Kodak Ektachrome 100 (E100) Slide Film Review | All About Film

[@mfbfreak]

Absolutely beautiful colors. This film is everything i've ever wanted - except for the extremely high cost.

[@lewaldfish]

Seeing a 4x5 slide in-person has got to be a stellar experience. Now, an 8x10 slide...sublime.

[@DavidHancock]

Absolutely. I love a 4x5 slide. The 4x5 sources I took here made me want an 8x10 camera just to shoot slides.

[@pilsplease7561]

@@DavidHancock I shoot slide film on a old speed graphic and 4x5 is crazy. But i mostly shoot 6x9 and 35mm

[@FirstOnRaceDayCapri2904]

There usted to be even 11x14

[@pilsplease7561]

@@FirstOnRaceDayCapri2904 not really.

[@danielcoburn7696]

Great video. Informative and educational

[@Notemug]

This is quickly becoming my favorite YT channel!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@adktowerboyadk6238]

Thank you for the time and effort put into making this informational video. You have given this film a very good test and done so with no partiality, which seems to be a rare thing these days. I really like the "E100 as a Ferrari at a Corvette show", as this does describe the film quite well vs. earlier versions of Ektachrome. I have not shot as much E100 as you, but have found the film to be an improvement over the E100G in terms of its neutrality when exposed at box speed. Cheers!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I am glad to hear when these videos are received well and when people confirm that I'm being fair. I do my best not to have a bias, or to have as little a bias as possible, whenever I review something.

[@thomask1424]

The color reproduction is truly spectacular. The reds! The reds!

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely!

[@craigfouche]

Thanks again Dave for another great video, your film reviews are always top notch! Greets from 🇿🇦

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Craig!

[@MidwestBriar]

Thanks for the video. Growing up I was a HUGE Kodak fan, especially their e-6 ( I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Fuji camp). I have been very hesitant to try this fearing disappointment and because knowing Kodak it's probably already discontinued. ( "I Know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart.") Looks like I know what I want for Christmas.

[@DavidHancock]

Insofar as I know, Kodak plans to keep selling this. I know that the price is about to go up in January. Everything that I've heard is that the stock is very popular, but I don't have any specific information about whether it's profitable or not. I do hope they keep making it because it's a bit of a unique offering on the film market.

[@alexanderpopov4691]

Thank you for thr effort and all the information put into this video. It is very educating and selfexplaning the results I had myself with Kodak E100 (35mm and 120mm). Firstly, I agree, this film is amazingly good, the image quality possible to get with this film stock is supreme. Itself just to look at the developed slide 6x7 as if to look at the 4k mobile phone screen. Color is outstanding, resolution is fantastic. I have to say however this film is very unforgiving. And it is not just about exposure latitude but how soft or hard the light is. Even if to meter exposure properly when the light is hard it affects, during overcast light then again some trouble. This is true for slide film in general (had same experience with fujifilm), but most of the time it is so challenging, well at least to me, to get a skin tone look really nice. Once you get it, it blows negative film away, but it is not easy to achieve. Even with flashlight support.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! And yes, it's unforgiving. By slide film standards, it's very forgiving, but as a rule slide films require a tone of technical precision and a good light meter (or a good eye for the lighting in a scene) to obtain a perfect exposure. Any variation and the images are hard to impossible to recover.

[@Emma-zk6it]

Excellent video! Nowadays I'm mainly shoot ektar and Ektachrome, this film is unforgiving I can't imagine how people back in the day shoot with it without a good light meter. Sometimes i struggle getting decent results even with the maxxum 9 14 segment honeycomb pattern metering.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Slide film is definitely more finicky about exposure than any other kind of film. Back in the day pros who used slide film bracketed their exposures so that at least one would be accurate.

[@sivaramansivaswami6233]

Thanks Dave for the time and effort you spend on these wonderful reviews!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@Analogbrain]

A very thorough and nice video, and great pictures again, David. Yep, it's my favourite medium, analog or digital, to capture my images with. My only wish is it could have been cheaper, and, for this autumn, more widely available. I was also surprised when I found that I prefered it to Velvia 50. The old Ektachrome 64, however, was no favourite, blueish and grainy, Kodachrome, Agfachrome and Fujichrome were better alternatives back in the days.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Kalle, and yeah, film, wow. I just yesterday bought the film for the annual photo contest prizes and the cheap rolls were USD $12. The Kodak Gold was $17. Film prices are unreal right now.

[@RJMPictures]

David I appreciate you. Thanks for this!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, RJM!

[@ceritat625]

Very good video, learned a few things. Lovely pictures, especially the ones taken in Mexico. I shot my very first rolls of E100 a year ago (in the Yucatan), and even with my amateur skills, using a consumer camera (EOS 620) almost all of my shots turned out beautifully, none of them blown out, with a few badly underexposed (I had no idea what I was doing)! I LOVE this film stock, expensive or not, it truly is worth it's weight in slide film, not that there is much to choose from. I came to photography late enough to have missed the Kodachrome boat, even though I was messing about with film on occasion during those years :). Thanks for a very informative video.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I agree and I really love this stock a lot.

