New ektachrome

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Aha anyone been able to get their hands a roll yet? A shop I get the odd roll from now and then had 50 rolls and they sold out very quickly. Haven’t seen a lot of sample photos yet.
Also I’d hoped I’d would be a little cheaper, the shop I saw it in was selling it for £13.50 a roll not including shipping, I was hoping for £10
 
I don't shoot much 35mm but this is also essentially a 'niche' product (film in general) so the fact that Kodak have funded the re-introduction of a classic emulsion is a good thing. The price of the roll isn't exactly cheap but we're also not in 1985 any more so they're going to want to recoup their costs :0)
 
I dunno about "niche", its a difficult thing to quantify compared with other products and it really depends whether you consider there to be other options.
It isn't 1985 but even if you factor in inflation, I don't remember asking incredulously the question, "how much!!!" for a roll of slide film.
Ok, Kodachrome went nuts after the announcement it was to be discontinued, Fuji don't want the film business anymore so they are over pricing it, that leaves a hole that Kodak could fill with something sensible.
I'm not expecting 80's prices but if £14 a roll + processing is the bottom line for the most popular format, you have to worry how long that is financially viable, 5x4 even less so.
Still, if the masses will pay then both they and Kodak will be happy, and just me that won't.
Anyway, its early days, maybe there'll be a pricing "realignment" in the future.......:cautious:

What would I pay ?

£40 a 5 pack max, but then its not my format so I maybe below the threshold of general acceptability..:)
 
joxby said:
I was hoping for £7....:ROFLMAO:

Srsly though, I'm not doing 13-14 quid on a roll of 35mm film

not happnin, I just won't shoot it...the end
Click to expand...

Well, I buy Portra 800 and Cinestill 800T in medium format for similar prices and I'm only getting 10–12 shots, so £13 for 36 frames doesn't seem that crazy to me. I don't buy tonnes of these films, but I don't hesitate to buy them for holidays or other important events. I think of these more expensive films as temporary "sensor upgrades" of sorts.

That all said, I use neither 135 format nor slide films, so I won't personally be partaking in the Ektachrome party.
 
joxby said:
Ok, Kodachrome went nuts after the announcement it was to be discontinued, Fuji don't want the film business anymore so they are over pricing it, th
Click to expand...
Strange thought! If Fuji didn't want the film business, they would just drop it. They have no need to stop people buying it first.
 
john.margetts said:
Strange thought! If Fuji didn't want the film business, they would just drop it. They have no need to stop people buying it first.
Click to expand...

If the rumors are to be belived they stopped producing film some time ago and are "discontinuing" lines as the master rolls fun out.
 
john.margetts said:
Strange thought! If Fuji didn't want the film business, they would just drop it. They have no need to stop people buying it first.
Click to expand...

I suppose you could look at it like that, right up until they cut the last line of the last format.
 
john.margetts said:
Strange thought! If Fuji didn't want the film business, they would just drop it. They have no need to stop people buying it first.
Click to expand...

Could be winding down and allocating workers to different jobs and finding buyers for the factory space or whatever they do in Japan. Probably not worth Fuji setting up factories in cheaper countries to continue manufacturing film.
 
People have strange ideas about how businesses work. If the business makes a profit on a product, the business is happy and will continue that product. If the business does not make a profit (or, strictly, a large enough profit) on a product, the business will not be happy and will drop the product. They have no need to look for an excuse to drop the product or look for a reason other than the lack of profit.
 
