I finally did a proper time test (or in this case an f-stop test) for the Kodak Autographic;
I was testing the Fuji Velvia 50. Because it is a slow film I decided to try my Velvia 50 as the color film for my pre-1940 cameras, Here are the results. The f-stop range is 4, 8, 16, 32. I took two scenes. Scene 1 is a partially shaded path in a local park: Coal Creek Park.
The f/4.0 (first image) and the f/8.0 (second image) are both acceptable. The f/32 is definitely too dark, Results are similar for the stream shot from the same park.
So for the Kodak Autographic No.1 using the Fuji Velvia 50 film, either f/4.0 or f/8.0 depending on the lighting conditions. In very bright light one might consider try f/16.
As we have seen, there’s not a great difference in the color rendition for the Flowers from my Garden. Here are the final flower examples from the last roll from my Garden. I didn’t get to work much with the Poppies or Peonies because they were wiped out by a storm.
For all images the E100 is on the left and Velvia 50 is on the right. In the case of the Peonies above, the E100 is actually more saturated. And I believe that same could be said of the Iris below. Go figure……
Again, no real difference in the Torch Lilies below (genus Kniphofia).
And for the Turkish Poppies…….one can say that the E100 has a richer color.
So my Garden didn’t really tell me anything. I know from earlier Landscape work that the E100 seemed Cold. And Flowers from the Mayo Clinic Cactus Garden were off color also for E100. My last roll of film comparison will be landscapes from the Snowy Range of Wyoming. I will be using a warming filter, so we’ll see what difference that makes. And a surprising choice for my color film going forward……
The Irises display more of a difference, being both richer is color and truer to the colors I saw. You’ll have to trust me on that. I had intended to make Portra 400 images for all the garden shots, but that camera malfunctioned. However, I do have some Portra 400 35 mm images. One posted ant the end for comparison. As before, you’ll have to make your choice based on which color balance you prefer.
We will start with Yellow Irises, since we did see a difference in the Yellow Tulips:
As before, the E100 is on the left and the Velvia 50 is on the right. You can see the richer saturation in the Velvia 50. Something that we are expecting.
Varying the contrast and brightness had no affect on the absolute color, which is what we are interested in here.
Now we move on to Purple, which was a color that Velvia 50 favored in previous examples:
As before, E100 on the left and Velvia 50 on the right…….
For me, the Velvia yields a more attractive color and is closer to what I saw. Now let me tell you a little secret. Once in a Physics experiment in college, it showed that I tend to see a little bit into the UV spectrum. That is probably why the richer purples appeal more to me.
However, if you want truer color I think we have to get out the Portra 400 (below). Again, I think it is an aesthetic choice…….
There was so much discussion after my first posting, that I’ve moved up the Film Test Series. You seen what the Owls had to say………Now we’ll move into My Garden for the next three comparisons, and end with a road trip.
For all image sets, E100 is the first image (here the top)………Velvia 50 the second image (here the bottom). I love these dark purple tulips…….
I’d say these are too close to call………
You may notice some fuzzy focus. We’ve had a lot of wind lately. Impossible to find a still day.
E100 on the Left……Velvia 50 on the right.
So theTulips didn’t prove to be much of a test. Only the red and yellow Tulips show a definite difference. Next we’ll see what the Irises have to say…….
I typically use Ilford SFX-200 as my IR-Sensitive film. When I started, I used it with my darkest red filter:
But now I use my IR-695 filter:
Recently I’ve had two IR-sensitive film come my way: Rollei Retro 80S and Washi-Z. Let’s start with the Rollei film. Because of my positive experience using the 695 filter, I tried this with the Retro 80S. It resulted in interesting but very high contrast images:
Compare this to T-MAX 400 with a Dark Red filter (sorry that’s the film I had in the other Mamiya-7 at the time):
Here a direct comparison of the same scene, SFX-200 and Retro 80S, both with the IR-695 filter:
Can you tell which is which? The Retro 80S is the upper image, the SFX-200 is the lower image. The SFX image preserves the fine high altitude clouds better…..
I have recently read an article on the Retro 80S, where the author only used the dark red filter. @EMULSIVEfilm also has another recent article comparing Retro 80S and Retro 400S, again both using the dark red filter. So now I’m going to embark on a set of side by side Retro and SFX images making, using only the dark red filter. Can’t wait to see what happens……
Continuing with the Showdown that I started a few days ago. I’ve been using E100 over a year. I’m midway in a film showdown between Kodak E100 vs Fuji Velvia 50. I had always preferred Kodak in the past, however, after some 35 mm experiences last year I had doubts. I had always used E100GX, a warm toned film of the old generation. The new film was based on a colder version E100G. But to be fair, I decided to do some formal color test comparison. This is Part, I am comparing four images of the Owl Mural made with four different films: E100, Velvia 50, Portra 400 and Lomo 800. For the direct comparison of the E-6 films I used my Mamiya-7’s; the Portra was exposed using a Mamiya-6; and the Lomo 800 was exposed using a Diana F+, for the Frugal Film Project.
First I’ll show them in pairs, then break down my critique of each one. Naturally I have selected my personal favorite for the Header image above.