[@sontiyo7113]

thank kodak for their efforts, but yet another price increase next year is hard to swallow for my student budget great video as usual. Ive been itching to try out some slide film for a while now, but the price point has been holding me back. This film stock is a lot cheaper than velvia so im intruiged

[@peskymacaw9033]

Same here. I don't know what's on the Kodak people head, what do they keep increasing their prices? I know about the supply and demand rule... but this is only hurting and industry that's just gaining ground again!

[@VariTimo]

Ektachrome is really something. I’ve also shot Provia and was just blown away by how life like some of the images looked. You really got make sure you expose them properly. Underexposure at night or indoors can work when enough light is hitting the subject. And I’ve gotten an image with Provia under street lamps with an f1.4 lens and a 15th of a second. Where I exposed the same scene at 5.000 ASA, 50th of a second and f2 for video. Scanning with a digital camera and a light table gives you a lot more headroom.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I feel you on the budget. This is the Patek Phillippe of films, and I am going to miss the heck out of using it as I focus on the films for next year's class of AAF videos. :D

[@DavidHancock]

I have to imagine that it's raw materials costs. Silver, especially, has gone up in price. And often there are chemistry changes due to chemical environmental regulations. I recall a few years ago Ilford had a problem where a chemical used in one of their films was banned in the UK. They made as much of that stock as they could leading to the ban while sinking a ton into R&D to develop a new chemistry for the film that would perform in the same way. And, I think, that latter part is the one of the hardest parts of making films. If a vital component is suddenly unavailable then the scientists get to work figuring out an alternative that allows the film to perform in the manner that photographers expect and are used to. Unfortunately for R&D budgets, film formulae can be a moving target. So my best guess is that it's simply an economic reality of finding the components needed to make films that perform the way Kodak films perform.

[@VariTimo]

@@DavidHancock I agree that it's one of the nicest films out there, but one day you'll shoot some Kodak 5219 and get it developed in ECN2 chemicals and everything will change. There is nothing this film doesn't do at least really well.

[@chainsaw2046]

Really enjoyed the video, I'd have to say this is my favorite stock for portraits, hands down

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I agree. I can't think of one that's better for people, even Portra. There's something very lifelike in how people look with this film.

[@FirstOnRaceDayCapri2904]

@@DavidHancock I also agree, Ektachrome delivers to my eye the best skin tones of any film, Portra makes skin tones from my experience a little too yellow no matter what i do with it.

[@belgocanuck123]

Awesome review ! Thank you !

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@Kerberos2233]

Thank you very much for the massive effort that went into this cool video! To be honest though I have to say that I prefer the lab scans because they look much more natural to me. Your DSLR scans have an HDR tonemapping sort of look. For example the picture at 7:56 has very pleasing colors to me only needing some small brightness contrast adjustment. In the DSLR scanned version has less beautiful/natural colors and also less separation in the colors of the trees. But that is a matter of taste, I guess.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I do agree with you on the HDR-ish look, which I generally don't go for. In this case the slides in person show detail that's way closer to the DSLR images than the scans. But I do agree that in some images, like the one you specified and the other old mine image before it, that I like the colors in the lab scan a bit more.

[@g1234538]

Hey Dave, your breakdown and review is wonderfully thorough and I really appreciate it! You go into more detail about how the characteristics relate to the specs which is also helpful in giving examples of how the curves show what you'll get. Just curious about a couple things: you did mention Kodak didn't have specifications about dynamic range but isn't the Density by Log Exposure curve how that's shown in all spec sheets? Also, your scans compared to the lab scans were a great comparison. Especially with how much shadow and highlight detail were clipped or at least buried in the lab scans! How did you go about adjusting them? You said you didnt change contrast or saturation, but the labs scans are quite different form your DSLR scans. Were you trying to match how it looked to your eye or do something else? How did each compare to the physical slide by your eye? Regarding grain focusing, ever try putting it under a microscope? The super loupe?? You say it kicked Velvia 50 off its throne of your favorite film, that's quite understandable because Velvia is quite wild lol. But how do you think E100 compares to Provia, which is more neutral than Velvia? And that it formerly came in 400 speed! Imagine if Kodak brought back a fast slide film, omg... Thank you for making such an awesome video!!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! On the log exposure question, that's a good catch and a mistake on my part. Yes, that graph can be used for an understanding of dynamic range. For the scans, a HUGE initial difference is the use of a DSLR versus a scanner. No scanner will keep up with an digital camera made in the last five or seven years. A brand-new digital camera will far outpace a scanner. For adjustments, I skip the contrast slider but will adjust the highlight and shadow sliders, which affect the detail in those areas, and the white and dark brightness, which has an effect of amplifying contrast across a more granular range of details rather than the way that adjusting the contrast slider affects everything in the image. So it's maybe more accurate to say it's a matter of terminology -- I skip the contrast slider. Then I also bump up the sharpness in raw -- 1% for ever every megapixel of my sensor rounded up to the nearest 5, so 35% for my Pentax K-1 and Sony A7IV. Sharpness enhancement also makes contrast pop on the pixel level, and that has a major effect on the fine details in clouds against a sky when paired with dropping the highlights and boosting the shadows. I have not put film under a microscope, no. Since I digitize exclusively with a digital camera, I use live view and maximum magnification as a digital grain focuser and that ensures that my focus point is the film's emulsion. I'm still shooting Provia for that future video, but I tend to like E100 a bit more because it's a warmer-tone film (at least my results from it have been warmer tone.) I tend to like images that lean slightly more to the amber side of the amber-blue spectrum and E100 does that while also balancing overall color tones.

