Yes for myself, I prefer them on a lightbox or projector rather than scanning. I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and a Epson V700. I think maybe it is the dynamic range of slide film. For everyday stuff I prefer color neg film. I used to be a primarily slide guy but that is changing. I find that I shoot slides more in the dusk and dawn times but not the twilight hour because due to the limited dynamic range you get a nice blue twilight sky but buidlings etc .. goes so dark. There is also different color with Ektachrome to Fuji slide film. I find that for the color I prefer Fuji because the greens, the blues work better for landscapes, cityscapes. Ektachrome I find work better for lifestyle / portraits type shots or a documentary perspective of buildings etc. (rather than a modern clean look). - like on a cloudy overcast evenly lit day.
I agree about the digital look and preferring the grain of a color negative. It's not really for me, but I have not shot it so, my opinion isn't worth too much. Great overview, Erik. I'm in the middle of a roll of Provia right now shooting it side-by-side with the Provia simulation on my X-e3, so I may make a video about that at some point if it's interesting enough after developing...
Speed is interesting, we now think of 100 as slow, but back in the 70s and 80s I shot Kodachrome 64 as my standard film, in the UK where we don’t get much bright sunlight. Very few of them had blurring issues
They were doing a promotion about Ektachrome here in the UK selling it 33% off and £5 to develop for a month. Completely forgot :( I've rated it @200 and it does well but use a warming filter in anything even slightly bluer than daylight. Also use a digital camera to scan it :) Kodak really needs to figure out how to cut costs and make this cheaper though. I've only shot three rolls ever...
I agree about Kodak needing to sell it for less. I can’t justify spending the money on it at the moment because it costs so much more than regular color negative film. I’d love to try Ektachrome at some point though.
Good to see the ring is gone. I hope Kodak will bring Ektachrome out in 120 and 4x5. I've never been really big on 35mm slide. The local store was out of stock when we were leaving on our Asian trip this year. We might pick some up the next time we get film. Although as of a few months back nobody was developing E6 locally, not sure I want to add another chemistry.
I've bought a fair amount of old Ektachrome rolls on eBay. All are expired, though faded by varying amounts of time and dye coupler fading. Compared to the older Ektachrome rolls I've shot, I think the new Ektachrome is probably most similar to the older E100G Ektachrome, (lower grain, as opposed to the E100S or VS variants which were supposed to Saturated and Very Saturated). Like you saw, I noticed that the new one is bluer, especially in the shadows. The older E100G seemed more neutral in darker areas.
I said this last video too, but try doing a digital camera scan. It will capture that light table look because, well, you're taking a picture of the transparency on the light table. Light table, macro lens, and a tripod that points down
Ohhh, man! Nice to see some local parks! I've never shot any slide film before. I'd like to but between having nowhere local to process it and the price of the film and sending it out is a bit steep for regular shooting. One of these days though I'd like to at least give it a try.
It's now my favourite film. Now if I can just get a scan that will do it justice. The slides looks so stunning on the slide table but scans can't compare. As for the blue cast simply use a warming filter. I carry an 81A 81C and 81EF
I definitely felt it was similar to digital in a way that I didn't like that much... I agree with you about color negative film being more exciting. For slide film I prefer Velvia (which has a bonus of being much cheaper and faster to develop over here in Japan) Also agree about buying it as a statement of course, I'm excited about anything that comes out (or back)!
I have had a similar experience, I prefer the grain and latitude of negative film. But I did find it easier to get nice colours, I find colour balancing portra scans really difficult.
I might shoot a couple rolls through my f3 but it’s pricy. My dad has thousands of shots on ektachrome from the 60s and 70s and I really like the pictures they got back then
Yes, it's not the old Ektachrome........too bad......it used to be my regular film. The new stuff isn't bad, just not super exciting, and a bit bluey cool, as you said. Thanks for the great review!
I bought a couple rolls as soon as it was released, haven't shot it yet, saving it for the right occasion. Your examples do have a surprising digital look to them, I wasn't expecting that. Oh and the background music when you were talking seemed kind of loud?
