# Blue Goo



## Josh66 (Nov 12, 2010)

lol




Kodak Ektar 100


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 12, 2010)

not very interesting... i feel like the idea is there, but the presentation is lacking.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 12, 2010)

crazy aaron's thinking putty?


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 12, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> crazy aaron's thinking putty?


It's actually drill lube.  About the consistency of the stuff they use for ultrasound.

D-B-J, how is the presentation lacking?  I don't really get that...  What, like it needs a border or something?


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging (Nov 13, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > crazy aaron's thinking putty?
> ...


 

Its kind of one dimensional.  Not much variation in depth or color to make it interesting.


----------



## ChrisA (Nov 15, 2010)

Nice colour.  Is that representative of the Kodak film ?


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 15, 2010)

ChrisA said:


> Nice colour.  Is that representative of the Kodak film ?


Thanks.

Not sure if I would say that it's representative of the film or not...  I used to not like Ektar very much, but I'm starting to like it now.  I would say the colors are very accurate, but that depends a lot on how you scan it and what PP you do too.

This particular shot had very minimal PP.  Crop and a little bit of curves mostly.  No sharpening at all other than whatever the default output settings are in GIMP.

What surprised me the most was the complete lack of grain.  Even at 100% on this 6400ppi scan (which you can see on Flickr - just click on the picture then go to all sizes) there is very little detectable grain.

That, I think, was mostly because of this particular subject...  On most other shots I have, the grain is fine, but you can at least see it.


----------



## Stormchase (Nov 16, 2010)

I think its an intresting shot. I would have maybe moved down a little and nipped out the light blue on the top right. but it looks good


----------



## ChrisA (Nov 16, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> Not sure if I would say that it's representative of the film or not...  I used to not like Ektar very much, but I'm starting to like it now.  I would say the colors are very accurate, but that depends a lot on how you scan it and what PP you do too..



What scanner do you use >  is it from the negative or the print ?

Impressed by the lack of grain. :thumbup:


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 16, 2010)

Scanning the negatives with an Epson V600.  Before that I was using a PlusTek OpticFilm 7300.  I like them both, the work-flow is just a little different between them.

If you looked at the Ektar 100 set on my Flickr, a lot of those need rescanned/re-uploaded (and some of them have really bad scratches...).  I accidentally reset all the settings for my scanner software and didn't notice that it was on the wrong color space until I had already uploaded them.  That's why the colors look off on some of them.  Most of the pictures in that set don't really do the film justice...


----------



## jake337 (Nov 17, 2010)

When I read Bue Goo I was thinking of something entirely different, lol.


----------



## ChrisA (Nov 18, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> Scanning the negatives with an Epson V600.  Before that I was using a PlusTek OpticFilm 7300.  I like them both, the work-flow is just a little different between them.
> 
> If you looked at the Ektar 100 set on my Flickr, a lot of those need rescanned/re-uploaded (and some of them have really bad scratches...).  I accidentally reset all the settings for my scanner software and didn't notice that it was on the wrong color space until I had already uploaded them.  That's why the colors look off on some of them.  Most of the pictures in that set don't really do the film justice...



Thanks for the info.

I'll have a look at that Epson.  Maybe negatives / positive issue, but have real trouble scanning in Velvia on a Nikon Film Scanner.  Seems to really struggle with shadow resolution.  I must also give this Ektar a go.


----------