[@RedStarRogue]

I also DSLR scan my medium format slides. I find that the camera always scans them with a blue cast, especially Ektachrome, even when I adjust my white balance to a manual color temperature. I end up having to add warmth and saturation in Lightroom to fix it.

[@DavidHancock]

What kind of light do you use?

[@RedStarRogue]

@@DavidHancock Gaomon LED light pad

[@DavidHancock]

@@RedStarRogue Makes sense, those are very blue lights. A full-spectrum bulb might give better color accuracy.

[@epstar83]

Awesome work! Been using E100 a reasonable amount and enjoying it! Only on 35mm... though have some 4x5 waiting to be shot.

[@DavidHancock]

It's amazing as a sheet film.

[@VariTimo]

I was able to focus on the grain both with Ektachrome and Acros when I was scanning them with my Canon M50. Maybe it has something to do with how your camera magnifies?

[@DavidHancock]

Could be. The K-3 is a pretty old camera.

[@surreallife777]

I purchased a lot of Kodak E-100 VS years ago when they had sale on it. On 35 mm film have you ever done any large prints like 30 x 40 or larger? What’s your opinion on doing large prints with this film on 35 mm and what do you think the maximum print size is?

[@DavidHancock]

Enlargement size is based on a few factors. first up is unit of measure; if you're talking metric you're fine. If you're talking Imperial, then only a handful of films are up to the task. Key is the film type -- some 35mm films can enlarge to poster size and other cannot. Also enlarger lens, camera lens, and using both at their peak sharpness with no camera or enlarger shake are all important, too. So let's assume your technique is spot-on and your gear includes some very sharp lenses. Then is comes down to film. E100, no, this film is too soft to enlarge from 35mm to 30X40 (I assume inches). The films I know of that can reliably enlarge that large include Adox CMS 20 II, RPX 25 (that's actually a probably, not a guarantee), CineStill 50D, Kodak 5207, and Kodak 2383. The last two are motion stocks and very high quality. There may be others, but I don't know which ones they are (probably archival and cinema stocks.) Now, if you're talking 30X40 CM, then enlarge away, any 35mm film can do that easily.

[@stuartbaines2843]

Thanks Dave for your comprehensive review of Kodaks E100 Saved me some money on 5x4 👍 I don't think this film is for me Colour seems off the historic Kodak. The blue cast was not nice. Do you think simple filters could pull this back ?

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and I would think so. Other commenters have said that a minimal amount of warmth in filters during exposure improve results significantly in terms of warmth.

[@FirstOnRaceDayCapri2904]

I've been waiting for this review for a long time! I personally like it very much, it's very good and compared to Provia 100F i cannot decide which i like more. I use only slide film for my photography as i feel it is vastly superior to any color negative film given you know how to work with it. I still prefer Velvia 50 for landscapes, but i use E100 and Provia 100F for other stuff. PD : I prefer the Scanner scans over the DSLR ones.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! The scans section has gotten a lot of mixed reviews. It's interesting to me how many people prefer those.

[@FirstOnRaceDayCapri2904]

@@DavidHancock I have my lab do the scanning on my 35mm film. They use a Nikon Coolscan LS-5000 and the results are phenomenal, it gives on average about 20Mp scans and file sizes between 15-20Mb. The scans are very sharp with lots of detail and very accurate color. You can check then out here : 500px.com/argenutmeniminsempiternum

[@DavidHancock]

Oh those are good scans, and good shots to back them up. Thank you!

[@VariTimo]

I would be really interested in what scanner the lab used. Could you maybe check? It usually says Fuji Frontier SP-(scanner model number) or Noritsu-(scanner model number) in the file info. I’ve gotten some terrible results back from the Noritsu.

[@DavidHancock]

I know it's a Noritsu, but I forget the model.

[@DixonLu]

David: Thanks for this video. In your experience, how does the E100 compare to Kodachrome?I seem to see more colors/3 dimensionality from my old Kodachrome 25/64 but there is no method to do a side by side.

[@DavidHancock]

To my eye, Kodachrome was a bit warmer. Skin tones are pretty close with E100, but not quite as warm as with Kodachrome. The only way to really compare them would be to find some very good scans of some Kodachrome landscapes and then go find the vantage points and reproduce them with E100.

[@miklosnemeth8566]

7:12 your ten sample digitized photos convinced me that in some situations, where you need ultimate digitized version of your slide, using a digital camera is the way to go. On the other hand, since I have a KODAK 35mm Slide Viewer, I don't believe in digitizing slide film any more. When you look through this slide viewer, you have an incredible analog 3D feel, as if you were again in the scene, you cannot reproduce that feel with flat digital screens. Unfortunately, with digitizing you cannot retain this 3D atmosphere.

