More Ektar shots.

Sorry these are such 'generic snapshots' but I thought they may be of interest to people contemplating using film and getting it scanned. Taken on Kodak Ektar, Pentax PZ70 with DA35mm lens (edit - and a few with the F35-70 and Samyang 85mm). No PP.

Developed and scanned by Snaps Photo Services - for 7.50 I got a CD with 36 23MB jpegs, scanned at 6774x4492 pixels!




A close up of the grain at near 100%. The scan resolution exceeds the resolution of the film, I think. I'm very happy with the quality of the scans.




Other Ektar shots:













I also had some old HP5 film to use up.

Edit - no prizes for guessing which of these was not taken by me!

My favourite colour film now that I don't shoot slides. Those are big scans, especially for the price! I see the Rosebay Willowherb is doing well down your way too. K.

---

Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
My website

I really like the colour nuances of your Ektar images. You are fortunate to get such great scans for that price! I have currently used mostly Kodak Porta 400 for my 6x7 attempts, but I also have some rolls with Kodak Ektar 100. Seeing the great resuls you have gotten here, I am eager to shoot some rools of Ektar 120 film.

Bjørn

---

Flickr

Damn, I miss my Samyang 85. Very nice photos sir!

---

Me | About | PPG | Flickr | G+ | Twitter
Pentax K5 | DA 18-55 WR | DA 35 2.4 | A 50 1.7 | Tamron 70-300 Macro

Thanks for the comments chaps. I found it quite interesting that, unlike digital shooting, shooting with Ektar and my PZ70 delivered perfectly exposed images, with colour and contrast which was very pleasing straight out of the can. Look at the woodland shot. There's no way a DSLR could produce an exposure like that without quite a bit of tweaking in PP.

They should send you 16bit TIFFs really so there's no compression artefacts and more dynamic range to post pro with.

Just had a look and my neg scans are about 5060x3360 and a 16bit TIFF file is about 120Mb. Scanned at 3600 dpi. The scanner does do 7200dpi but it produces 500Mb files and way exceeds the res of the film.

Love those B&W shots btw - and Awwwwwww at doggie

---

Bodies: 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Smeggy's Forum and Pics

They do offer Tiff but I went with Jpeg as they are slightly cheaper and a more manageable file size! There's not much PP to do with these in any case.

---

Bodies: 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Smeggy's Forum and Pics

I love Ektar 100, has such an amazingly wide (and forgiving!) latitude. This is the only colour film i use now.

I used to get my negs scanned onto cd but found that when I got them back they were to over processed for my liking. I invested into an Epson V600, I really wanted the V750 but I don't shoot enough film to justify the cost. I generally scan my negatives at 4800 optical dpi and my 35mm files end up about the same size (around 6500 pixels at the widest end) and my medium format negs end up around 9200 pixels at the widest end. Obviously it takes a while to scan in all the negatives, do any dust removal/scratch removal but for me it was worth investing into a decent scanner.

All in all though I think they've done a very good job with the scans and the price isn't bad either

Howie

The K-5 is very good for photographing slides (not tried negatives)
and you get a RAW which can be manipulated quite a bit.

HDR may also be possible from several shots.

It doesn't pick up all the dust that scanning does
especially if you use a diffused light source, which
was the way to go with enlargers anyway.

---

Pentax K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Diffuser enlargers do indeed pick up less dust from a negative, but at the cost of a little contrast and sharpness. Condenser enlargers are sharper and more contrasty, by as much as a whole paper grade.

---

Best regards, John

Condenser's also lost a lot of highlight detail which might
not matter too much with 35mm, because it had 1 Zone less on
the Ansell Adams scale than 6x6 and larger, but it was
noticeable on the larger formats such as 6x7.

The exposure times were longer as well with diffusion.

I've still got a Super Chromega D700 6x7 diffusion enlarger
although I've not used it for years.

---

Pentax K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

This is a straight copy of a Kodachrome slide with a Pentax_A 50mm f/1.7 on K-5.... took only a few seconds
to copy each slide using the Pentax K Slide Copier.
Lighting was a large energy saving globe light (3200K) CB set in camera.

Slight alteration to CB no other PP or sharpening.

Taken in Seville 1972 Spotmatic II with 50mm f/1.8 lens - Kodachrome



-

---

Pentax K-5 and some other stuff

Algi