What makers of film might need from us...

[lxdude]

I expect that E100D would be very good on skin tones. Typically, movies have people in almost all their scenes. It would not make any sense to have lousy skin tones.
Plus, Kodak has tremendous expertise at reproducing good skin tones, and it is known as a Kodak strong point.

EDIT: Examples are online, for instance at flickr. It is most definitely saturated!

[lxdude]

Originally Posted by nzoomed

As far as im aware, the D in E100D, means its daylight balanced, ie not for indoor use, most reversal film is like that though anyway.

It is a daylight balanced film, which means filters have to be used for artificial light, unless that light has a high color temperature, like for example 5500K full-spectrum fluorescents. It is a 5500K film.

[KR4myF2AS]

Originally Posted by nzoomed

I think there would be some interest in doing this, and im sure we could get a few on APUG keen to put some money together and split a roll up, if someone had the resources to repackage this film, i think they could easily sell it on Ebay. It would also be an advantage to find suitable DX coded film canisters that can be re-used.

Splitting a master might be worth considering at some point in the not-to-distant future when 35mm E100G is unavailable anywhere. The current cost for a 400 foot roll is a tad north of $400.00 US the last I heard. Whether the price will rise appreciably in the future is an open question (I expect it will); nonetheless, if enough parties are interested it may be worth considering. For my part, I have a deep-freeze filled almost to capacity with E100G/E100VS (in both 35mm and 120), PanF Plus and FP4 Plus (in 120) and Tri-X (35mm); it will be at least two years before I have worked my way through this stash. After which, though, I may well consider the E100D option. As LX has noted, accurate skin tones have always been a Kodak strong point - an important consideration for much of my work.

[sdkodachrome]

Originally Posted by KR4myF2AS

As LX has noted, accurate skin tones have always been a Kodak strong point - an important consideration for much of my work.

The question is: Does E100VS have accurate skin tones or not?

I seem to recall Kodak giving it that attribute as well.

The claims that it doesn't came from some users (and not all users).

And which skin tones?

And by that, I don't mean just whose skin tones, but skin tones in what lighting?

E100VS certainly intensifies the "golden light" (low sun) warmth that affects skin tones i(as well as everything else) in real life. Does that mean it has "accurate" or "inaccurate" skin tones? Is it a fair test as to whether skin tones are "accurate" at the edge of day, or do they only need to be accurate when the sun is higher in the sky?

(The only time I happened to do an E100VS vs E100G comparison that involved people shots was late in the day.)

[lxdude]

I can not see why Kodak would not make sure any movie film has good skin tones. Most movie frames have people in them; it would make no sense for the film to have funky skin tones. As for accurate, the tones could possibly not be as dead-on accurate as Astia was, but still look great. For one thing, if the film is more saturated than reality, the skin tones would probably have to be also, to balance.

Kodak says E100D's skin tones are "accurate". I want accurate, but what I most want is for it to "look good", even if not fully accurate.

Consider Kodachrome: some later films were more accurate, but Kodachrome just looked real, or as McCurry said, it "looks like life".

[lxdude]

Over on APUG is a thread called, "Photostock 2012 - The Circus Continues!", which has a short film shot on E100D.
Outdoor shots don't appear oversaturated. Flesh tones look good, though strong, but those shots are indoors so it could be the lighting.