[@DavidHancock]

I completely agree. Even with the digital images looking as close to the slides as I can make them, there's still no comparison. If you think that 35mm shows that look, the 4x5 slides in here show it even more, especially the group shot early in the video. That was taken with a Caltar 165mm at f/8 or f/11. When that came back from the lab I just stared at it. E100 in large format is an unreal shooting experience.

[@benbowland]

Unfortunately that’s not exactly viable for those of us without a a personal darkroom who want to be able to show our photos to other people. I’m sure it’s cool though.

[@Notemug]

This is potentially a dumb question, but considering the segment starting at 7:10, why don't labs regularly offer DSLR digitization in addition to regular scanning?

[@DavidHancock]

I don't know the answer for certain. It's faster than scanners. It may solely be due to the fact that it can require more editing than jpegs do. It may also be more labor intensive as someone has to take every photo. I talked with my lab about that very thing a couple of years ago and have shown them the difference in results. So no idea why scanners are even used any more.

[@senseofeverthing]

How about a comparison between E100 and Provia? Would be awesome! I have a feeling that Provia has more Latitude, but is greener. Would be awesome to see if this is correct.

[@DavidHancock]

Good idea and as I get in to shooting Provia some more I can probably put something together.

[@senseofeverthing]

@@DavidHancock Tank you for the response! Another interesting thing would be a Testing of Adox CMS 20 II. Actually this is my favorite b&w film and I really like the way you axplain the characteristics of a film not just by examples, but with the spectral kurves as well. Honestly I think I learned more about these film stocks when watching one of your videos for 20min, than I ever did when watching classic reviews. You're doing an awesome job!

[@JHuffPhoto]

LOL.....when I first started this video the music made me think I was watching a video from TFL Truck channel because they use the exact same intro music. Not a complaint just made me smile.

[@DavidHancock]

:D

[@dalemellor5047]

Thanks for this Very informative video! It gives me more arrows in my quiver!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@GTXTi-db5xu]

Hey David, I just bought some E100 and Provia 100f. Do I really need to store these films in the fridge or at cooler temps? I'm in China right now and it's quite hot.

[@DavidHancock]

If you have AC, then no. I honestly don't keep my film in the fridge any more at all since I had a fridge spring a leak and ruin a bunch of film.

[@tiansili]

amazing! could you do a comparison between e100 and provia? seems like rgb curves for provia are much closer, eliminating e100 blue shadows, which doesn't make sense as e100 should be an advanced, neutral modern film

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I can. Provia will be one of the next slide films (probably not next year's class) but I've taken some shots with it. I could look at them both next year some time.

[@phillnavin1212]

Some beautiful photos. A question on getting the exposure within the best range. If I spot meter for the brightest part, what compensation do you recommend, 2 stops? Cheers

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! That's gonna be a hard question as it's a different approach to metering than I use. And it's likely to vary based on how much brighter the highlights are vs. the balance of the image. So were I to use a spot meter with this film I would measure the brightest point, darkest point, and two or three mid-tone points and then average the readings. That should provide a stop differential versus the highlight reading and after a handful of those you'd likely notice a consistent difference that could be a good guide. So if the average reading is three stops below the highlights and you wanted to highlight bias, then two stops would make a lot of sense (and I would guess your estimate there is not too far off, perhaps even spot-on.) If you're using 35mm, it may be worth a test roll, too, with some bracketing of different biases from the highlight to see how the film performs and then come up with a good figure for your work from there. Just, of course, take good notes to refer to later on.

[@phillnavin1212]

@@DavidHancock thanks for taking the time to reply. Yea I will take your advice and take a couple of images of the same scene and see if one method consistently gives better results with different scenes. I don’t own a spot meter only use an App, but should be accurate enough? Happy to shoot a test roll. Cheers. Appreciate the videos

[@DavidHancock]

@@phillnavin1212 An app should be just fine. For all the large-format and, I think, all the medium-format images in this video, I didn't use a camera with a light meter and just gauged the scenes by eye. A meter should get you even closer to perfect exposure than my best guesses were.

[@phillnavin1212]

@@DavidHancock Similar, I am not as nearly experienced as you are, but I am getting pretty good at judging by Sunny 16 on negative film. So I am probably a bit worried for nothing. I will just take a bit more time backing up with a few more readings using the App.

[@DavidHancock]

@@phillnavin1212 You'll do just fine. Slide film behaves a bit differently, but your approach is good.

[@mauiflyingdress2178]

very cool... do one on Velvia we met the inventor in Japan... very cool

[@DavidHancock]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4W6lJd4mK9nja8

[@JHurrenPhotography]

Ok, which color film is truly your favorite? Here you say E100, but two years ago you were really loving Ektar 100. I've been shooting a lot of Provia 100, but I'm going to give these two a thorough work out. After the season, I'll make my choice and fill up a freezer! Yaaaaa I wish ;)

[@DavidHancock]

So for slides, E100, which dethroned Velvia 50. For C-41, still Ektar but not by much over Portra 160. If I had to pick just one between E100 and Ektar, or would be E100.

