Re: [photo-3d] XA Twin Rig/Elite Chrome 200

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Shields wrote:
> The Elite Chrome 200 was interesting. This is the second time I've
> used it for test shots, when I want the results in a hurry (2-hour
> E6 lab 4 blocks away). This time I was surprised at the much better
> results under fluorescent--about as good as Kodachrome 200, assuming
> you like the Kodak E6 palette. It's familiar to me as I've used
> various Ektachromes over the years for this and that. It's not
> awful, but I definitely prefer Kodachrome. The last Elite Chrome 200
> I shot, several years ago, was definitely green under
> fluorescent--this wasn't. Could be variation in processing--I don't
> know. This lab seems O.K., but since I'm not normally an E6 shooter,
> I'm certainly no authority on it. The outdoor shots in shade were
> likewise pleasant, not having a blue cast. So the color variations
> under different lighting conditions, including bright sunlight, were
> small. I like that. But Kodachrome 200 is good that way too.
> 

The Elite Chrome 200 that you used with the XAs is probably not the
same film that you used a few years ago.  Kodak and Fuji have the bad
habit of changing films without changing their names, reintroducing an
old name for a new film, or changing names for new marketing
campaigns.  They also use similar names for very different films
(Tri-X vs. Tri-X Pro).  That's why I tend to use the catalog
designation (e.g., EPP) and not the general name (Ektachrome 100
Plus).

Elite Chrome 200 is a pretty nice film.  I've been using E200 (the pro
version, mostly because the shop I use carries it) in my Sputnik and
Lubitels for a while now.  It has a number of nice features.  It's a
stop faster than EPP.  Since I tend to shoot at f/16 the extra stop is
useful, even outdoors on a sunny day.  It pushes nicely to 320 (+1)
and 640 (+2).  The Kodak data sheet mentions that you can push to 1000
(+3), but I haven't tried that yet.  I don't find the grain
bothersome.  Larger formats do have the advantage that as the film
size increases the grain is less important because the viewing
magnification is lower.  And it has very good reciprocity
characteristics.  It's biggest failing is that I can't get it in 4x5
sheets.

> Sharpness was another story. True, there is not the appearance of
> graininess, but the sharpness just isn't there. Even the best shots
> look somewhat on the mushy side. The pushed (to 200) Provia 100F
> that I tried was definitely better, and acceptable to me in that
> regard (and fine-grained). But I will always pick sharpness over
> grain. Besides, Kodachrome 200 slides don't _always_ look grainy--it
> depends on the subject. It would seem that the pushed Provia 100F
> should be the film to use, then, but the roll I shot was violently
> green under fluorescent, and strongly blue in most shade. The reds
> were also exaggerated under all light. None of the three is perfect,
> but now that the test shots are over, I have a pair of 36-exposure
> rolls of Kodachrome 200 ready to put in the XA pair.
> 

I haven't seen a problem with sharpness with E200.  Any pairs I have
that aren't sharp are definitely out of focus.  I have some very sharp
E200 images (blades of grass receding into the background, engine
details on hot rods and airplanes, etc.).

Are you using color correcting filters while photographing under
fluorescent lighting?  I wouldn't expect anything but strange colors
without the proper CC filter, unless you use a flash to over power the
ambient light.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"