Nobody has offered the idea that Fuji needs an excuse to do anything and everyone knows how business works.
The bottom line is, Fuji is leaving the market, how they do it seems fairly irrelevant.
 
joxby said:
Nobody has offered the idea that Fuji needs an excuse to do anything and everyone knows how business works.
The bottom line is, Fuji is leaving the market, how they do it seems fairly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not totally irrelevant... ISTR that when they dropped "peel-apart" instant film (I have no real idea what that is or was, but apparently a thing), they wouldn't cooperate with the Impossible guys (or someone like that) to continue niche production. No reason why they should really, except it feels like it would have been the decent thing to do for the (ex) customers of a company that still includes the letters F I L M in its name!
 
john.margetts said:
People have strange ideas about how businesses work. If the business makes a profit on a product, the business is happy and will continue that product. If the business does not make a profit (or, strictly, a large enough profit) on a product, the business will not be happy and will drop the product. They have no need to look for an excuse to drop the product or look for a reason other than the lack of profit.
Click to expand...


Unless they stopped producing said product years ago and are just selling off the remnants.

You've also missed internal politics, it's not always as simple as profit = continue especially with Japanese companies. For all we know the current ceo is a big Velvia user and his underlings don't want to upset him.
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
You've also missed internal politics, it's not always as simple as profit = continue especially with Japanese companies.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know if things have changed in Japan now but workers in big companies there used to have a job for life, an esprit de corps which made Japanese products successful. So as you said there must be some internal politics as Fuji, I would assume, just wouldn't stop production and throw workers on the scrap heap of unemployment.
 
Shipping before Christmas and available to pre order. This is very good news for film folk. Would love to give it a go when we get some better weather. Id love to try some in Norway next year but I’m so invested in C41!
 
Just got my scans back from my first roll of Ektachrome and to say I am dissapointed is a massive understatement. I understand the limitations of slide film but I have managed to massively overexpose most of the roll as well as the scans being very, very blue. I haven't got the film back yet to see how it looks myself but honestly I am really disheartened by the results here. I have managed to blow some completely (not the films fault, I know) but the colour is way off what I would have expected. Looks like I will stick to what I know with colour negative (aside from the rest of the 5x4 box I have).
 
ChrisR said:
Not totally irrelevant... ISTR that when they dropped "peel-apart" instant film (I have no real idea what that is or was, but apparently a thing), they wouldn't cooperate with the Impossible guys (or someone like that) to continue niche production. No reason why they should really, except it feels like it would have been the decent thing to do for the (ex) customers of a company that still includes the letters F I L M in its name!
Click to expand...
I think that was the last Fuji instant format that was still compatible with some of the Polaroid cameras. And being Fuji, it was a mainstream high-quality film, rather than one of the 'quirky' Impossible substitutes.
 
:eek: I've over exposed a whole roll of 35mm Ektachrome many years ago in my home flash setup ....my flash meter probably wasn't accurate enough, for exposure, using slide film (well that's my excuse)...but no problem with neg film.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Just got my scans back from my first roll of Ektachrome and to say I am dissapointed is a massive understatement. I understand the limitations of slide film but I have managed to massively overexpose most of the roll as well as the scans being very, very blue. I haven't got the film back yet to see how it looks myself but honestly I am really disheartened by the results here. I have managed to blow some completely (not the films fault, I know) but the colour is way off what I would have expected. Looks like I will stick to what I know with colour negative (aside from the rest of the 5x4 box I have).
Click to expand...

I've never had lab scans of any E6 films, so can't compare, but I know that home scanning it can be a little like alchemy to get the results looking right. I had a lot of issues when I shot some Ektachrome last year but it was only when I used Vuescan to re-scan them recently that I managed to get something that I was relatively happy with - although I'm still not 100% sure about them. I've had much better success with some Velvia 100 that I shot recently though.

I believe that @Mr Badger got some lab scans done of Ektachrome last year that he was quite pleased with. Not sure if he noticed a blue tint, although I think the emulsion does tend to cooler tones.

When you get the transparencies back you should have a better idea if it's the film or the scanning that's causing the issues.
 
FishyFish said:
I've never had lab scans of any E6 films, so can't compare, but I know that home scanning it can be a little like alchemy to get the results looking right. I had a lot of issues when I shot some Ektachrome last year but it was only when I used Vuescan to re-scan them recently that I managed to get something that I was relatively happy with - although I'm still not 100% sure about them. I've had much better success with some Velvia 100 that I shot recently though.