[@austinmutua5348]

Austn...So Iam using Ektachrome e100 for the first time Nikon S3 rangefinder. What for example would be the speed and f-stop to set to get good if not great images? Thanks.

[@DavidHancock]

That will depend on available light. MY best suggestion is to get a light meter app for your spartphone and use that to figure out your exposure settings. Always shoot this at 100 ISO because slide film has very little exposure forgiveness.

[@travisallen2154]

Thoughts on using a circular polarizer with e100? Should you push up one stop or let it ride?

[@DavidHancock]

If you have a TTL meter, just got with the reading it gives you. If not, multiply your meter reading by the filter's filter factor and if that pushes you past a second then account for reciprocity failure as well.

[@RickMahoney2013]

An old man that shot sports with 50 iso slide film.He explained to me the way he did it was to focus on a spot on the field and wait for the action to come into frame then shoot.

[@DavidHancock]

That's a great way to shoot action with film. I did that with lure coursing (dogs) a few times. With 50 ISO film, he'd have to be in a LOT of light and also shooting at a wide aperture to freeze the motion, however. 50 ISO in full sun needs an aperture of around 3.5 to have a 1/1,000th shutter speed in full sun. Possible, but definitely not easy.

[@RickMahoney2013]

@@DavidHancock you are exactly right

[@dirtywater5336]

"It's important to be transparent" I see what you did there..

[@DavidHancock]

:D

[@GTXTi-db5xu]

I'm thinking of using Ektachrome soon, glad you made a video on it!

[@DavidHancock]

It's worth it. However long on since I made this video, it's still my favorite film. Knowing what I've used since this and what AAF videos are in the pike for the next three years, it's not likely that anything is going to replace this as my favorite film.

[@Tibetttle]

The slide show is too fast - I always press pause - I love every photo and enjoy your analog photography. With best regards from Germany 📸

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I can try and slow the pace of the images for the next batch of videos and see how that works.

[@dflf]

Go into settings and slow down the playback speed

[@3mi649]

@@dflf but sound will get distorted

[@brycepinson8641]

How do you think this compares to Velvia 100 for saturation? I know Velvia 100 tends to have a magenta cast, but I've come to find that useful in some cases. I appreciate all of these videos you have done and the work you put into them. They are by far the most accurate and reliable source I've found.

[@DavidHancock]

Good question. I haven't shot Velvia 100 in a long time (I think I have Provia 100 in 4X5 right now, though.) So I can't speak to that comparison.

[@marcoantoniogarcia38]

Ektachrome is soft? I’m not an expert, but I always assumed that Ektachrome was super sharp, especially when shooting it with good Leica M lenses (summilux ASPH, APO summicron) and medium format with my 2.8 Zeiss Planar Rolleiflex and 4x5. The perception that I have, just by looking at the images, is that it was one of the sharpest film stocks available, or at least the sharpest that I’ve ever used including B&W.

[@DavidHancock]

It's definitely able to resolve a good lens well. My frame of reference being black and white, it looks very soft to me. That's said, I'm open to the possibility that it's sharper than comparable speed color films. It's hard to get a good read on the sharpness when comparing the E100 MTF chart to other film makers lp/mm ratings, too.

[@marcoantoniogarcia38]

@@DavidHancock Thanks for the answer! What B&W film are you comparing it to? I can’t really compare sharpness between B&W and color film, I’d say that maybe T-Max 100 is as sharp as E100, but comparing it to, let’s say Ilford FP4 plus, which has a similar ISO, I’d say that E100 is sharper and I’d definitely say that E100 is sharper than double-X at 100 IS0 and definitely sharper than the major 400 ISO B&W film stocks (HP5, TX400).

[@michaelc4917]

Which cameras did you use to shoot these E100 images? For 135 format, lab scans are good enough?

[@DavidHancock]

Oh gosh lots of cameras, probably more than twenty. I prefer digital scans but for many people a good lab scan will work.

[@Alex-B2357]

Genuinely amazed at how much better the dslr scans are.

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely. I've been saying for years that digitizing with a DSLR in raw and editing is better than even a top-tier drum scanner. DSLRs now are so good that they're all way better than scanners, and my K-1 isn't even brand new. Heck, my K-3 digitizes 35mm film better than my lab's Noritsu, and the K-3 is almost eight years old.

[@sprucemoose3000]

Hey mate. Can you recommend a reasonable priced light box for digitising with a DSLR I have a lot of old negs of my own and others to do, including a lot of old magic lantern glass slides.

[@DavidHancock]

Can do. Here's the one that I use for 120 and larger formats. FYI, this is an affiliate link. amzn.to/3tCdPN9 For 35mm and mounted slides, I use a slide copy attachment on my macro bellows and a full-spectrum light. Again, affiliate link, but here is the bulb that I use for that setup. amzn.to/3RTqh2O

[@sprucemoose3000]

@@DavidHancock great thanks David. I’ll check it out. I’m just want to make sure I don’t buy one that causes newtons rings on the glass slides.

[@imabigsandwich1292]

Just wondering, but what focusing technique do you use for scanning film? I'm looking to upgrade to a actual macro to scan my film in higher resolution, and I found that my current techniques fails terribly with scanning ektachrome, due it's softness and possibly my failure in focusing, so I would like to hear about your focusing technique, thank you.