I'm going to be a contrarian and say that when I've used it and liked the outcome, I actually underexpose it by like 1/3 or maybe 2/3 of a stop. I gives it a bit more punch, and doesn't look as washed out as when you overexpose it
Why don't you try scanning with a DSLR? I scanned some nearly thirty years old slides, which were kept in really nasty and dusty conditions, but a few of the images came out really lovely.
It's about the egg and the chicken here: The digital look was designed on the colors and overal image appearence of slidefilm, because the first users of digital cameras should have a similar feeling to their normal photography. Slides were the 'go-to' films for most of the people before digital went up, so they emulated that look digitally.
Digital is substantially easier to use / get good results from. I shoot film in 2019 because it looks different and I enjoy the process. If it doesn't look substantially different, much of the appeal is lost.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto for the same reasons I mostly shoot color negative, because it provides an other look. but like you said: expose slides because they are slides and this wonderful presentation with light. go into 120 slides and you will be blown away once again.
Slide film was always considered "pro", because it was what was used in all the glossy magazine editorials and ad copy, and because it was generally much more difficult to use properly than negative film. It was the standard of what a quality photograph should look like in terms of accuracy of color reproduction and (lack of) grain, and so in order to replace slide film in the professional market (and the regular consumer who desired to emulate that look), digital photography was tuned to meet and exceed that standard. Negative film (both B&W and color C-41) was the "go-to" for home and art photography for a century, which is why its idiosyncratic color reproduction (or lack of color reproduction altogether) and ever present grain triggers feelings of "lo-fi authenticity".
Yep, pro's shot slides for publications etc .. and now most of them are using digital. Modern digital are easier so much more dynamic range look so much different. look I think even a 2004 6MP dSLR had more DR than slide film also but they had a similar color palate and feel.
Too cold for me... My statement? Where is your class Kodak? When I started shooting film, I shot only Fujicolor C200 that is cold as a Fuji, right? But you can get warm tones with it at box speed or a little underexposed. Then recently I bought Kodak ColorPlus 200 and the lab in my town developed it in Fuji chemicals. All the photos got a greenish look. I think their scanner was also set on Fuji profile. The only solution is to start developing my films on my own. But I heard that ColorPlus 200 is cooler today than it was before :( ... Maybe Gold 200 will do the trick? I mean, I want the famous Kodak colors.
I've shot a lot of slide film over the years but the cost and development cost means I won't shoot it again. I also think transparencies are definitely viewed best through a good projector or as you say on a light table. I definitely prefer the look and feel from negative film and negatives definitely scan better than slide film. So for me having shot lots of Provia, Velvia and old Ektarchrome, it's not something I'm not going to be trying out.
your loss slide films cheaper than color negative to develop I do it myself at home, and it produces better results than labs and costs like $1-2 a roll
You don't mention what scanning software you used to scan the Ektachrome, but you might want to investigate scanning raw and using the ColorPerfect plugin. I've used it for years for both B&W and color film and couldn't imagine not having that tool available to me.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto I use Silverfast Ai Studio 8 to scan into a raw file, then convert in PS using the ColorPerfect plugin. IMO, this plugin does a much better job than any settings I ever used in Silverfast scanning as a positive. Download a trial and see what ya think.
I am not in love with the look of it. As you say, the lack of grain makes it look digital-ish. I love that Kodak is producing film and I am going to buy some rolls, just to support them, so they might make more, but it's not going to be my new favorite film.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto That was a really weird robocall. Also just realized part of my comment was deleted. I wanted to say I've had similar frustrations with my scans of this film, though I've had a lot of luck with saving a few images by setting the black point in the curves on Photoshop. It still doesn't compare to what I see on the slides themselves, but it does bring back a bit of the contrast and punch.
If I'm not mistaken, there's this Silverfast software wich has scan profiles for each film stock. It could help you with that blue cast problem czcams.com/video/qtpmlEeJodw/video.html&t
All do I never liked (old and plain) Ektachrome film, I'd say a better scanning solution would definitely help; I'm sure there's much more than what we can see here...
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto Well, there's always a better scanner out there :-) Personally I was never satisfied with results from a flatbed scanner, so these days I'm always scanning at professional lab...
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto I hope they will do. Using 135 stock that looks like a digital is quite pointless. On other side medium format cameras are reallu cheap now so it makes lots of sense to use them a lot.