I believe that @Mr Badger got some lab scans done of Ektachrome last year that he was quite pleased with. Not sure if he noticed a blue tint, although I think the emulsion does tend to cooler tones.

When you get the transparencies back you should have a better idea if it's the film or the scanning that's causing the issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah the film should be back in the next couple of days so I shall see then I guess. It's frustrating as I don't have any problems with colour negative now (usually).

I genuinely never thought I would hear myself say this but I am strongly considering just shooting digital again. Full circle.
 
Now, now, don't go doing something you'll regret! :)

I know the feeling though. It's disappointing when any roll of film doesn't work out how you expected, but moreso when it's something expensive like Ektachrome. I've not been in a great rush to shoot it again since given the price of entry (although I have several rolls of expired Ektachrome that I'm less precious about), but I'd happily shoot something like Provia 100F or Velvia 100, both of which I've had more success with.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
I believe that @Mr Badger got some lab scans done of Ektachrome last year that he was quite pleased with. Not sure if he noticed a blue tint, although I think the emulsion does tend to cooler tones.
Click to expand...

Yes, I tried a roll of new Ektachrome in 35mm and had high-res scans done by AG Photolab, who also processed and mounted the slides. I found the colour to be quite life-like with natural looking skin tones, if just a tad flat to my liking. I didn't notice any obvious blue tints though.

Below are two JPEG examples, the first is the high-res lab scan (re-sized by me for uploading to Flickr), the second is a home scan using an Epson V600 flatbed scanner. I've also included a snap I took of a weapons display to test colour rendition, so see what you think as a bit of a litmus test. I've not tried new Ektachrome in 120 format yet though, so can't say if there's any obvious difference - I know there shouldn't be, as it should be the same emulsion, etc, just cut wider and no sprocket holes.


48271678757_e99a919ed3_c.jpg


48271621936_2c2c9fb506_c.jpg


48271599296_c78febc605_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Yes, I tried a roll of new Ektachrome in 35mm and had high-res scans done by AG Photolab, who also processed and mounted the slides. I found the colour to be quite life-like with natural looking skin tones, if just a tad flat to my liking. I didn't notice any obvious blue tints though.

Below are two JPEG examples, the first is the high-res lab scan (re-sized by me for uploading to Flickr), the second is a home scan using an Epson V600 flatbed scanner. I've also included a snap I took of a weapons display to test colour rendition, so see what you think as a bit of a litmus test. I've not tried new Ektachrome in 120 format yet though, so can't say if there's any obvious difference - I know there shouldn't be, as it should be the same emulsion, etc, just cut wider and no sprocket holes.


48271678757_e99a919ed3_c.jpg


48271621936_2c2c9fb506_c.jpg


48271599296_c78febc605_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Yep, they look good. Mine are completely blown in some areas and very, very blue. Just shown Vic and she agrees that I surely can't have got it that wrong. I know slide film is different beast but still, I can't be that bad, surely? None are useable. For the first time ever, I have deleted a full roll.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Just got my scans back from my first roll of Ektachrome and to say I am dissapointed is a massive understatement. I understand the limitations of slide film but I have managed to massively overexpose most of the roll as well as the scans being very, very blue. I haven't got the film back yet to see how it looks myself but honestly I am really disheartened by the results here. I have managed to blow some completely (not the films fault, I know) but the colour is way off what I would have expected. Looks like I will stick to what I know with colour negative (aside from the rest of the 5x4 box I have).
Click to expand...

As I'm sure that you're aware, slide film is far less forgiving than colour negative. Not only do you need to be on your game in terms of metering, but you need to make sure that your equipment is functioning as expected too. Where colour negative has the latitude to cover up or mask equipment issues (e.g., inaccurate meter, slow/fast shutter speeds, etc.), slide film will reveal them.