[@DavidHancock]

For 35mm I use an APS-C DSLR with a Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm enlarger lens because enlarger lenses are ideal for digitizing film. Enlarger lenses were engineered to reproduce flat surface to flat surfaces. I do have a video going over how to digitize film in detail and pick lenses for that. For medium and large format I use a Pentax 100mm f/2.8. I forget the model designation but it's the one with an apperture ring. That I mount above the film and then light the film from before with two frosted white acrylic sheets between the film and then light source for diffusion, and with space between the panels and also between the panels and the film. That ensures that the illumination across the film is even.

[@trevorsowers]

I have great results using warming filters on my lenses such as an 81a and I am curious if you experimented with filters? You mention you see about 5 stops of dynamic range and I am wondering if you measured 2.5 stops above middle grey and 2.5 stops below middle grey or was it skewed to one side or the other?

[@DavidHancock]

I did not try any filters with this, no. I can imagine that warming filters would be great, though. As for dynamic range, that's an estimate based on me eyeballing my images and I'd say it's total from shadow to blow-out. That said, it could be higher than that and I may not be as good a judge of that metric as I think I am. :D

[@trevorsowers]

@@DavidHancock OK fair enough. Thanks for putting the effort into this project as I can cleary see it was an epic undertaking. As for the filters I almost always have an 81a filter on and I'm really liking the results.

[@N556ND]

Love the review! Thank you

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@westonharby165]

I've never shot slides but this and provia would be my first choices if I did. I simply can't justify the price premium of slide film, however. Between Ektar and Portra, I don't really see the need for slide film, especially given its limited DR and exposure latitude. It just seems like too much of a gamble, too many of the shots were misses for me to consider using it. That's nothing against E100, just slide film and my technical ability as a photographer.

[@DavidHancock]

Slide films are really expensive. I've done, I think, two of these with slide films and I hate paying the lab fees. I do really love the results, though.

[@pilsplease7561]

Slide film is far cleaner looking with next to no grain and better sharpness. Color Negative is better for most people.

[@FlosBlog]

What a great looking film stock! I am going to be so poor...

[@DavidHancock]

:D Kodak did a great job on this one.

[@Notemug]

Rewatching Velvia and E100 clips today... so I wanted to ask is a Provia All About Film review somewhere in the pipeline_

[@Notemug]

Ah, I've found the chart: kzbin.infoUgkxyqK6Rg2x4DGJpyHZeLIfkDUHP2L1-w8X

[@DavidHancock]

I should do that one soon. I have 34 photos toward it, which is about 1/3 of the way there. I need to evaluate my upcoming videos and see if I can fit a slide film into the lineup because I'd like to do some home E-6 developing.

[@DavidHancock]

Oh yeah, that's old. I think I updated it twice now. I need to update it again after I finish the 2023 AAF videos (Arista 100, SantaColor 100, Agfa and Ilford C-41 disposable cameras, and Foma 400 -- and re-release Acros II because the video uploaded with a glitch that repeated footage where the spectral sensitivity content should be...)

[@alexsmith1195]

David, have you had any experience with Kodak Aerocolor III 125? Apparently it has extremely high resolution and accurate color reproduction. I heard Kodak is now releasing Aerocolor IV.

[@DavidHancock]

I have not. Is it still in production?

[@alexsmith1195]

@@DavidHancock Yes, but as I understand it is large format photogrammetry film. Maxilabphoto in Russia cuts it down into 35mm. There is hardly any information outside of Kodak website. But sample images look great. It is aimed at natural colour reproduction and ultra high resolution and fine grain.

[@DavidHancock]

@@alexsmith1195 it looks like it's special order, otherwise, through Kodak. That's too bad. I'd love to shoot it but it would be a heck of a prospect to shoot enough for one of these right now.

[@jeli3953]

Re: DSLR scanning with your K1. Did you use pixel shift? It seems to me that pixel shift would yield the most accurate color.

[@DavidHancock]

I did not because I never installed the Ricoh software needed to convert the files. I would expect that Pixel shift would improve the resolution, but the K-1 sensor honestly doesn't need anything help in that department.

[@jeli3953]

@@DavidHancockI was thinking that color fidelity might improve, because of no need to interpolate colors, with each photosite becoming in effect full RGB. No?

[@DavidHancock]

@@jeli3953 Honestly not sure. I suspect that the light source may put a limit on that. Full-spectrum light might be okay, but anything like a light table that skews to a certain tone and I don't know if the added time and data would be of benefit.

[@jeli3953]

@@DavidHancock I definitely can see a problem with a light table that doesn't put out full spectrum light. I've wondered about the fluorescent tubes in my light box, which, even though they claim a daylight color temperature (5500 Kelvin, as I recall), probably drop a lot of wavelengths. Then there's the question of the white plexiglass on the light box- does it pass all wavelengths evenly. I think the best results would come from a slide copier attachment and either an incandescent light source or electronic flash. From my understanding, electronic flash emits full-spectrum light like the sun or an incandescent bulb does. All you would have to do is adjust color temperature to your source.

