Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
frame-it

Ektachrome 64T

Recommended Posts

I have used that film in the past, but have no images available at this point. It is the tungsten variation of the typical Kodak Ektachrome slide film of yesteryear, which means it will give reasonably correct colors only in situations with predominantly artificial (tungsten) light. In daylight use, colors will be completely off, but there was a correction filter available to also allow using this film under daylight conditions, if needed.

Cheers, Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, this film has adjusted chemistry to make it less sensitive to red and green (= yellow) light than regular Ektachrome 100 (thus the lower ISO of 64). Effectively (but not literally) this film has a built-in blueish 80A filter.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/54501-REG/Tiffen_5280A_52mm_80A_Color_Conversion.html

It is thus "pre-white-balanced" to remove yellow from pictures shot specifically under studio tungsten floodlights (3200°K white balance) - and produce "normal" colors under that yellowish light.

(NB: 3200°K is the standard color-temp for motion picture and studio-still floodlights. It is less yellow than low-wattage room lights, but substantially yellower than daylight or electronic flash)

Shot under that intended light, it will (or should) look exactly like Ektachrome 100 shot with electronic flash, or under sunlight. It will not work perfectly with lower-wattage (<150W) artificial light, which is still too yellow (and with today's LED light bulbs, Bog knows what the color will look like!)

Shot under daylight (5500-6000°K) the pictures will be very blue. Some people use it that way for the moody blue-dusk coloring even at high noon. An 85B Wratten filter will "add back" the yellow-orange color to produce correct color under sunlight - but at that point, one is better off just using the daylight-balanced E100 in the first place.

Like wizard, I haven't shot it in decades. Here's a shot made with EPY about 1983, under medium-high-wattage (150w) indoor tungsten room lights (not Leica - Nikon F + 28mm f/2 Nikkor-N)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used it commercially with tungsten lights until I went to digital. Wonderful film for tungsten, best grain structure of any of the Ektachromes was awful under daylight with an 85B. Below is a commercial photo of a medical instrument, not a Leica photo, 4x5 Cambo, Linhof 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 back 120 Apo ED Nikkor. It was used a a 3x6 ft poster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By frame-it
      Got this new film..images on the lomo site looked quite interesting

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
       
    • By shirubadanieru
      Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone has used the Sonnar 50mm f1.5 on a M film body and can tell me if the focus shift is noticeable? 
      I used to have this lens and loved it's small size and bokeh, but the focus shift on my digital M was too much so I decided to sell it.
      Thanks in advance!
    • By shoots
      SOS HELP!!!
      I dropped my Leica M4 and according to the NYC Camera Doctor repair team, the prism that creates the ghost image in the rangefinder is dislocated and needs to be replaced. They suggested that I send it directly into Leica for repairs, becuase the rangefinder is a complicated mechanism they wern't equipt to fix. They also let me know that Leica, located in New Jersey, dosen't do specific repairs and will want to do a full tune-up. Money is a concern, and I'm not prepared to pay $1000-ish if I can at all avoid it. I just want my range-finder to be functional.
      Has anyone had rangefinder work done, espeically on an M4? Would you advise having this work done by Leica or an outside repair person, such as DAG? Any experience or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
      E
    • By leic.a.nik
      Moin zusammen,
       
      ich habe seit ca. 4 Wochen das Problem, dass meine M2 manchmal den Film beim Spannen nicht richtig transportiert. 
      Die Bilder überlappen sich dann. Man merkt es beim Spannen, der Spannhebel springt dann.
      Der Fehler tritt meistens auf wenn der Zähler bereits bei 20 -25 Bildern steht. Ich habe das Gefühl, dass der Film zwischendurch die Spannung verliert oder über die Zähne rutscht. 
      Ist jemanden so etwas schon mal passiert oder kennt sogar jemand die Lösung?
      Im Moment elf ich mir in dem ich ein Bild mit Objektivdeckel mache wenn ich merke dass der Film nicht transportiert wurde. 
      Gerade bei teuren oder alten Schätzen verliere ich so meist 4-6 Bilder was ehrlich gesagt sehr schade ist.
      Gerade bei Filmen wie einen Fuji Superia Reala 100 oder Kodak Ektachrome 160t 
       
      Die kleine ist mein Ein und alles. 
      Bitte helft mir. 
       