If I’m using slide film with old cameras and/or leaf shutter lenses that haven’t been serviced recently, particularly those with mechanical shutters, I’m definitely exposure bracketing and taking notes, as I don’t know if I can trust equipment to deliver settings I’ve dialled in. You could be accurate with your exposures, but this is meaningless if you’re equipment is not.

What is the status/condition of your camera, lenses, and meter? Recent service? Electronic or mechanical shutter? Speeds sound okay? I presume you metered for highlights?
 
skysh4rk said:
As I'm sure that you're aware, slide film is far less forgiving than colour negative. Not only do you need to be on your game in terms of metering, but you need to make sure that your equipment is functioning as expected too. Where colour negative has the latitude to cover up or mask equipment issues (e.g., inaccurate meter, slow/fast shutter speeds, etc.), slide film will reveal them.

If I’m using slide film with old cameras and/or leaf shutter lenses that haven’t been serviced recently, particularly those with mechanical shutters, I’m definitely exposure bracketing and taking notes, as I don’t know if I can trust equipment to deliver settings I’ve dialled in. You could be accurate with your exposures, but this is meaningless if you’re equipment is not.

What is the status/condition of your camera, lenses, and meter? Recent service? Electronic or mechanical shutter? Speeds sound okay? I presume you metered for highlights?
Click to expand...

Hey, RJ. Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response.

Yes, I know the limitations of slide in comparison to colour negative. My usual go to C41 is Ektar 100, so possibly the least forgiving compared to the likes of Portra. I always expose this at box speed (unlike Portra). I used the same metering as I do for that with this roll of Ektachrome.

I was using the P67ii for this which I have had scans back from recently from my usual lab (CFL) and their feedback confirms that my exposures are good. I actually missed having the feedback with this roll of E6 to let me know of any such mistakes. The condition of the camera, lenses and meter are all fine. I posted a shot from the last roll I shot before this trip in the 'Show Us Your Film Shots' thread.

Weirdly, when I shot that little mini with mostly the Pentax, I shot a sheet of 5x4 Ektachrome at the same time which looks exposed really well! The composition failed on that one (upside down threw me) and I had metered exactly the same. SO I guess, until the film comes back through the post, I won't know 100% but yes, a little disheartened this evening with it.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Hey, RJ. Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response.

Yes, I know the limitations of slide in comparison to colour negative. My usual go to C41 is Ektar 100, so possibly the least forgiving compared to the likes of Portra. I always expose this at box speed (unlike Portra). I used the same metering as I do for that with this roll of Ektachrome.

I was using the P67ii for this which I have had scans back from recently from my usual lab (CFL) and their feedback confirms that my exposures are good. I actually missed having the feedback with this roll of E6 to let me know of any such mistakes. The condition of the camera, lenses and meter are all fine. I posted a shot from the last roll I shot before this trip in the 'Show Us Your Film Shots' thread.

Weirdly, when I shot that little mini with mostly the Pentax, I shot a sheet of 5x4 Ektachrome at the same time which looks exposed really well! The composition failed on that one (upside down threw me) and I had metered exactly the same. SO I guess, until the film comes back through the post, I won't know 100% but yes, a little disheartened this evening with it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Well, “good” exposures for colour negative would certainly have more latitude, even for Ektar, so not sure how meaningful that really is for judging exposure for slide film. That said, the Pentax has an electronically controlled shutter, so I would have thought a better chance for shutter speed accuracy. Sometimes P67’s can have shutter issues though. Have you tried firing the camera with the back open at a range of apertures and shutter speeds to see if there are any issues?

In the past, shooting a roll of slide film is how I’ve happened to discover issues with some of my own cameras that weren’t so apparent with colour negative (e.g., I discovered my Bronica 80mm lens was only firing at 1/500).
 
Last edited:
Well could it be a development fault at the lab., if it was how do you prove it................
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Hey, RJ. Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response.

Yes, I know the limitations of slide in comparison to colour negative. My usual go to C41 is Ektar 100, so possibly the least forgiving compared to the likes of Portra. I always expose this at box speed (unlike Portra). I used the same metering as I do for that with this roll of Ektachrome.

I was using the P67ii for this which I have had scans back from recently from my usual lab (CFL) and their feedback confirms that my exposures are good. I actually missed having the feedback with this roll of E6 to let me know of any such mistakes. The condition of the camera, lenses and meter are all fine. I posted a shot from the last roll I shot before this trip in the 'Show Us Your Film Shots' thread.

Weirdly, when I shot that little mini with mostly the Pentax, I shot a sheet of 5x4 Ektachrome at the same time which looks exposed really well! The composition failed on that one (upside down threw me) and I had metered exactly the same. SO I guess, until the film comes back through the post, I won't know 100% but yes, a little disheartened this evening with it.
Click to expand...
If your Pentax shutter speed is 3 or 4 stops slow you probably wouldn't notice if you're shooting negative.
 
To be honest, I think some of what is written these days about slide film tends to border on the apocryphal; "You have to get the exposure spot on or your results will be terrible", etc. If exposure latitude was that critical then I don't think colour slide photography would have taken off to the extent it did back in the 60s and 70s.

From the mid 60s to the mid 70s my father used to shoot Kodachrome 64, using a totally manual Pentina 35mm SLR, which had a defective selenium meter where you had to allow about 1/4 cm below the match needle target to get it about right in 'Sunny 16' type conditions. You were literally 'in the dark' if the sun went in!

Despite that, most of the slides he took came out well. If slide film was that sensitive then he'd have been lucky to achieve a 25% hit rate using Kodachrome, which was one of the least exposure latitude friendly slide films around at the time.

I used to use Ektachrome 100 and 200 ASA (IS0) E6 slide film in antique box cameras from junk shops in the late 70s, and I rarely experienced a very thin looking result, usually it was the opposite, with under exposure being the problem, particularly with 100 ISO film in shadow or on a dull day. To cock it up to the extent that you'd get nothing usable due to overexposure would probably take a good few stops of inaccuracy.

So yes, slide film (particularly the much lamented Kodachrome) would let you know if you'd got the exposure wrong a stop or two before 'amateur grade' C41 print film would, but I found it wouldn't usually totally wash out unless you were overexposing enough to be at least evident on colour neg film (certainly in those days).

Memories can be strange things though, and the experience of others may differ. So the advice to check your camera kit (for working aperture and accurate shutter times) must hold. Do keep us posted on progress (why am I always tempted to say 'on developments'?! )
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
To be honest, I think some of what is written these days about slide film tends to border on the apocryphal; "You have to get the exposure spot on or your results will be terrible", etc. If exposure latitude was that critical then I don't think colour slide photography would have taken off to the extent it did back in the 60s and 70s.

From the mid 60s to the mid 70s my father used to shoot Kodachrome 64, using a totally manual Pentina 35mm SLR, which had a defective selenium meter where you had to allow about 1/4 cm below the match needle target to get it about right in 'Sunny 16' type conditions. You were literally 'in the dak' if the sun went in!

Despite that, most of the slides he took came out well. If slide film was that sensitive then he'd have been lucky to achieve a 25% hit rate using Kodachrome, which was one of the least exposure latitude friendly slide films around at the time.

I used to use Ektachrome 100 and 200 ASA (IS0) E6 slide film in antique box cameras in the late 70s, and I rarely experienced a very thin looking result, usually it was the opposite, with under exposure being the problem, particularly with 100 ISO film in shadow or on a dull day. To cock it up to the extent that you'd get nothing usable due to overexposure would probably take a good few stops of inaccuracy.