I mean, I think it's a fine film. I appreciate it more for what it represents. I may have missed the part where I claimed these were spectacular photographs, though.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto Agree, you never claimed they were spectacular. I would also agree that scanning color on an Epson flatbed is hit and miss, at best. I have a hell of a time with Portra 400.
@@richardg6109 Why they claim is easy to scan? All three of them, Ektar, Portra 160 and 400 - same vision technology. All easy to scan, they say. Maybe they should specify which scanner, or give us their methodology, as they did with the sunny 16 rule printed on the film packages...
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto I'm pretty sure he was refering to the color palette of the images, and not to your skills. I also can say that the Kodak colors are not there. I think they were afraid to derail too much from what a digital camera can offer today.
Shot Ektachrome back in the day, an 81 a/b/c correction filter tames those blues which are particularly strong in the shadows.
I loaded today my very first roll ever of this film :) can't wait to see the result!
Yes for myself, I prefer them on a lightbox or projector rather than scanning. I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and a Epson V700. I think maybe it is the dynamic range of slide film. For everyday stuff I prefer color neg film. I used to be a primarily slide guy but that is changing.
I find that I shoot slides more in the dusk and dawn times but not the twilight hour because due to the limited dynamic range you get a nice blue twilight sky but buidlings etc .. goes so dark. There is also different color with Ektachrome to Fuji slide film. I find that for the color I prefer Fuji because the greens, the blues work better for landscapes, cityscapes. Ektachrome I find work better for lifestyle / portraits type shots or a documentary perspective of buildings etc. (rather than a modern clean look). - like on a cloudy overcast evenly lit day.
I agree about the digital look and preferring the grain of a color negative. It's not really for me, but I have not shot it so, my opinion isn't worth too much. Great overview, Erik.
I'm in the middle of a roll of Provia right now shooting it side-by-side with the Provia simulation on my X-e3, so I may make a video about that at some point if it's interesting enough after developing...
that would be of maximum interest, I assure you!
Good to be back.
I love it, my go to colour film, i shoot it through an 81A or 81B filter to warm it up a bit.
This film shines at night with neon lights & on a tripod 😍
Speed is interesting, we now think of 100 as slow, but back in the 70s and 80s I shot Kodachrome 64 as my standard film, in the UK where we don’t get much bright sunlight. Very few of them had blurring issues
They were doing a promotion about Ektachrome here in the UK selling it 33% off and £5 to develop for a month. Completely forgot :(
I've rated it @200 and it does well but use a warming filter in anything even slightly bluer than daylight. Also use a digital camera to scan it :)
Kodak really needs to figure out how to cut costs and make this cheaper though. I've only shot three rolls ever...
I agree about Kodak needing to sell it for less. I can’t justify spending the money on it at the moment because it costs so much more than regular color negative film. I’d love to try Ektachrome at some point though.
@@EthelKat73 it is a lovely film though, first slide film I have ever tried
Good to see the ring is gone. I hope Kodak will bring Ektachrome out in 120 and 4x5. I've never been really big on 35mm slide. The local store was out of stock when we were leaving on our Asian trip this year. We might pick some up the next time we get film. Although as of a few months back nobody was developing E6 locally, not sure I want to add another chemistry.
I've bought a fair amount of old Ektachrome rolls on eBay. All are expired, though faded by varying amounts of time and dye coupler fading. Compared to the older Ektachrome rolls I've shot, I think the new Ektachrome is probably most similar to the older E100G Ektachrome, (lower grain, as opposed to the E100S or VS variants which were supposed to Saturated and Very Saturated). Like you saw, I noticed that the new one is bluer, especially in the shadows. The older E100G seemed more neutral in darker areas.
As far as exposure, I stayed at +0.5 or +1.0. Box speed or underexposed looked pretty icky.
Will buy a 120 roll as soon as I can. :)
I said this last video too, but try doing a digital camera scan. It will capture that light table look because, well, you're taking a picture of the transparency on the light table. Light table, macro lens, and a tripod that points down
Ohhh, man! Nice to see some local parks! I've never shot any slide film before. I'd like to but between having nowhere local to process it and the price of the film and sending it out is a bit steep for regular shooting. One of these days though I'd like to at least give it a try.
