A couple of months ago, the claim was made here that the 'usual\n"daylight/tungsten" rule doesn't apply' to Ektar 100. I was curious\nabout this claim, so I decided to try a somewhat controlled test.\n\nI set up a simple shot on my copystand and took 6 shots, each lit with\na single bulb. 2 of the shots were taken with a daylight-balanced\nfluorescent with a claimed CRI of 88. 2 were taken with an ordinary\nhousehold 75-watt bulb, and 2 were taken with a 250W ECA 3200K\nphotoflood.\n\nI used aperture priority mode on the F100. Nothing was touched\nbetween shots except to change the bulbs and trigger the release.\nBefore shooting, I turned on each bulb for 3 minutes to minimize\nany startup effects.\n\nAfter shooting the rest of the roll, I had the film processed at a\nlocal "dip and dunk" lab and a traditional contact sheet made.\nThis allowed me to view the results before any corrections were\napplied in the printing.\n\nHere is a scan of the relevant frames from the contact sheet:\n[URL]http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/ektar.jpg[/URL]\n\nAs you can see, the results are pretty much what you'd expect from\nany daylight balanced C-41 film. The background of the copystand\nis an 18% neutral gray. So the "CRI 88" fluorescent has a greenish\ncast, but both the consumer bulb and photoflood shots have the\ntraditional strong orange cast.\n\nMy conclusions? Ektar 100 doesn't break any of the traditional rules\nfor daylight balanced film. But modern analysis and digital correction\npermits permits you to get perfectly usable prints and scans from\nit, even when done automatically in a minilab.