Re: Ektar 100 Revisited
- From: Noons <wizofoz2k@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:51:46 +1100
Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2010 1:00 PM:
Your claim was that there was something special about Ektar.
Nope, it wasn't. What I said is that with modern negative films I find I don't have to worry as much about colour balances. I didn't explain why.
Please feel free to post a link to such specs. While household lights
have changed a bit, photofloods have remained the same. They are
still 3200K black-body light sources, just like in the 1950's.
Yes, Michel. But folks don't use photofloods to light their homes, coffee shops, restaurants or just about any indoor situation. Of course if you use photofloods in a studio, I'd expect you to use a CC filter!
I am not talking about lab conditions, I'm talking about loading up a film and going out to take photos. Notice the difference? That;s why I said you folks need to get out more...
All of which is totally irrelevant to your original claim, which was
'Don't ask me what Kodak has done with that film, but the
usual " daylight/tungsten" rule doesn't apply here.' It still does.
Nope, it doesn't. The usual daylight/tungsten rule is for 3200K lighting. You don't find that lighting temperature anywhere nowadays without going looking for it explicitly. Hence, you don't apply that rule everywhere.
Which is why I tried both a photoflood and a modern 75-watt
Dunno. You must have different 75W incandescent bulbs from the ones available here. I can guarantee you that most of the ones you get at the local Wollies or Coles are simply not in the 3200K class. Far from it. And I have the dslr shots to prove it.
Of course, you could just try shooting under such lights.
I do. We have fluoro lighting at the office and it has no green component anywhere. What can I say?
Nothing you've written refutes my claim. When it comes to how it
handles tungsten lighting, there's nothing special about Ektar.
I'd rephrase that as: when it comes to handling *3200K lighting*, there is nothing special about Ektar. How you get that *specific* lighting might be a problem nowadays, here in Australia at least.
I'll be generous and assume you confusing me with someone else.
Those results are from modern digital correction techniques
that could be applied to any C41 film.
Not really. I don't select auto-exposure for every frame of my negative scans. Usually I pick one of the frames with what looks like average density and auto-expose it. I then use the result for the rest of the frames in that strip, unless there is something obviously different. Rarely do I need to compensate for any colour balance with artifical lighting. I recall the only time I had to seriously adjust was with street lighting with sodium lamps: that is absolute murder on ANY film!
That's not what I'm smelling right now. I smell someone blowing
smoke, and that someone is you.
Good. Here is a hint: you keep the smoke, I keep my film images taken with modern lighting rather than 50 year old photoflood bulbs. OK?
- Re: Ektar 100 Revisited
- From: Michael Benveniste
- Re: Ektar 100 Revisited