The Only Colour Film that I Actually Like
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Generally I only shoot black and white, that's just personal preference. However, there's one colour film that I will go out of my way to shoot, and that's Kodak Ektachrome.
Want to support the channel? Consider buying me a coffee. (I really appreicate the support, thank you!)
www.buymeacoff...
Viewing large format colour positive film on a Lightbox is a photographic experience like no other.
I came across your channel by chance. Well, I follow many on analogue photography but I have never seen such precision in everything. Attention to detail for us who see content, attention to detail, to music. They are very well made videos. Now I noticed that you make about one video a month. I'm not interested in those channels that post videos almost daily and I hope you can continue to make many more. I will then try to comment on each one, asking you for impressions or doubts. Guy you are very prepared. Keep it up. You are my favourite
When you've shot this film on 120 6x9 it's hard to go back to anything else.
I can only imagine - how many exposures can you get with 1 roll of 120?
@@chrisguli2865 6x9 usually gets you 8 shots.
@@chrisguli2865 Exactly 8 shots. Which is perfect. When I load the GW690, I typically intend to shoot the entire roll on the one subject matter I want to photograph that day, so 8 shots gives me enough room to try different exposures and perspectives, even allowing to bracket if I want the extra security. Cost is not an issue. Film is expensive, everyone knows that, when I use film to go out and shoot, the results matter, not the cost.
@@thedarkslide You can get 10 6x8. ( 56 x 74-77)
6x8 rotating back for RB covers 75x75mm, that's why some lenses are much bigger then for 6x6 ( 56x56).
It's hard not to love that bluish cast
Really nice shots! Great breakdown 🙌
It is a good idea to bracket exposure in at least 1/2 stop increments outdoors when you work with reversal film. Back in the day in the studio shooting 8x10" chromes we would bracket in 1/3 stop increments. We could easily do that because we used tungsten lighting and a counter clock to count our exposures. We usually used an aperture of f/45 to f/64 with very slow exposures. To bracket we would just multiply 1.3 times the previous exposure or else divide by 1.3 for an under exposure bracket. We would keep it one stop over and one stop under in 1/3 stop increments, so that's seven exposures for one shot. This was for product photography back in the day of film. We took readings with an incident light meter not a reflective light meter that would be in your camera. An incident meter reads the light at the subject no matter if the subject is dark or light. A reflective meter reads light reflecting off the subject which varies due to how light or dark or even the color of the subject. You can also read light ratios with an incident light meter.
Can you please explain what are “light ratios” using the Incident part of the light meter. Your idea of one obtaining different REFLECTIVE meter readings due to the colour of the subject’s is new to me. I am glad that you said that. Maybe “light ratios” are light readings from different parts of the face or subject ? Thanks for your comment.
RS. Canada
I shot a lot of Ektachrome years ago. This stuff is five times as expensive but I may have to try it... maybe.
I love Ektachrome. Shot my first roll in 2019 and was impressed with the results. It does well in more even light 👌🏾
It is nice...when the light is right. The cost, as you say a few times, is hard to get over. Here in the UK, a pro pack of 5 x 120 rolls cost between £100-£120 currently. And then to get it processed and scanned by a good quality lab is about another £17 per roll. So call it £200 per 60 frames. I am a heavy investor in film compared to some, and even I struggle to stretch to it unless there's some commercial gain in doing so. The last pro pack I bought for personal use lasted 1 year! I used so infrequently. As you say at the end, the best way to view is on a light table. The two rolls I shot at the weekend looked great on that. Like little sheets of glass.
Film is not quite dead yet! I used to shoot a lot of Ektachrome (and Kodachrome) back in the 80s and early 90s. I even developed my own rolls back then a couple of times (E-6 kit I got when B&H was a hole in the wall), just for the experience - I nailed the exposure as well as the developing process. I have a case of slides from those days I have to scan but I agree with you there's nothing like a projected image from a slide. I would shoot with it if not for the cost, but on the other hand each exposure must be carefully evaluated - you might get me back into film in 2024! I have 3 OM cameras to try out! Film really disciplines you - not like shooting off 100 shots in a few seconds with digital!
