Provia 100F vs Ektachrome: A Slide-film comparison

[@Notemug]

Interesting, I preferred the Provia in almost all your examples!

[@tnts999998]

provia looked more "real"

[@roiloubia4483]

​@@tnts999998I feel differently. For me Ektachrome was more natural. Said that. to make a real comparison. both film should be shot in exact same light condition, exposure, etc. and examined with a Lupe on a light table..After that, each person can have his own preference, which is normal..there is no right or wrong. We all react differently to a picture or to a painting for several reasons..There is a French say " les gouts et les couleurs ne se disputent pas"..

[@Nedumgottil]

I love the shot at 9:30. I think I liked the Provia shots a bit more because of the dynamic range

[@illia6284]

Thank you for this comparison! Finally someone made a nice one :D

[@spiff73]

thank you so much for the video. film comparison videos like this are really helping a lot of people by saving time and avoiding waste shots.

[@thedondeluxe6941]

Great video! I pretty much agree with your conclusions, but I tend to use these with a warming filter because I find both a little cool. This video also conirms to me that my favourite film ever was Provia 400X and a really miss the way that renders colours :-( Hope that new 400 slide film Japan Camera Hunter is launching is similar to Provia 400!

[@irenedp4947]

I also lean to the Ektachrome, although it seems like the Provia is a bit overexposed. I am planning a new project with 4x5 film and was looking forward to use Provia (a difficult find). I may go now to Ektachrome.

[@johnfalloon596]

Superb comparison Jonathan

[@RickMahoney2013]

Kodak Ektachrome for me on these photos but I shoot all 35mm slide film and love it.

[@鄭舜哲]

Nice, we need more of these!!!

[@shogotakeda4238]

looks like its overexposed?

[@sfenwick]

Thank you Jonathan. Very helpful!

[@steveb7477]

It's a shame you didn't shoot the lighthouse with the Ektachrome if you had the same number of exposures; it would have need nice to compare them. However, I do prefer the Ektachrome over the Provia is these pictures. Glad you did this because I just bought both in 120 format and I've only shot the Provia so far and I'm waiting to get them back. I enjoy your videos.

[@JMaxwell1000]

Excellent review. Great side-by-side comparison of these major sellers. Personally, I definitely preferred the overall look of the Ektachrome, though in some shots the color of the ocean was nicer in the Provia.

[@eyesonly4451]

This somewhat confirms what I've always thought about Provia having a ½-stop over/under larger dynamic range than does E100. And also that Provia is a bit more neutral, making it a better starting point in a scanning workflow. I'd rather be adding contrast in post than trying to remove it.

[@valdezapg]

Thanks for the informative video! Very enjoyable to watch these nice relaxing scenes :)

[@Der_Marc]

Interessting comparison. I like the Ektachrome a bit more because of the contrast, but u can fix it easily in LR. Thanks for sharing.

[@Adam-pm1cy]

Great to see a new video, keep them coming!

[@JonathanNotley]

More to come!

[@Adam-pm1cy]

@@JonathanNotley Thats sounds great!

[@rajs4719]

Great video and great photos too even though it's not usually my style

[@stevef2114]

im not sure about kodak , but provia in my experience I've never used in the daytime like this. It always needs warming up most of the time with an 81b or something similar. Its great to make used of this blue cast in the blue hours, which landscape photographers do. Ive dropped Fuji films years ago.. their distain for film now after many years is really poor. Great on Kodak, and people like Ilford that keep going, may it continue.

[@davidellinsworth22]

Very nice shots. I've used both these stocks once, both for portraits and both were excellent... difficult to decide which I prefer because it was two separate occasions (albeit with the same model) and I had slighter nicer natural light for the Ektachrome shots. Would happily use both again.

[@benvoyons626]

Thank you very much for your efforts! But nothing replaces viewing the slides on a lightbox, it also avoids the scanning process playing a role in the evaluation. And you are right, shooting transparencies has become a real luxury unfortunately. PS: I feel very uncomfortable when I see people so close to the edge of a cliff. Are there no barriers or such to prevent accidents?

