Ektar at 1600

sigkyrre 10:33pm, 10 February 2010
I shot some frames at 1600 iso by accident. I'm surprised it came out as well as it did:
Copenhagen by sigkyrre

This one was more like 3200 iso, since that was all the light I had:
Heidi by sigkyrre
Daniel Haskins 9 years ago
whoa really? you sure you don't mean ISO 160? Did you have to push process it?
LeNoirPhotog 9 years ago
sigkyrre 9 years ago
No push process. Most of the film was shot at 100.
mysteryonion Posted 9 years ago. Edited by mysteryonion (member) 9 years ago
You compensate while scanning? So way underexposed and post processing?
sigkyrre 9 years ago
The Epson software produced some heavy blue casts. I took it though Vuescan instead and scanned the whole film with fixed exposure and emulsion lock. Postprocessing consists of finding "exposure independent" rgb curves that produce good colors for all frames. Finally I tweak the contrast of each picture. Incidentally, these underexposed shots made me realize just how much curve tweaking Ektar needs in the dark end of the spectrum.
mysteryonion 9 years ago
I have an old Epson Perfection 4870 and constantly tweak for Ektar, but you've demonstrated how Ektar can be positively different.
jmwinterfield 9 years ago
It's incredible you can get results like this with no real enhancement, considering Ektar is known for having less exposure latitude than most C41 films and is closer to E6 in terms of exposure latitude.
sigkyrre 9 years ago
I don't believe that Ektar has less latitude than other 100 iso films. You'll get more color shifts, compared to e.g. Portra, but this is easy enough to deal with in postprocessing.

I really don't see any relationton to E6 to be honest. Ektar is nowhere near as contrasty as slide film. I'm not talking about the appearance of a processed scan here; I'm talking about what's recorded on the emulsion. E6 has an inherent latitude, but you can't have it all at once like for C41. Processing is sort of a second exposure, where you decide to push, pull, or process normally.
Dave1959 Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Dave1959 (member) 9 years ago
Sigkyrre, I see what you're saying to a certain extent, but the contrast look to it is so non-print like to me...almost like digital.

The funny trend lately is to do "HDR" shots, and some digital cameras will do it internally. A mild HDR is like a print film shot. It's like people want the pictures that look like print film shots even if they have to work three times as hard to get them. I'm not one to talk...I've been playing with Trichrome lately.

I should mention, too that during a discussion a while back that someone was able to correctly identify Ektar shots reliably even in the size posted on a discussion thread.
Groups Beta