Jump to content

New 64T Ektachrome


Paul Mattei

Recommended Posts

:) Has anyone tryed this new film yet?? What do you think? Is it OK to use the built in 85A filter or do you need to use a lens-front screw on 85 filter????

 

Some correction to what I've said before.

 

The film was introduced in 1991, not 1989 as I have said before. It even says so on the box: Kodak copyright 1991

 

You might want to use 85 because shadows tend to go blue/cyan even at normal temperature

 

That's something you learn to love if you become an Ektachrome junky. I'm one, specially like the pre-90's Ektachromes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got my first test roll of E64T back.

 

Kodak recommends using an 85B filter. I opted to use a Cokin 85B, out of convenience because I already have a filter stage for my Super 8 camera, and didn't have to buy an odd-ball screw-in filter.

 

My daylight footage was oddly coloured. To my eyes, highlights were kind of pink. The shadows were bluish, even with the 85B and really warm, sunset colour temperatures.

 

Tungsten footage (obviously exposed with no filter) had very accurate colour rendering. I was extremely impressed.

 

Of course, YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi, used 3 cartridges of 64t, images are too grainy, will never use the stock again. Some like the stock, imo its the worst super 8 stock i have ever used, even e160 was better than this stock.

 

It amazes me that people who know how to shoot kodachrome and like Kodachrome don't really like Ektachrome 64T stock, yet many others who probably don't like kodachrome that much like the Ektachrome 64T.

 

This tells me that Ektachrome 64T has it's place, but it may not actually be as a replacement for Kodachrome other than the fact that it is a color reversal film. At this point, I would say Velvia 50 (made by Fuji) and Kodak's 7201 (50 ASA negative) are the leading candidates for a real Kodachrome replacement.

 

Kodak's 7201 being the leading candidate because it should be around for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It amazes me that people who know how to shoot kodachrome and like Kodachrome don't really like Ektachrome 64T stock, yet many others who probably don't like kodachrome that much like the Ektachrome 64T.

 

It's because Kodachrome is so different from anything else. All E6/E4 films had their own look, but still they were a lot closer to each other and to the look of general film photography, than Kodachrome.

KR was like a film from another planet. And it divided the world of photography.

 

In the old days (pre '76), Kodachrome was by far the best choice in reversal photography, and was the professionals choice, and was also great in super8.

But in those days Ektachromes didn't look like they look today, they really had a lot of problems.

And were even more unnatural than Kodachrome.

 

What I find funny is that there are still some people who say that nothing beats Kodachrome for accurate realistic colors. If you mean saturation level, maybe, but if you put a McBeth chart, the colors are all over the place.

It's a great film for its classic look, but really its far from being realistic.

 

But also worth noting that Kodachrome now is nothing what it used to be decades ago. It really has changed to worse somewhere along the way. The "new" 64 and 40 really look like crap compared to

older versions.

 

E64T is a more "down to earth" film, so naturally those used to Kodachrome colors are disapointed.

And furthermore, E64T introduces its own set of problems tied to Ektachrome films.

But still its a good compromise between the vintage look of Kodachrome and modern look of new ektachrome films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...