      Mit freundlichen Grüßen 
       
      Nik 
       
       
       
    • By camalogica
      Hi everybody,
      I’m a computer science engineer who has been working, as a hobby, the last three years in a new, more precise, way of recreating film look with digital cameras.
      I’m posting here for feedback, in case anybody of you would like to test the application (with the M9) and show the results and your opinions.
      I usually shoot film photography but also I like the comfort of digital. The problem is that I’ve never been happy with existing film emulations. Mainly because of that, because they are emulations instead of simulations.

      METHOD USED
      For doing so, instead of doing a generic conversion for every camera, I’ve done a specialised conversion for the Leica M9 based on simulating the chemical process and spectrum response, instead of applying curves and other stuff.
      In the end, I thought, if analog and digital are just two instruments which capture light, I thought, maybe is there any mathematical conversion to make the digital to look like film?
      I mean, if I take the same photo with analog and digital, under exact same conditions (light / aperture / exposition /…) could I make them look exactly the same?
      It’s based on chemical simulation and the Leica M9’s response to spectrum. Then LUTs and finally some extra calibration. I think that it could be improved because I’ve used home made or open source tools for calibrating and so on, which are far from perfect.
      EXAMPLES (Analog vs Converted Digital)
      Following are some examples of Superia 200 and TriX 400.
      Click in each photo to see high resolution.
      DNGs shoots taken with Leica M9 (left), and FILM shoots taken with Minolta CLE (right) at same conditions (aperture / exposition / ISO).
      All shoots taken with Zeiss Biogon T* ZM 35mm f/2.
      The examples show several photos, which are the following:
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      original DNG      |                        |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      converted DNG     |     scanned FILM       |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      developed DNG     |     developed FILM     |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      For the generated simulated negative TIFF file and the scanned TIFF file I’ve applied exactly the same develop parameters.
      TriX 400 - 1
      TriX 400 - 2
      TriX 400 - 3
      Superia 200 - 1
      Superia 200 - 2
      Superia 200 - 3
      Superia 200 - 4
      Superia 200 - 5
      Superia 200 - 6

      CONCLUSIONS
      Tonal range - Biggest difference between digital and film
      Dynamic range - Digital is faaar more detailed in the blacks, film never gets burnt, meanwhile digital gets burn quite fast.
      Film has more microcontrast, it's more sharpen
      Digital is a little bit more contrast after developing, I imagine it’s because it reach white level faster, then, when doing autolevels with the developing program, as a result, it’s a more contrast image.

      DOWNLOAD
      I'm having a console application ready, if interest is shown it will be ready quite soon!
      CAVEHEATS / LIMITATIONS
      The program only accept DNG, because I need all the light captured by the camera, instead of a JPG already converted and really dependent on camera self made adjustments.
      The program only accepts photos taken at the ISO of the certain film that is gonna be used. For example, for TriX400 it will accept only Leica M9 DNGs at 400 ISO. I’ve also done tests with ISO 200 and 800, and the results were quite satisfactory but, for complexity reasons, I prefer to let it be native film ISO for the moment.
      Highlights are not always correct, and sometimes they look weird, mainly in color film. This is due to bayer sensor pattern and its different intensity response (for Red, Green and Blue channels).
      FUTURE (& PAST) WORK
      Leica M10-D
      Leica M8.2

      THANKS
      Super thanks to the creator of LibRaw, a wonderful C++ library for working with RAW files.
      Any questions I’m open to answer 🙂
      Best regards everybody.
      Tomás AKA “Camalogica”
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy