Bold Color. Vivid Detail. Chrome is back.

[abrewer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hinted at a year ago,

 

Promised for January;

 

Finally it's here:

 

New KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME Film E100

[TomB_tx]

I have mine on order.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fatihayoglu]

Anybody knows where we can get it in UK?

[Steve Ricoh]

Anybody knows where we can get it in UK?

Agphotographic have it listed for delivery early October, they're taking orders, c £13 a roll.

[jmahto]

It is a good news to have more choices, however I checked the data sheet and compared it to Ektar 100 (MTF characteristic). I am trying to understand why Ektachrome will be preferred. It is not that we are doing optical projection for viewing pleasure anymore (my projector is dead for some time). If the end goal is scan or print then I don't see any advantage of Kodachrome over Ektar (without knowing about color response). What is your thought?

[Ambro51]

Get a slide projector.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have pulled out my Pradovit projector a few times recently, and there is still something special about projected slide film. I also use a digital projector for lectures, but even with scans from slides the real projected film seems more vibrant. 

Slide projection isn't very convenient, but I'll clearly do it more when my Ektachrome arrives.

[fatihayoglu]

It is a good news to have more choices, however I checked the data sheet and compared it to Ektar 100 (MTF characteristic). I am trying to understand why Ektachrome will be preferred. It is not that we are doing optical projection for viewing pleasure anymore (my projector is dead for some time). If the end goal is scan or print then I don't see any advantage of Kodachrome over Ektar (without knowing about color response). What is your thought?

 

I personally think, scanning slide is easier than negatives. I scan my films with DSLR and converting those negatives into positives can take some time until you get rid of the orange mask. However with slides, no issue there, you hit the shutter of the DSLR, voila, your film is on your screen (I scan tethered)

[jmahto]

Get a slide projector.

I have. Bulb is out. Not sure whether I can find a replacement. 

 

But I do agree that there is nothing like a slide show on a big screen (or white wall).

[jmahto]

I personally think, scanning slide is easier than negatives. I scan my films with DSLR and converting those negatives into positives can take some time until you get rid of the orange mask. However with slides, no issue there, you hit the shutter of the DSLR, voila, your film is on your screen (I scan tethered)

Yes, I didn't think of that. I scanned my old slides using mainly DSLR and it is quick. 

[carbon_dragon]

It looks good! I was also pretty amazed of what their 3200 black and white can do. I remember when 3200 meant 2475 recording film.

 

Can I ask where you guys send your film for processing? Do you do it yourself, bring it somewhere locally? Send it away by mail? I’m in Atlanta, if it matters.

[sblitz]

have 5 rolls on order . . . judging by the instagram, admittedly not a great way to judge, the colors look less blue/green than the old Ektachrome and closer to Kodachrome. Close wins no cigar, but I am going to happily take, try it, enjoy it, and see how far I can push it!!!!!! 

[sblitz]

It looks good! I was also pretty amazed of what their 3200 black and white can do. I remember when 3200 meant 2475 recording film.

 

Can I ask where you guys send your film for processing? Do you do it yourself, bring it somewhere locally? Send it away by mail? I’m in Atlanta, if it matters.

I shoot the 3200 indoors at a jazz club in NYC and love, trying it outside now just to see ..... I send my work to the color house on lafayette st in NYC, they accept mail, etc. good people, good turn around .... 

[sblitz]

It is a good news to have more choices, however I checked the data sheet and compared it to Ektar 100 (MTF characteristic). I am trying to understand why Ektachrome will be preferred. It is not that we are doing optical projection for viewing pleasure anymore (my projector is dead for some time). If the end goal is scan or print then I don't see any advantage of Kodachrome over Ektar (without knowing about color response). What is your thought?

I think scanning without reversing is better ..... and hey buy a bulb! :-)

[adan]

It is a good news to have more choices, however I checked the data sheet and compared it to Ektar 100 (MTF characteristic). I am trying to understand why Ektachrome will be preferred. It is not that we are doing optical projection for viewing pleasure anymore (my projector is dead for some time). If the end goal is scan or print then I don't see any advantage of Kodachrome over Ektar (without knowing about color response). What is your thought?

 

Like sblitz says, scanner software has to have really tricky algorithms to figure out what particular orangy-red color in a color negative is actually blue-green, as opposed to "plain" green or yellow-green. The base orange dye tint varies from film to film.

 

Slide films, because they will be the finished picture (no intermediate printing step to correct things), have to be more accurate or at least consistent from the get-go. You and other users would definitely notice a slide that was 10 points too red - but can you pick out a color neg that is 10 points too red just by looking at it? I can't. And scanners can't either - too dumb - they just reproduce what is handed to them.

 

(Which, BTW, is why Kodak dropped all slide films for a time - really expensive to keep the quality high enough so that you can show this year's color slide next to last year's color slide, and have them match.)

 

So your scanner just has to figure out "green is green" with slide film.

 

Another aspect is that in the scanning-reversal process with negs, grain tends to get kind of "dirty" - a smooth color ends up with more speckles of all the colors, rather than a consistent set of speckles of more-or-less one color.

 

I can't explain that in serious photo-chemistry or scanning-tech terms, except to note that in a negative printed or scanned to a positive, the darker grain specks are really "the holes between the grain" in the film (reversed, remember?). Dark speckles come from blank spots in the negative.

 

By the same token, to my eye anyway, a few tiny black dust specks (in a scan of a slide) are less obnoxious than a few tiny white dust specks (in a scan from a negative).

 

Here is a rough comparison - same Nikon scanner, ISO 100 neg film (left - the "old" 2001 Kodak Press 100) vs. ISO 100 slide film (Provia). Magnified 400%. The blacks in the neg image show more color-confetti grain than the blacks from the slide film, which shows subtler speckles of various shades of near-black. An updated comparison of "new" Ektar and "new" Ektachrome would be more useful, of course.

 

But let's just say that in the pre-digital days, pros mostly only shot color negs 1) on larger formats 2) for weddings and portraits. Color slides dominated for editorial, advertising, landscape and so on - because they were "known" to produce better color and a cleaner image, MTF notwithstanding. I never shot color neg in 35mm - except for a brief time at the paper, which includes the image-left below, which was enough to drive me back to slide film.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 28, 2018 by adan

[MarkP]

Great. I'm off to buy some film.

[M9reno]

In the UK Silverprint has a 10% discount for preorders. I just ordered 10 packs.

[fatihayoglu]

According my dealer, there is only one pallet of film coming over to Europe for the late October and they will distribute that one pallet film to the whole Europe. I hope this is not true