So yes, slide film (particularly the much lamented Kodachrome) would let you know if you'd got the exposure wrong a stop or two before 'amateur grade' C41 print film would, but I found it wouldn't usually totally wash out unless you were overexposing enough to be apparent on colour neg film.

Memories can be strange things though, and the experience of others may differ. So the advice to check your camera kit (for working aperture and accurate shutter times) must hold. Do keep us posted on progress (why am I always tempted to say 'on developments'?! )
Click to expand...
My dad used Kodachrome and Sunny 16 to determine exposure. Mostly, they turned out fine.
 
Mr Badger said:
From the mid 60s to the mid 70s my father used to shoot Kodachrome 64, using a totally manual Pentina 35mm SLR, which had a defective selenium meter where you had to allow about 1/4 cm below the match needle target to get it about right in 'Sunny 16' type conditions. You were literally 'in the dark' if the sun went in!

Despite that, most of the slides he took came out well. If slide film was that sensitive then he'd have been lucky to achieve a 25% hit rate using Kodachrome, which was one of the least exposure latitude friendly slide films around at the time.

I used to use Ektachrome 100 and 200 ASA (IS0) E6 slide film in antique box cameras from junk shops in the late 70s, and I rarely experienced a very thin looking result, usually it was the opposite, with under exposure being the problem, particularly with 100 ISO film in shadow or on a dull day. To cock it up to the extent that you'd get nothing usable due to overexposure would probably take a good few stops of inaccuracy.
Click to expand...
I shot half a dozen rolls of Ektachrome and Kodachrome in New Zealand in 1974 in an Electro Spotmatic in pretty much "point and shoot" mode, with never a thought for any exposure compensation, etc. 95% of the slides were absolutely fine. I'm inclined to blame either the camera, the processing or the scanning, rather than the photographer or film in this case!
 
skysh4rk said:
Hmmm... Well, “good” exposures for colour negative would certainly have more latitude, even for Ektar, so not sure how meaningful that really is for judging exposure for slide film. That said, the Pentax has an electronically controlled shutter, so I would have thought a better chance for shutter speed accuracy. Sometimes P67’s can have shutter issues though. Have you tried firing the camera with the back open at a range of apertures and shutter speeds to see if there are any issues?

In the past, shooting a roll of slide film is how I’ve happened to discover issues with some of my own cameras that weren’t so apparent with colour negative (e.g., I discovered my Bronica 80mm lens was only firing at 1/500).
Click to expand...

I have fired it (before this) and everything does seem fine. There is a roll in there currently so I can't test it right now, however I am pretty sure my usual lab (CFL) would have informed me if it were over or underexposing more than say, a stop?

I won't rule it out, though but as I say I cannot check it for a few frames which I will try and fire off over the weekend.

excalibur2 said:
Well could it be a development fault at the lab., if it was how do you prove it................
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know how to prove it but also I don't want to start pointing blame at the lab yet when it could be equipment or user error at this stage.

Tom Pinchenzo said:
If your Pentax shutter speed is 3 or 4 stops slow you probably wouldn't notice if you're shooting negative.
Click to expand...

Seems a lot not to notice, Tom. With something like Ektar which I always meter and shoot at box speed, 3-4 stops would be the difference between 1/250 and 1/30-1/15 of a second. That would definitely show at scan time and the lab would have let me know by now. I had rolls back last week of Ektar as well as some Cinestill 800 which I metered and exposed as normal which were perfect.

FishyFish said:
Have you used this lab for stuff before @gazmorton2000 ? It'll be interesting to see how the transparencies look when you receive them.
Click to expand...

Nope, my first time with them but as I say, I am not blaming the lab yet. There are too many factors.

I have shot slide before but only a little but always with old cameras and always the same meter technique and it's been fine.

Mr Badger said:
To be honest, I think some of what is written these days about slide film tends to border on the apocryphal; "You have to get the exposure spot on or your results will be terrible", etc. If exposure latitude was that critical then I don't think colour slide photography would have taken off to the extent it did back in the 60s and 70s.