[@KingofStreet3]

Thanks, this will be useful when I get my Mamiya. Will mostly use slide film for family portraits if they are into scrap booking.

[@alanmacmillan6957]

Great shots. I like both these films and shoot them exclusively now for colour shots, The provia there seems a tiny molecule over exposed on highlights :- don't think it was the 'wrong' exposure but I think it looks prone to losing a tiny bit of highlight info in the brightest sections when done on medium format. I've only ever shot provia on 35 mm, and I wonder if my meter just happens to give it about 1/3rd less light and so add's a tiny bit more contrast. On my provia weirdly I tend to get more lilac's and pinks and maybe oranges interestingly enough and my ekta seems more blue, reverse of what you're seeing.

[@jw48335]

Excellent comparison. My only thought was that some of the shots - it seemed like they could benefit from a white balance adjustment - the pier shot especially where the Provia clouds don't look white. Both of these are just so close, I'd happily use either:)

[@JonathanNotley]

All the scans in the review are just basic untouched noritsu lab scans, I agree about the provia clouds but I didn’t want to touch anything that would skew the results

[@jw48335]

@@JonathanNotley Certainly - I'm wondering though - does the scan accurately reflect the color of the clouds in the slide or is it a scanning issue?

[@randallstewart175]

@@jw48335 Your question is quite valid in general as to all of these "comparisons" which make up a large component of YT film related videos. They aren't comparing several films. They are comparing the films, often the short-cut chem kits used by the video producer to develop the film, his processing techniques and errors, scanning equipment and technique, and finally, whether the final digital images were manipulated for display what the producer thinks are comparison points (or just by the automatic software in the scanner driver). I still tend to watch such videos, but I wouldn't decline to try one or another film based on them.

[@jw48335]

@@randallstewart175 I would add that slidefilm is unique in this regard, because you can actually view the slides directly as positive and if the white is white, then it is white:) It's interesting to me as well how much influence the profiles in things like negative lab pro, or silverfast, etc. can have on the final color reproduction. Even when lab scans are done, those systems have their individual processing of different film stocks based on those workflows and it isn't always equal. It's really difficult to equalize those factors though for the purposes of providing reviews. I tend to trust the color reproduction out of silverfast when using an Epson flatbed with it8 color profile that's the best baseline for comparison purposes. Come think of it, II really need to get an it8 for 35mm for my PIE XAS:)

[@yonmusak]

The Extachrome's warmth makes for a far more pleasant image. Less detail maybe, but the balance of what remains is so much more pleasing (to these old, gumpy eyes).

[@pl1532]

The biggest difference today is the price. Fuji clearly doesn't want to be involved with chemical based products anymore, so they have raised their prices to such astronomical levels that they will soon declare "that there is no longer a market for them to keep producing film". Certainly, not at the prices they are ripping the public off for! On the other hand Kodak came out with E100 because they saw an increase in this market. Priced lower, but still too high, Kodak would be wise lower their prices to realistic levels to capture what Fuji is casting aside. $15 was reasonable, $20 too high, $30+ is pure contemptible greed on the part of Fuji!

[@tc227]

It's interesting that as of Sept 2024, 5 rolls of 120 E100 costs $86.99 while 5 rolls of Provia costs $64.95. I'm considering getting a box of Provia simply because they cost less than E100. The only catch is Provia is usually out of stock and sells out very quickly when it is restocked.

[@miklosnemeth8566]

​@@tc227exactly my observation Ektachrome 120 is significantly more expensive as Provia 120 in my city.

[@ale_s45]

I absolutely love slide film

[@luissalazar2021]

Nice job , on the good old days Ekta did run the show specially for commercial demands just the exposure have to be right on the money. Thanks for sharing

[@christianheld9720]

I like them both. For whatever I’m sitting I’d know to choose one over the other. But yeah prices have gone crazy :(

[@ericrinehardt9373]

Ektachrome is a film that is probably closer to iso 64 or 80. Kodak probably rates it at 100 so people new to slide film are (slightly) less likely to blow out highlights. People who are more familiar with slide film--especially landscape photographers with grad ND filters--would probably do well shooting at iso 80 with normal development.