[@DavidHancock]

@@jeli3953 electronic flashes are far from full spectrum. Check your digital camera in full sun with the WB set to flash. You'll be surprised by the results. Xenon bulbs are a very blue light. A window on a sunny day is how I used to do it and that's the cheapest option. For incandescent, those have a very warm color. Again. Check the incandescent setting on your camera in full sun -- the photos are likely to look like they were taken underwater.

[@jaza4805]

Excellent video David, thank you. E100G was my favorite film stock for years, yet I have to try the new E100 soon. There is, however, one film stock that was the best E-6 emulsion ever made, that I have tried. It is a CDUII duplicating slide. This thing is simply amazing. Too bad it was tungsten balanced and ISO 20. But the gamma, colors, sharpness, everything was great.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Ja Za! I haven't used, or heard of the CDUII. I assume it's no longer made?

[@jaza4805]

@@DavidHancock Sadly, it is no longer available. You can see some of my shots here: www.flickr.com/photos/jaz99/tags/cduii

[@DavidHancock]

Dang those are incredbile photographs.

[@JHurrenPhotography]

Those truly are some great photographs! I love the tairn in the Tatra Mountains the most

[@victor.marchenko]

Thanx for education!

[@DavidHancock]

davidhancock.smugmug.com/2020-Prize/i-bnktWsx/A

[@rrr324sds]

Video posted few hours ago, and exactly in that time i ordered ectachrome. Never shoot it, and wonder, what i can do with it. Just in time!

[@DavidHancock]

Perfect timing!

[@pilsplease7561]

Go slow, take your time and please meter for your shots. You will get some great images

[@alexsmith1195]

David, have you had any experience with Kodak Aerocolor III 125? Apparently it has extremely high resolution and accurate color reproduction. I heard Kodak is now releasing Aerocolor IV. maxilabphoto.ru/wp-content/uploads/1970/01/IMG_2927.jpg www.lomography.com/films/871963909-kodak-aerocolor-iii/photos www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/bjfg3w/ira_hasselblad_500_cm_kodak_aerocolor_125/

[@DavidHancock]

I have not used these. The images are fascinating. Are they still in production? I couldn't find that online and the Aerocolor IV datasheet looks dated.

[@alexsmith1195]

@@DavidHancock Here is the retailer: maxilabphoto.ru/fotomagazin/kodak-aerocolor-125-36-namotka/ They say it is a re-can. I don't know if it is new old stock or new straight from kodak. The film specs say: 1. Anti-newton ring coating to prevent newton rings during scanning or enlarging. 2. Removed orange masking layer to eliminate yellow tint, and achieve natural colors without color-correction. 3. UV layer. 4. Higher resolving power than most colour negative film.

[@peskymacaw9033]

Hey, David, you've been to Guadalajara?

[@DavidHancock]

I have. We were there at the end of 2019 and visited Chapala, Ajijic, and Jocotepec. We loved Jocotepec. Would definitely go back. We also visited Casa Hereradura and took in the tequila train and traditional dance and lunch. It was a nice trip.

[@peskymacaw9033]

@@DavidHancock That's nice, the town of Tequila is really a nice place to go, did you visited it or just the train?. Jalisco is one of the most beautiful states in México. If you come to Jalisco again, I would recomend you to also go to Tlaquepaque, Puerto Vallarta and Lagos de Moreno, and also there's a lot of thing to do in the capital, Guadalajara. Cheers!

[@DavidHancock]

@@peskymacaw9033 Thank you and we will be for sure. We have family in the area.

[@analogecstasy4654]

I cannot believe how many people are shooting with film and NOT using a light meter.

[@DavidHancock]

Well, it's like anything that people do, do enough and there's a good sense of how it works. I had hernia surgery a few years back and the surgeon had been practicing surgery for about 35 years. He put his hands on my stomach on two places and then said exactly what what was wrong and how to fix it before the x-ray results came back and confirmed he was right. Doing anything enough, machine mistakes and learning enough, and a lot of the complexity becomes second nature.

[@paolaeast]

Hoping to meet you someday in Ajijic!

[@DavidHancock]

Next time we're down there, but I don't know when that will be yet. 😀

[@13squier]

Great, comprehensive video review! But I gotta say E100 is too cool/too much blue cast for my liking.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I can understand that take for sure and I can't find fault in not liking the cool tone, either. I also, personally, prefer warmer tone color images.

[@cornellouis]

wow the DSLR just totally destroys the scanner! surprised.

[@DavidHancock]

Oh boy yes.

[@diosjupiter9203]

Looking around for a developer I see darkroom in CA is common recommend but I found smaller developer called Axg Imagining in Michigan. Someone who returns calls about film!

[@DavidHancock]

I use Old School Photo Lab in New Hampshire. I've used The Darkroom and they're very good, too.

[@diosjupiter9203]

@@DavidHancock I wish there was a internet website that listed every darkroom/developer that does e100

[@Socrates...]

thank you

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@jasonzayas5487]

It looks to me like all of the DSLR scans have HDR enhancements.

[@DavidHancock]

Nope. Just adjustments in raw.

