What's the exposure latitude of Color Neg film?

[MattKing]

Somehow, I don't think Drew photographs weddings.
The initial answer to the question posed in the title is a question - "For which photographic usage?"
If you are controlling the light, and aiming for extremely accurate and/or dependable colour rendition, Drew is completely right.
If you are working under conditions that depend on latitude in order to obtain pleasing results of substantial quality, the other posters who describe their experiences with moderately increased exposure provide good, practical advice.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

. The consensus among serious practitioners is to stick with box speed of 100 when shooting Ektar. But the blue curve of Ektar shoulders off before the green or red, so overexposed highlights end up contaminated with cyan. There are issues in deep shadows too. Just changing the overall balance in PS won't correct this. It's far easier to correct at the actual time of the shot.

Drew, there is a lot of good information in this thread, but I am getting a bit lost. For Ektar 100 in 35mm cameras: expose at EI=100, correct? If in doubt, err a bit in overexposing or err a bit on underexposing? I often use an incident light meter, which, in my experience, recommends a bit more exposure than a reflected reading from the camera location. I will be visiting Greece in August, with its brilliant Mediterranean sun and hard summer light. Thanks!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Drew, there is a lot of good information in this thread, but I am getting a bit lost. For Ektar 100 in 35mm cameras: expose at EI=100, correct? If in doubt, err a bit in overexposing or err a bit on underexposing? I often use an incident light meter, which, in my experience, recommends a bit more exposure than a reflected reading from the camera location. I will be visiting Greece in August, with its brilliant Mediterranean sun and hard summer light. Thanks!

I found Portra 400 120 worked very well in Greece and the Greek islands.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The best answer is don't err. But given the fact we all do tend to err sometimes, it's better to SLIGHTLY err via overexposure. But you risk overexposing the sky and making it too cyan rather than clean blue. That's hypothetical because I don't really know the Mediterranean coast. We do go to the Hawaiian Islands where the tropical water and sky can truly be turquoise in instances, and the cyan bias of Ektar renders it superbly. Not so in the high mountains here where it struggles with deep true blue. When blue is nearer midtone level, that's not a problem. So each shot needs to be strategized. I can't give a blanket answer. Overexposure it too much and you risk pushing the blue curve up onto the shoulder with the green curve still going, leading to cyan. That's the most common complaint I hear about Ektar. A pinkish 2A skylight filter will partially counteract the cyan tendency. ...I just noticed the intermediate post recommending Portra 400. Yes, that would give you better control over blue hues and harsh contrast, but less control over fine yellow vs orange distinctions. If it were me, I'd take both films.

 

[Mr Bill]

Note: this is gonna be one of those long technical posts. I started writing several days ago, adding a bit here and there as I had time. So it grew and grew, and I don't see any parts that can really be thrown out. So read only if you want to see inside of a certain sort of operation. It's pretty much limited to portrait films (aka Portra, albeit an earlier version) under electronic flash.

It's really quite amazing. [macfred's photolab link] Though I would like to see the results with darkroom prints and with other scanners. Sometimes I wonder if the magic of overexposure is in the film or...

I've been through that routine upwards of a dozen times over the years, mostly with the 125 or 160 speed Kodak professional portrait films. Printed optically onto the appropriate pro paper. This was done within the main processing lab of a large studio chain outfit. We were especially finicky because the film was all ours, and with the amount we used it couldn't be bought "off the shelf." There were contractual obligations well into the future. So if you committed to something that didn't work out, you couldn't just change your mind.

Consequently we did some pretty extensive testing with a variety of complexions, from very pale to very dark, as well as different hair colors. And we did this over a wide variety of exposures, not because we intended to use this range, but because of the possibility of exposure screw-ups in the studios. With a large number of studios it was a regular routine for this to happen periodically.

Basically we would test with about 4 or 5 different models - different ccmplexions and hair color - with a variety of colored clothing. Some of the clothing we supplied (x-tra large shirts, worn over clothes as smocks), as well as a handful of colored fabric samples. These gave us the ability to duplicate some clothing colors over the years. We also included measurable color reference targets in the scene.

Now, if you're going to do a test where you're finicky about exposure then you have to be specific about what "correct" exposure is. All of the mainstream pro portrait film makers supplied such info in the form of aim densities for gray cards and flesh tones. (Additionally, the manufacturers used to supply "printer setup negative sets," known on the internet as "Shirleys;" the middle negative was defined as "normal" exposure, so one could use this as an analyzer (such as Kodak PVAC) or printing data reference. When we used known-calibrated Minolta incident flash meters under mostly frontal (standard-style) studio lighting the film exposures came out right on the money. I guess it goes without saying that the processing has to also be right on the money, otherwise this can put the film densities off; we always had a "process control strip" run with our film tests.