From the mid 60s to the mid 70s my father used to shoot Kodachrome 64, using a totally manual Pentina 35mm SLR, which had a defective selenium meter where you had to allow about 1/4 cm below the match needle target to get it about right in 'Sunny 16' type conditions. You were literally 'in the dark' if the sun went in!

Despite that, most of the slides he took came out well. If slide film was that sensitive then he'd have been lucky to achieve a 25% hit rate using Kodachrome, which was one of the least exposure latitude friendly slide films around at the time.

I used to use Ektachrome 100 and 200 ASA (IS0) E6 slide film in antique box cameras from junk shops in the late 70s, and I rarely experienced a very thin looking result, usually it was the opposite, with under exposure being the problem, particularly with 100 ISO film in shadow or on a dull day. To cock it up to the extent that you'd get nothing usable due to overexposure would probably take a good few stops of inaccuracy.

So yes, slide film (particularly the much lamented Kodachrome) would let you know if you'd got the exposure wrong a stop or two before 'amateur grade' C41 print film would, but I found it wouldn't usually totally wash out unless you were overexposing enough to be at least evident on colour neg film (certainly in those days).

Memories can be strange things though, and the experience of others may differ. So the advice to check your camera kit (for working aperture and accurate shutter times) must hold. Do keep us posted on progress (why am I always tempted to say 'on developments'?! )
Click to expand...
john.margetts said:
My dad used Kodachrome and Sunny 16 to determine exposure. Mostly, they turned out fine.
Click to expand...
ChrisR said:
I shot half a dozen rolls of Ektachrome and Kodachrome in New Zealand in 1974 in an Electro Spotmatic in pretty much "point and shoot" mode, with never a thought for any exposure compensation, etc. 95% of the slides were absolutely fine. I'm inclined to blame either the camera, the processing or the scanning, rather than the photographer or film in this case!
Click to expand...

Grouped these quotes together as they all address a similar thing. I am finding it hard to put my finger on why they are so overexposed when surely even a stop or close to would have given me something not completely blown like some of these are. It's the entire roll pretty much and they are all very, very blue.
It wasn't a high contrast scene either and I have some rolls of Ektar 100 of the same scene which will be back by Tuesday so I will be able to compare notes from the lab with those ones about exposure.

I think my frustrations were a little more with this due to the wait from shooting to receiving the scans combined with excitement for new film and then the added costs and dissapointment with a place that isn't easy to return to to shoot. Oh well, live and learn.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
and they are all very, very blue
Click to expand...

Looking on the net and an overall blue cast could be a development fault for E6 film.....Anyway when you get the pos back you can examine them and could put a neg in your scanner to see if the lab's scan was at fault.
 
Last edited:
gazmorton2000 said:
I have fired it (before this) and everything does seem fine. There is a roll in there currently so I can't test it right now, however I am pretty sure my usual lab (CFL) would have informed me if it were over or underexposing more than say, a stop?
Click to expand...

I don’t think one or two stops over will get much mention for colour negative as it won’t really affect scan.

For what it’s worth, I usually shoot Portra 800 at 2-3 stops over and metered for shadows and it comes back with no comments regarding overexposure from CFL.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
I don’t think one or two stops over will get much mention for colour negative as it won’t really affect scan.

For what it’s worth, I usually shoot Portra 800 at 2-3 stops over and metered for shadows and it comes back with no comments regarding overexposure from CFL.
Click to expand...

Well I have asked them the question with regards to Ektar and if they would notice any camera problems or significant overexposures.

I have also messaged the lab who developed and scanned this roll as I need to identify the problem but looking at the slides which I now have back, I am thinking it could be user error as they are mostly all completely overexposed with completely clear areas.

Sigh.

So much for shooting more slide film. Thanks for all the help, everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top