Re: Ektar 100 Revisited
- From: Noons <wizofoz2k@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 26, 9:05 am, "Michael Benveniste" <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My conclusions? Ektar 100 doesn't break any of the traditional rules
for daylight balanced film. But modern analysis and digital correction
permits permits you to get perfectly usable prints and scans from
it, even when done automatically in a minilab.
Mike, if you had taken the basic communication avenue of asking why, I
could have enlightened you without any need for these "tests".
But once again you took the "I know better" approach that
characterizes almost every poster in this ng. Ah well: suit yourself.
Your "tests" are not conclusive anyway as you don't explain what
correction if any did you apply to your negative-positive conversion
for each shot. The only way you could have made it useful is if you
had scanned each negative in negative format and let others do their
conversion and draw their conclusions.
After all, your workflow might be completely wrong for this kind of
test, and your reluctance to try new ones might actually shut you off
any new ideas.
Here is something I'd like you to ponder:
- the old "tungsten" film colour balance was established back in the
50s, with the tungsten bulbs available back then.
Now, unless your lighting is still with 50's-era tungsten bulbs, I'd
very much contend that any modern light bulb has a completely
different spectra from those of way back then. Don't believe me?
Check the manufactrurer's specs, they are available...
In case you have not noticed - I know a lot of you folks in this NG
don't go out much, you should try it: it's enlightening - modern light
bulbs available from just about any supermarket are completely
different from the old orange-light horrible things.
Get hold of any of the long life fluorescent-tube based replacement
light bulbs for example and you have something that is almost daylight
in balance - no, it's not "green" either: get rid of those old
So please: when you do any "tests" to "confirm" anything claimed, try
and get ALL information about what has been claimed rather than
imagine the voices are the source of all truth. It might actually
help you produce decent results from modern film using modern gear,
BTW: this discrepancy between old "tungsten balance" colour casts and
modern true lighting is at the core of many of the claims that certain
dslr cameras don't produce accurate colour balance when used with
artifical lighting: many have been erroneously balanced for the colour
temperature of 50 year old light bulbs, instead of what most folks use
Of course they can NEVER match the modern artificial light colour
Think about it, you might actually see the light? (pun intended!)
As to the ability to correct any remaining colour casts with
processing, quite frankly dude: you and others have claimed many times
you don't have access to film processing anymore, now all of a sudden
you know what modern film processors do? I can only tell you this: my
results - and I show them - are way better than what you claim, and
they are not just shots of test patterns...
Please, Mike: wake up and smell the roses, man...
- Prev by Date: Re: Rentals in Connecticut or New York City
- Next by Date: Re: Some folks recognize reality...
- Previous by thread: Rentals in Connecticut or New York City
- Next by thread: Re: Ektar 100 Revisited