Excellent comment
In the earlier years in my career, the standard for my clients (magazines) were 120 "tranny" transparency/color reversal). To think I would be 3 to 4 boxes a week till about 2005. Cheap as chips compared to now. My poison was Kodak Ektachrome 100S and Ektachrome VS ("vivid saturarion") with an 80A warmup filter for portraits. Ektachrome effectively is closer to 90 ISO, so 1/3 of a stop overexposure would nail it - essential to use a lightmeter :). I also used 100 SW (warmer emultion), but for decor it would be too much. For every roll of film, you would burn 3 to 4 Polaroids as well for tests. Those were the days!! E6 films were a large reason pros took so long to take to digital, because no amount of tweaking in early digital could give you the richness of a drum scanned slide frame. Shooting a 4x5 of it just gives you goosebumps.
For 80A, I think what you meant was 81A which is an amber warming filter. The 80A blue filter was a color conversion filter that would filter out the amber tungsten lighting in daylight film and neutralize it. However, you lose 2 f/stops with an 80A. I think with an 81A you would probably lose 1/3 stop at the most. If you are a portrait photographer shooting daylight film under tungsten illumination I would recommend the blue 80C. Two reasons: 1) It will not fully convert to a neutral but will give you a warm skin tone, and that is what you want in portraiture, for the same reason you use 81 light balancing filters for people outdoors. 2) You only lose one f/stop because the 80C is not as dark as the 80A.
I shot hundreds of rolls of Ektachrome (probaby ASA 64) via a Nikkormat FT2 and fairly quickly found that, with that camera, with that film I had to underexpose by a quarter to a third of a stop to get better colour saturation.
I mentioned this to a friend who had a Nikon F2S Photomic and he'd found the same, so it wasn't just my camera's meter.
If you like Ektachrome, you would have loved Kodachrome. Unfortunately, K64 film will probably never be brought back because it required special equipment to develop. With that said, I’d give anything to shoot a roll of Kodachrome today.
Kodachrome was magical. I really wish they still made that film.
In the 1980s I used the Ektachrome 100 with a Voigtländer Bessa II (6x9)... It was gorgeous!
I shot a few rolls of Sensia before it disappeared and that is a filmstock I miss. It handled skin tones very well, while remaining good with other colors, something that’s important to me. Scanned well also.
I hope the current Ekta holds up better than the old. Our old family images shot on that are today CLEAR … transparent. The image mostly just dissolved over the decades.
Of course that never happened with Kodachrome due to its nastier chems.
I’m not yet sold on the current Ekta. We’ll have to disagree that blues are not harmed with a magenta cast.
I shoot black and white film 90 % of the time. BUT, I am now trying a colour film for family portraits to see what colour is like. It is Kodak Porta 160 and I invite people’s opinions on this film. It is FUN to try different things.
RS. Canada
Portra 160 is a good choice for portraits. It’s a high quality film stock that renders skin tones nicely and has very fine grain .
Kodak ProImage 100 is much cheaper as an alternative and produces very crisp images with more “realistic “ yet still vivid colours, portra is kinder in how it represents faces in a portrait though. I would not recommend ektachrome for portraits unless you have good , even , predictable light and are very confident in your metering
I wish they would bring back a 400 iso.....
Thank you
I haven't shot colour film for a very long time, unfortunately.
It's much cheaper in 120 for some reason
That is true.
it's also available as Super8 😉
Right! Thanks for point it out!
On 220 this is beautiful film shot with my Wide Rollei 55mm F4 TLR superb detail.
you make incredible videos. Very high quality video production. Are you editing them all yourself? Either way great work.
Thanks! Yes, I do edit them myself.
Dundee : I have stock piled boxes of FUJI and Ektar film , in freezer in 4x5
Man, I love this color film so much.
My bank account prefers lomo purple though
you should shoot more color film :P You'd learn to love gold 200 if you shot it enough
I can make my digital files look exactly like ektachrome.. I don't think it's worth its hassle...
While Kodak Ektachrome might me a good film (I've used it in its few iterations), it's NOTHING compared to professional line of colour reversal films Kodak used to make, and it's unlikely they'll be brought back, ever, like for example Kodak Ektachrome professional 100S. To my view, that film was even better than Fuji's Velvia 100, and that was damn hard to achieve...
I have a couple of cartons of old 35mm Ektachrome 64 from the 90s. Let me know if you'd like to try one
ha..you haven't shot with Kodachrome 25!
Nope, sadly too young. I just missed out on. My first rolls of film were around 2011.
I liked Kodachrome-X even better.
@@noahvonhatten lucky you ..that film had even less latitude that Extachrome … but zero grain but if needed heaps of light .. amazing that Haas, and Egglestone could produce some gorgeous photos with that film stock..
100 iso with not much latitude. You can have it
Thanks! I’ll keep enjoying!