Elite Chrome 200

I now have my first 2 EC200 films back and they are a bit darker than
the EC100 films I used before them. The same camera and lens was used
for the 100s and the 200s and the settings were the same. The scanned
images are a bit too dark and they require a lot more adjustment with
PS Elements than the EC100 films I have used, which were mostly ok
without any processing. Is this usual for EC 200?

Thanks
Mike

 

Can you show the scans?

You did set the ISO properly (160 .. 200) ( or it was DX'd)?

You metered exactly the same way? (Same scene, etc.?)

Other than that, no idea why they would be so different. I looked at
the density / exposure curves:

http://www.aliasimages.com/images/E100VE200.jpg

But as you can see, mysteriously, the exposure intensity difference for
the same density change is 1:1000. What's that all about? I expected
near 1:2 with some slight variation in the actual curves that -might-
have explained your problem.

You can see that the shoulder for the E200 is a bit steeper, so this may
have something to do with your experience... This would be in the more
saturated areas of the developed slide (lowest exp.)

Curve is also flatter at higher exposure for the E200 (near density of 0).

If you can seperate the curves in PS and lay one atop the other, you
might see the difference (ignoring the 1:1000 difference in exposure
that these curves imply...)

Cheers,
Alan.

 

The E100s & E200s were both used with a Pentax *Ist with a Tamron
24-135 lens. I let the camera set the ISO. The E100 I compared the
E200 with was used at an open grassy place in bright sunlight. The
E200s were used in a park, mostly open, and bright sunlight. Some were
also taken from a Citycat ferry with the camera on the action setting
because of the movement and vibration. Again mostly sunny.

When viewed with an 8x loupe the E200s look ok, just a bit darker than
the E100s. The problem is with the scanner, a 2400 dpi flatbed. It
seems to have more problems with the E200, especially the shaded
areas. The shanded areas on the E200s are mostly black, with little or
no detail and the foliage of trees is darker than it should be.

Mike

 

Sounds like underexposure. Try shooting a bracket at 200, 160 and 125 see
which looks the best.

 

I have now used 9 of the filems and found that most look ok with an 8X
loupe but the scans are mostly worse than scans of the E100 I used. I
have a 2400 dpi flatbed scanner, could this be the main problem with
scanning them, I assume a film scanner would do a better job? Should I
expect to have more problems scanning the E200 on my flatbed scanner?

Thanks
Mike

 

I have found that Elite Chrome 200 and Ektachrome E200 are not the same
film. They respond in a slightly similar manner, but shoot the same
scenes with both and E200 looks less contrasty, and more sharp, with
better colours.

Your flatbed scanner (unless creo or Dainippon Screen brands) is likely a
limitation. A film scanner would do much better in most situations, even
a lower cost 2700 dpi unit. E200 scans slightly easier than Elite Chrome
200, though neither should be too much trouble.

 

Flatbeds are not very good for film scanning, period.

If you scan E100 and E200 on any scanner you should expect the E200 to
be more grainy/noisy.

What really counts, however, is how you intend to print the images.

I would expect the E200 to do well up to about 12x8" if scanned at 2400
dpi or better ... with a film scanner like the Minolta 5400, Scan Dual
III or Nikon 4000/5000/V it would be a piece of cake.

For that matter, my old Minolta Scan Dual (original) with a scan dpi of
about 2800 would print wonderfully up to 12x8" on inkjet or minilab
laser exposed papers. A used Scan Dual can be had for less than US$200,
probably less than $100.

Cheers,
Alan.