I love some slide film, it definitely is hard to scan on a flatbed but doing a camera scan works amazing
It's now my favourite film. Now if I can just get a scan that will do it justice. The slides looks so stunning on the slide table but scans can't compare. As for the blue cast simply use a warming filter. I carry an 81A 81C and 81EF
I think it's objectively worse looking than provia for more money.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto That's interesting you feel that way. I gave up on Provia but I'm loving Ektachrome!
Not too late for me. I just sent in a roll to Blue Moon in Portland for some processing, so we'll see what we get. I'm excited to get them back.
I definitely felt it was similar to digital in a way that I didn't like that much... I agree with you about color negative film being more exciting. For slide film I prefer Velvia (which has a bonus of being much cheaper and faster to develop over here in Japan) Also agree about buying it as a statement of course, I'm excited about anything that comes out (or back)!
I have shot 3 rolls and rated them at 80 iso i was pleased with my results. i also used 81 series filters when shooting in the shadows
Shot a 120 roll last month. Cooler tones but amazing on the light table. 81A would perfect it I think.
I have had a similar experience, I prefer the grain and latitude of negative film. But I did find it easier to get nice colours, I find colour balancing portra scans really difficult.
I might shoot a couple rolls through my f3 but it’s pricy. My dad has thousands of shots on ektachrome from the 60s and 70s and I really like the pictures they got back then
I just want to shoot it so I can look at the picture on the Kodak carousel
Yes, it's not the old Ektachrome........too bad......it used to be my regular film. The new stuff isn't bad, just not super exciting, and a bit bluey cool, as you said. Thanks for the great review!
Never shot this film. Looks good.
I loved it, I need to shoot more of it!
I'll definitely run through another roll or two. It's not cheap, though.
Erik Wahlstrom But the look is worth the cost, but like you said, you have to be right in the exposure
I bought a couple rolls as soon as it was released, haven't shot it yet, saving it for the right occasion.
Your examples do have a surprising digital look to them, I wasn't expecting that.
Oh and the background music when you were talking seemed kind of loud?
I'm going to be a contrarian and say that when I've used it and liked the outcome, I actually underexpose it by like 1/3 or maybe 2/3 of a stop. I gives it a bit more punch, and doesn't look as washed out as when you overexpose it
Use a w2 warm filter for cool film like 64, fuji.
Why don't you try scanning with a DSLR? I scanned some nearly thirty years old slides, which were kept in really nasty and dusty conditions, but a few of the images came out really lovely.
It's about the egg and the chicken here: The digital look was designed on the colors and overal image appearence of slidefilm, because the first users of digital cameras should have a similar feeling to their normal photography. Slides were the 'go-to' films for most of the people before digital went up, so they emulated that look digitally.
Digital is substantially easier to use / get good results from. I shoot film in 2019 because it looks different and I enjoy the process. If it doesn't look substantially different, much of the appeal is lost.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto for the same reasons I mostly shoot color negative, because it provides an other look. but like you said: expose slides because they are slides and this wonderful presentation with light. go into 120 slides and you will be blown away once again.
Slide film was always considered "pro", because it was what was used in all the glossy magazine editorials and ad copy, and because it was generally much more difficult to use properly than negative film. It was the standard of what a quality photograph should look like in terms of accuracy of color reproduction and (lack of) grain, and so in order to replace slide film in the professional market (and the regular consumer who desired to emulate that look), digital photography was tuned to meet and exceed that standard. Negative film (both B&W and color C-41) was the "go-to" for home and art photography for a century, which is why its idiosyncratic color reproduction (or lack of color reproduction altogether) and ever present grain triggers feelings of "lo-fi authenticity".
Yep, pro's shot slides for publications etc .. and now most of them are using digital. Modern digital are easier so much more dynamic range look so much different. look I think even a 2004 6MP dSLR had more DR than slide film also but they had a similar color palate and feel.
Too cold for me... My statement? Where is your class Kodak?
