, I like its blue tones. They look unnatural but still very interesting to me.

I tend to agree, except that with some work and understanding, you can get good scans from color negative films. Slide films are simpler because you don't need to deal with the inversion and color interpretation that involves.
I'd take Kodak Ektar over slide film any day, if I had to choose only one.

I also thought that Ektar would deliver me great colours but in reality the scans I got from the lab have very poor colours. ProImage100 turned out to be much better. However I am sure that if properly scanned, Ektar must be rather good. With slide films there is no such kind of a hustle.

[cooltouch]

I also thought that Ektar would deliver me great colours but in reality the scans I got from the lab have very poor colours. ProImage100 turned out to be much better. However I am sure that if properly scanned, Ektar must be rather good. With slide films there is no such kind of a hustle.

Ektar is an excellent film, but the main reason why I don't like using it is it doesn't scan or duplicate well. Scanning it with my Epson 4990, earth colors, like a light brown, scan as purple. yuck. And if I try to dupe Ektar negatives with my DSLR, then flip the negative to positive in Photoshop, I get way too much cyan and, try as I might, I cannot get rid of all the cyan. So, since I have a hybrid/digital darkroom, Ektar is of very limited usefulness to me. Kodak Portra is way better. Grain seems to be just as fine and the colors are glorious.

[Clarkey]

It's funny, each to their own! My "one" to have would be Fuji Reala - if I was making colour prints. For scanning, the humble Kodak gold 100 does remarkably well.
I also got along really well with Agfa Precisa (especially as it was a fraction of the price of Velvia at the time).

[Jonathan Mac]

I would move to shooting more slide film if it wasn't so expensive and so hard to get developed.

Realia was great stuff, I still have a couple of rolls of 120 in the freezer. I find the colours from Ektar far less natural, though as discussed, this depends on the scanning.

[rob1234]

I know you can change the entire character of a film in PP, but I always treat Ektar like Velvia 50 - ie not for people!

[stevebrot]

To be honest, I don't like a colour rendition of many film shots I see. The main reason of this is because of a poor scanning. Images look like they are from Instagram. To me, such images don't have almost any advantages in comparison to applying different film like presets to digital images. Most people shoot on negative film and it's hard to get really good scans from them. That's why I want to move to shooting slides.

I also thought that Ektar would deliver me great colours but in reality the scans I got from the lab have very poor colours.

I finally quit using lab scans because of poor overall quality (grainy with lots of artifact) and poor consistency.

I tend to agree, except that with some work and understanding, you can get good scans from color negative films. Slide films are simpler because you don't need to deal with the inversion and color interpretation that involves.
I'd take Kodak Ektar over slide film any day, if I had to choose only one.

I am with Colton. Slide film brings its own set of issues (poor dynamic range for one) while the better negative films can provide very gratifying results.

Ektar is an excellent film, but the main reason why I don't like using it is it doesn't scan or duplicate well. Scanning it with my Epson 4990, earth colors, like a light brown, scan as purple. yuck.

If you are getting a magenta tint with Ektar 100, it is because of poor exposure and/or poor processing. In my experience, Ektar 100 is less forgiving of exposure deviation than many other C-41 films. My experience (lifted from an earlier thread HERE) has been:

Over-exposure

• Significant decrease in contrast, particularly in bright colors
• Loss of color saturation
• Loss of highlight transitions in the reds in bright light at even +1 over
• Insignificant color shift
• +1 provides a nice boost in shadow detail

Under-exposure

• Significant increase in contrast, again the affect is more pronounced with bright colors
• Exaggerated saturation
• Significant color shift towards the magenta end
• Insignificant increase in highlight texture

I generally shoot at box speed or +1/3 stop over and recommend no more that 1/2 stop over box speed.

I also got picky about my labs. When I first started shooting Ektar, I had several rolls with color shifts, poor contrast, and bad grain. My Ektar work improved immensely when I quit using Costco and the drug store. They were not as careful with machine maintenance or replenishment as they should. I get the same price per roll from the pro lab and much more consistent results.

I don't believe this one looks like instagram:





Steve

[skierd]

I get great scans from Ektar and Portra from my local lab, which is fortunate because it's the last one in town and probably for 400 miles in any direction.

Local is they key of course. Slides cost me about $20-25 a roll and 2 weeks to ship, process, scan, and develop using Dwaynes or the Darkroom in CA, and still have to pay for prints. Negatives I can have same day, scanned and printed, for $11. I still have rolls of Velvia in the freezer that I can't get rid of because it's soooo good and hasn't been replicated by neg film yet. All of this is based on 35mm of course, but sending out 120 negs is also cheaper than 120 slides.

It's all about what you want though. Colton's work wouldn't have the same aesthetic on velvia. Portra probably isn't the best film for someone looking for super saturation and electric feel. Unlike digital where the sensor is whatever it is when you buy the camera and all can be fixed in post, choosing your film is critical to getting the image right.