[@carlosencarnacion9667]

Shouldn't you search for film latitude instead of sensor dynamic range?

[@DavidHancock]

I would say no. The sensor isn't going to give the film latitude or dynamic range that it doesn't already have.

[@boeju1]

pretty sure you can do timestamps within the timeline instead of in the description these days, its called chapters or something!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I'll look into that. I've never wondering how that works but didn't know what it was called to look up.

[@EvenStarMN]

Slide photos are very alive. Kept the energy from object.

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely yes. This is a great film for that.

[@valdezapg]

it looks to me like there is some digital processing, hdr or some dodging,burning, masking etc done on these images. shame wanted to see what it actually looks like.

[@DavidHancock]

The editing is limited to adjusting levels in raw and cloning out dust spots.

[@valdezapg]

@@DavidHancock I'm not sure how you adjust levels, maybe clarity or others but the lifted up shadows and darkened highlights give it an unnatural contrast curve and to my eyes looks not at all like film but like a modern photoshopping that people do. Even if there is no manual dodging and burning the edges have a glow or unnatural look in your higher contrast pictures where you might have adjusted 'levels' the most.

[@DavidHancock]

@@valdezapg I would argue that what we often see as slide film image character isn't the best example. When projected on a screen, slide film often looks 'HDR-like.' That's due to the light projection through it bringing out a lot of detail and vibrance and, in a dark room, our eyes being adjusted to that space and more attuned to the details in a projected images. When scanned, either drum or flatbed, slide film looks much less dynamic than when projected. So in editing my goal is to replicate the projected look, not the scanned look.

[@valdezapg]

@@DavidHancock thanks for transparency. pun intended

[@rajs4719]

+2/-3 stops dynamic range going off the data sheet graph

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@gregsullivan7408]

I see only ~2.5 stops of scene dynamic range in the transfer curve.

[@rajs4719]

@@gregsullivan7408 the log exposure axis isn't equal to stops of light. It needs to be converted to stops of light

[@gregsullivan7408]

@@rajs4719 Ah, sorry. (although having just read a brief description of Log H, to me, it COULD mean stops, because the scale is in "equal ratios of light". Are you absolutely sure it can't be interpreted as stops? If not, can you help me do the conversion?)

[@gregsullivan7408]

More Googling - it seems that the horizontal axis can also be treated much the same as the density (vertical) axis - take the difference between the numbers, and divide by 0.3, which then yields about 8 stops! 🕺 Thanks for the correction - much appreciated. (I understand/agree this probably won't be achieved in practice)

[@dflf]

4x5 slides? There’s a 4x5 projector ?

[@marcoantoniogarcia38]

Not specifically, but you can use an overhead projector if you want to project 4x5 or even 8x10 slides the analog way. I don’t know how old you are, but back in the 80’s and 90’s this kind of projector was commonly used in schools classrooms.

[@DavidHancock]

There were magic lantern slide projectors back in the day but slides of that size now are not really for projection. Another use of slides was for newscasts back in the day. If you recall seeing images next to anchor's heads (they still do this) those were slide overlays. Today slides like this are mostly for the image quality afforded a 4X5 slide image. I could also see a use for them in a shadowbox or similar display.

[@bagnome]

@@marcoantoniogarcia38 I remember them being common up until "smart boards" became widely adopted in the mid-to-late 2000s. I was in middle school around that time. Though, by then my teachers would use those transparencies that could be printed from an inkjet printer if they weren't just scribbling on a blank transparency.

[@imvisier9925]

In my opinion Ektar looks too unsaturated. If only they could make kodachrome again, without requiring the insane processing steps.

[@DavidHancock]

That would be an amazing technical feat if that could happen.

[@pilsplease7561]

Kodachrome was a black and white film that had the dyes added to it, but the process gave it insane sharpness and contrast that beats every other film by a large mile. It cant be made with E6 as the process requires the dyes on the film itself and you cant really modify how the film will react as much. Basically limits you.

[@analogecstasy4654]

“I don’t use a light meter, even with slide film”. But, you’ll spend thousands of dollars on film and processing?

[@DavidHancock]

Yup.

[@Sam_splatter]

Lab scans for the win. There seems to be too much digital noise with the camera scans

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Interesting about the digital noise in the camera scans. They definitely look less noisy to me.

[@13squier]

I think you got it backward, the DSLR scans look much, much better. David's lab scans here are like the ones I'm forced to buy from a certain lab. Less dynamic range, less saturation, blown highlights, and pitifully small files. They gotta make their money I guess...

[@ibrahimmohmmed1]

dslr scan is combined and agressive interpretation by the bayer filter and the modern processor of the camera, while lab scan or basic dedicated basic scanner, like plustek 135i, even they might seem inferior but they are full rbg and more faithful.

[@DavidHancock]

Looking at the physical slides next to the digital images from the DSLR and the lab's Noritsu, I do not share that view at all. The digital images look much more like the slides when the slides are illuminated properly.

[@bozoc2572]

Those are exceptionally bad lan scans. Technician plays a big role in quality of scans.

[@DavidHancock]

And scanner equipment, resolution, and so forth. I concur and lab scans, writ large, are a major part of why I digitize at home.