When I started shooting film, I shot only Fujicolor C200 that is cold as a Fuji, right? But you can get warm tones with it at box speed or a little underexposed. Then recently I bought Kodak ColorPlus 200 and the lab in my town developed it in Fuji chemicals. All the photos got a greenish look. I think their scanner was also set on Fuji profile. The only solution is to start developing my films on my own. But I heard that ColorPlus 200 is cooler today than it was before :( ... Maybe Gold 200 will do the trick? I mean, I want the famous Kodak colors.
Kodak Gold 200 or Kodak Pro Image 100 (which is really the same as the old Gold 100)
I've shot a lot of slide film over the years but the cost and development cost means I won't shoot it again. I also think transparencies are definitely viewed best through a good projector or as you say on a light table. I definitely prefer the look and feel from negative film and negatives definitely scan better than slide film. So for me having shot lots of Provia, Velvia and old Ektarchrome, it's not something I'm not going to be trying out.
your loss slide films cheaper than color negative to develop I do it myself at home, and it produces better results than labs and costs like $1-2 a roll
Looking @ your images they're reminiscent of Fuji Sensia, for me....
You don't mention what scanning software you used to scan the Ektachrome, but you might want to investigate scanning raw and using the ColorPerfect plugin. I've used it for years for both B&W and color film and couldn't imagine not having that tool available to me.
I use Silverfast. With slide film, there really aren't any adjustments the way there are with c-41.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto I use Silverfast Ai Studio 8 to scan into a raw file, then convert in PS using the ColorPerfect plugin. IMO, this plugin does a much better job than any settings I ever used in Silverfast scanning as a positive. Download a trial and see what ya think.
Is this considered a T-grain film? Try scanning at the highest resolution possible.
I am not in love with the look of it. As you say, the lack of grain makes it look digital-ish.
I love that Kodak is producing film and I am going to buy some rolls, just to support them, so they might make more, but it's not going to be my new favorite film.
Did you press 1?
I did.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto That was a really weird robocall.
Also just realized part of my comment was deleted. I wanted to say I've had similar frustrations with my scans of this film, though I've had a lot of luck with saving a few images by setting the black point in the curves on Photoshop. It still doesn't compare to what I see on the slides themselves, but it does bring back a bit of the contrast and punch.
Hey buddy are you allright? You look a bit tired lately, wondering if you are doing well.
That's just my face, man.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto Wasn't ment to be rude or anything, I just care about other people's health. Loving your videos.
Well, underexposing slide is always bad idea.
For similar price, I lean towards rdp3.
That's cheaper here and I prefer its more saturated colors.
If I'm not mistaken, there's this Silverfast software wich has scan profiles for each film stock. It could help you with that blue cast problem czcams.com/video/qtpmlEeJodw/video.html&t
I use Silverfast. Profiles only apply to negative films, where the software has to interpret the color.
All do I never liked (old and plain) Ektachrome film, I'd say a better scanning solution would definitely help; I'm sure there's much more than what we can see here...
Honestly, I'm not sure there is. When I scan Velvia, I feel like I'm losing something. These didn't even blow me away on the light table.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto Well, there's always a better scanner out there :-)
Personally I was never satisfied with results from a flatbed scanner, so these days I'm always scanning at professional lab...
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto Try DSLR scanning.
A pitty there is no 120 package.
From what I understand, they're working on it.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto I hope they will do. Using 135 stock that looks like a digital is quite pointless. On other side medium format cameras are reallu cheap now so it makes lots of sense to use them a lot.
Nice video. But at $13 per roll, the results better be spectacular. To be honest, yours were not.
I mean, I think it's a fine film. I appreciate it more for what it represents. I may have missed the part where I claimed these were spectacular photographs, though.
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto Agree, you never claimed they were spectacular. I would also agree that scanning color on an Epson flatbed is hit and miss, at best. I have a hell of a time with Portra 400.
I've had good luck with Portra, outside having to fiddle with the color balance when I overexpose it.
@@richardg6109 Why they claim is easy to scan? All three of them, Ektar, Portra 160 and 400 - same vision technology. All easy to scan, they say. Maybe they should specify which scanner, or give us their methodology, as they did with the sunny 16 rule printed on the film packages...
@@ErikWahlstromPhoto I'm pretty sure he was refering to the color palette of the images, and not to your skills. I also can say that the Kodak colors are not there. I think they were afraid to derail too much from what a digital camera can offer today.