Left: Lomo 800; Right: Portra 400. I made no adjustments for tone or contrast; only cropping to make them comparable in size. All of the image were exposed on overcast days. The first comment I can make is that both C-41 films are truer to the actual mural colors. The Portra 400 has a richer color tone which I would expect for the lower ISO film. But you have to admit that the Lomo 800 is very good, especially since it was exposed using a plastic camera. The winner here is Kodak Portra 400:
Now for the main event, E100 (left) vs Velvia 50 (right):
Fuji Velvia 50
As one would expect, the E-6 films have a more saturated color. Not quite a natural representation. But in my lifetime experience with film (going back to childhood) I’ve mostly shot E-6. As a field scientist back in the pre-PowerPoint days, I needed to show my information in slide presentations. So that meant E-6 films. In my earlier professional days I used ECN films. When that was discontinued I switched to Kodak E100GX.
If you read my earlier experiences with E100, you’ll be able to decide which one I prefer. I simply find the E100 too cold. So the Winner here is, Fuji Velvia 50. I enjoy the richer and brighter blues and purples……
So these are my two favorites. I can accept either one depending on what I am trying to demonstrate. Which one do you prefer?
Fuji Velvia 50
Stay tuned, right now I am continuing the side-by-side testing of these films as my Mamiya 645’s take a tour of my flower and vegetable gardens. I’m going to give E100 every possible chance to show me something that I’ll like.
And I may do a follow-up Road-Trip landscape comparison. In that case, I’ll see if a warming filter makes me feel better about the new Kodak E100.
I have to admit that I was disappointed with early my 35 mm E100 results. I felt that the film was cold and realized that it was based on the old E100G, a film I only used with a warming filter. My favorite of the old Kodak E-6 films was E100GX, the warm toned film. I used it extensively in Patagonia and mourned its loss. You can also check out our first Patagonia Calendar.
But I digress. Let’s get back to the purpose of this study: Kodak E100 versus Fuji Velvia 50. After my E100 doubts I happened upon this old Velvia 50 image of Boreas Pass and thought about a comparative test:
So I set up my two Mamiya 6X7’s for the test. There was one difference: The Velvia 50 camera had a 43 mm lens and the E100 camera had a 50 mm lens. We can debate if that makes a difference, but for Showdown Part II, I’ll be using matching camera set ups. So hold your argument for later.
Here are the side-by-sides: Think about which is which and I’ll tell you at the end.
Details regarding what I learned from this Owl are discussed in my next posting…………
In all cases the top image is Kodak E100 and the bottom image is Fuji Velvia 50. There were no adjustments made to color balance. You may note that the Velvia 50 images are more color saturated and have some purple or pink in the sky. The E100 is less saturated and has a colder sky. Now it’s up to you. Which do you prefer? Keep in mind that this is an overcast sky. So I’ll add one more pair. I wanted to capture my purple house, but in the morning the house was too dark. But you can see that with a clear sky the Velvia 50 (bottom image) has the saturated blue sky:
The snow is still holding that purple cast in the Velvia 50 image. E100 has a truer presentation of the snow. Comments, perspectives appreciated.
Next, we’ll take a look at my Garden Flowers using my Mamiya 645’s both with 80 mm macro lenses.. Since I have something blooming all summer, I’m shooting two rolls of each film throughout my gardening season, and I’ll post as I go……..
I waited with baited breath, as they say, for results from early E100 Film Testing. Always reliable, I delved into the EMULSIVE Review, which compared various exposures, by processing at EI 100, 200, 400 800. At first glance I like the EI200 images, so I started by comparing EI 100 vs EI 200. The Cameras, my nearly identical Minolta X-700 with Tamron 28-200 zoom lens, which I’ve used for a number of side by side film tests:
I took a second look at the EMULSIVE results after reviewing my own tests, and can’t believe that I didn’t see the EI 200 images were colder. Also, the example scenes were not typical subjects that I would have photographed (the exception being flowers). I had fears about the new E100 because I new that it was based on E100G, which I had always found to be too cold. I always used a warming filter with the old E100G. The long gone warm tone balanced E100GX had been my favorite.
So my results, E100 @ EI 125 (following Galen Rowell’s recommendation) on the top and EI 200 on the bottom. All of the photos are the original raw scans with no adjustments of brightness, contrast or levels and no warming filter:
The Cathedral Rocks in Arizona, I tried to get the same perspective, but there is a slight difference. Below viewed from a distance:
And zoomed in:
Note the color of the Red Rocks and the Soil. Since I frequently shoot Red Rocks, I’d like them to have the truer Red of the EI 125 images. Below I’m showing the EI 125 exposed a +1 stop. It probably offers a truer color rendition:
It’s probably time for me to test E100 with a warming Filter vs. Portra 400. I’ve found Portra 400 to be an acceptable color film for my current use. I’ve also been spoiled by the wide latitude of exposures that a C-41 film allows. Since I mostly shoot B&W now, I’m not sure that E100 has enough zip to bring me back to E-6. But I’ll wait on a final E100 choice after the 120 is available. I’ll test that vs Portra 400.