Wouldn't under exposure cause more intense saturation in reds, not to mention other colors?
My limited experience with the new Ektar shows that underexposed shots look HORRIBLE, but that slightly over exposed or properly exposed direct sunlight shots look very natural with nice saturation.
It could have also just been a metering problem with the camera(or user error
). I used a Nikon F100 with a 50mm 1.8D. By accident the camera was set to ISO 200 for the first few shots and everyone looks like lobsters. Once I changed it to 100 the shots looked significantly better. We then finished off the roll inside and all of those shots came out significantly underexposed... I'd say 1.5-2 stops.
From my admittedly very limited use of it, I'd set it at iso 50 on overcast or shady days, ISO 64 in good sunlight or studio lighting, and ISO 25 with indoor tungsten lighting. All dependent on how the camera meters though.
Originally posted by troyz I ran into crazy reds on my first roll of Ektar -- insanely red car tail lights, red berries against green leaves with no detail in the berries, for example. I don't think it was a development or scanning problem (good lab, Nikon scan) -- just overexposure of the red layer.
In any case, check the negatives (look for crazy cyans) and try using -1/3 to -2/3 EV compensation (i.e. rate the film as ISO125 or ISO160) to get the reds under control.