[@igaluitchannel6644]

Maybe Provia needs to be underexposed from the recommended ISO. Also, some of those TLRs may not be optimized for colour work. I wonder what a 35mm comparison would yield.

[@randallstewart175]

A useful comparison with a few generalizations revealed. Frankly, without worrying about comparison, it looks like either film would be completely satisfactory standing alone in any situation. I personally tend to discount these comparisons, as the several separate steps of electronic manipulation required by scanning, tweaking, etc., negate any serious effort to make an objective evaluation, but surely others would disagree. With the evaporation of "slide shows" as a primary consumer use of transparency films like these, along with total abandonment of commercial use in favor or digital technology, I'm not sure that these films will survive other than as a novelty. I say that from the perspective of someone who many years ago learned color photography and printing solely using these films, and who holds a love of them while still accepting that current color negative technology is cheaper to use and will deliver superior results, whether in my traditional darkroom or flattening your ass in front of a computer.

[@artistjoh]

So the conclusion must be that they are both excellent films, and perhaps the buying decision should be based on relative price.

[@Mr._Magee]

Nice shots, enjoyed the comparisons between the two. Which lab did you use to develop the film?

[@JonathanNotley]

Bayeux, Newman St

[@Mr._Magee]

@@JonathanNotley Thanks for letting me know. I've only used slide film once. I think you've encouraged me to give another go based on this video.

[@raulrodrigues2307]

The scenes of yourself talking have a nice and subtle warmth color, was it done in post processing?

[@JonathanNotley]

I edit the video in Davinci Resolve but I’m not very good at nodes/grades. I generally just WB off a neutral card and put a Kodak motion picture LUT over my Clog.

[@b6983832]

This Provia looks like it has been developed for 7 minutes in first developer. Fuji films often need to be processed slightly longer than Ektachrome, but adding a full minute to Provia is too much. 30 seconds is enough. Velvia 50 should be developed for 7 minutes (standard time is 6:00(. This is most likely the reason for your Provia looking about half a stop overexposed compared to Ektachrome.

[@JonathanNotley]

I didn’t know that tidbit about the timings but I still feel my experience is representative. I handed both rolls to the best film lab I know and they were likely processed in the same batch so the difference is what others would experience too.

[@josecaffarena4269]

Thanks for so interesting comparison video. Both films are really beautifull. I tend to prefer Provia, because (for me) ektachrome has a “digital” look. Maybe before the digital age, ektachrome would have blown my mind. But today, with so many contrasty and saturated pictures, I thank to see a photograph like Provia, that gives me something special.

[@HunterSkowronPDX]

ektachrome wins for sure

[@nbshftr]

provia solos

[@roiloubia4483]

I think we all should dump Fuji, and support Kodak. Kodak showed its willingness to help film shooters by bringing ektachrome E100..Fuji has betrayed our community. Pure and simple. We have to react. Dumping Fuji will briing more business to Kodak and my incite Kodak to lower the price win win situation. Said that, I honestly prefer Kodachrome in this test,, though,, I agree with one of the comment here saying that both films should be examined on a light table, and provided that they are shot in exact conditions, which is not exactly the case here. Great job Jonathan.

[@petrub27]

Wrong light conditions

[@JonathanNotley]

Midday light is ideal for comparing slide film.

[@Old-School-Liberal]

These photos are overexposed for slide film.

[@SPTSuperSprinter156]

how should they be exposed? he acknowledged that one or two are likely over, but I feel if they were generally any lower exposed they'd look muddy. Ektachrome also seems to turn blue as soon as you even have thoughts of under exposing, it's ridiculous. I think he did well here.

[@trevorsowers2202]

comparing scans is not really the best way to compare as you introduce scanning variables. How they compare on a light table with a loupe would be far more revealing These are two of the best films you can buy IMO. Velvia 50 is another favourite of mine.

[@JonathanNotley]

"comparing scans is not really the best way to compare as you introduce scanning variables. How they compare on a light table with a loupe would be far more revealing" .... and how would I show you guys that? By scanning them with my video camera?

[@trevorsowers2202]

@@JonathanNotley by all means show us scans but I didn’t hear you make comments about how they look in person.