For printing, we'd use a negative close to normal, color balance to "ideal," which was a committee decision by 4 or 5 well-qualified people viewing in a color-correction booth. After this, each negative being evaluated is hand balanced to closely match the "normal" exposure neg. (As a portrait specialist we did our matching on the flesh highlights; everything else falls where it will.) Finally, everything is evaluated in the color booth - are we having color crosses in any of the skin tones, where do the exposure extremes begin to suffer, how are the reference colors coming out? And other similar things. Our goal was to shoot huge amounts of portrait sittings in our studios, then to print various package assortments in what is basically a production line sort of operation. Most of the time, I'd say that about 2/3 of our production was within +/- 2 CC units on the color, although 5 CC was our official standard. One might wonder, why the finicky testing with such a relatively "loose" standard? Well, if you try to control individual variables tighter than you need, you tend to end up with an overall higher success rate in your final product - this is, after all, a lot like a factory for pictures.

(More than) A few words about "color shifts" with changing film exposure. First, one has to consider what this really means. If you are using a manual color head, or even CC filters, and you balance on one specific negative, what happens when the film exposure changes? Everyone understands that the printing exposure has to change, but what about the color filters? This would constitute a color shift, right? And I guess it would. But... major production labs never worry about this. You might wonder why not? It's because it is automatically compensated for in every major type of printing machine. This is called "printer slope," and is (or was, in the days of optical printing) set up via the use of the printer setup negs (aka "Shirleys"). The printing machines and analyzers were set up to make matching "best" prints from an exposure series of negatives. Whatever filtration differences existed between the negatives, the printing system is essentially told, "from now on these color offsets are to be seen as the same print data as the normal negative." The printing systems then works out an internal "correction algorithm," aka slope, and henceforth no special correction has to be put in for exposure variations. In other words, the commercial machine printer never sees a color shift due to film exposure. But someone working with a manual color head likely will. Note that a major reason for slope control is considered to be due to the change in exposure time for the paper, so it probably helps to keep a constant exposure time. (I don't have much experience with this, but I imagine that Drew W knows all about it.) My point here is that anyone who worked with well set-up printers under computer control would likely never "see" such a color shift with film exposure, even though it may exist. And I am personally ignorant of the extent of such shifts since I nearly always worked with slope-controlled machines.

Finally, what was the exposure latitude on these professional films? Based on the testing I described, and only for the specific films I dealt with, the last being Portra 160 NC (replaced years ago by just Portra 160), we could run from about 1 stop under to about 3 or 4 stops over, and the resulting prints would look virtually identical. In our color booths, we could lay our actual test fabrics next to the print, and most people would say they're virtually the same color. (I'm sure that one could find fabrics that would fail this test - just saying that our selections, including strong red, green, and blue colors, were nearly a match -at least close enough that very few people would squawk about it. ) Now, if you were to leave the color booth, all bets are off. The dyes in the print are spectrally different than the original, which means that they can't match under every light. The color booth has a full spectral makeup, same as light from the sun, which is necessary to see color deficiencies in the print. (If you are trying to evaluate color prints under an "unknown" light, GOOD LUCK! At least compare under natural light for a reality check.)

If we exceeded a stop under (maybe the limit was a bit lower; I'm going from memory) the first problem to show up would be "graininess" in the darkest parts of the scene. We specifically included black fabrics in our tests, so we could see this sort of thing. If you note in the link by macfred (post #7, I believe), Canadian Film Lab's tests (or is it UK Film Lab?) you can see that the test subject is light-complexioned, not too-dark hair, and light-colored clothing. So this test subject is not gonna stress the dark-handling capability of the film; they're gonna find that the can underexpose more than if they had dressed in black, etc. You might note that in their -2 stop examples the darker tree trunk in the background has turned a different color - it has become a bit "reddish" compared with the other exposures. So it seems to be an underexposure effect. Now, where I come from, this would be outside the "usable" latitude of the film, although most casual shooters would probably say it's fine.

Another significant note is, if the subject is dark-complexioned you may want to reduce the printing exposure to lighten them up; this means it is more "difficult" to get dark-enough blacks in the print. You'll run into problems earlier with the shadow portion of the film response. More bluntly, you will have less underexposure leeway - perhaps a half stop, even a full stop or more might be lost. So in these cases your underexposure leeway might be only a half stop or less.

Anyway, this just shows some of the things that can be involved in evaluating a portrait film under ideally-balanced (electronic flash) lighting, and why different people might claim different exposure latitude limits.

I don't have any critical experience like this with respect to using these films under different light sources nor with non-portrait films, so I'll defer to those who do so.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bill, this sounds remarkably like the tests that we ran on our films before they were released to the customer. We made sure that they worked, and did so under a wide variety of conditions. And, we used several of our own products and competitor products for comparison.

PE

 

[dmr]

Shoot a roll of slide film every so often.

Makes you appreciate the latitude of negative film!

 

[Mr Bill]

Bill, this sounds remarkably like the tests that we ran on our films before they were released to the customer. We made sure that they worked, and did so under a wide variety of conditions. And, we used several of our own products and competitor products for comparison.

Thanks Ron; these were all things that we felt we had to do in order to be prepared for potential problems.

As a note, perhaps 6 or 10 of our test runs were as part of trade trials with Kodak materials. So in a way they could be seen as part of the next phase of manufacturer testing. We'd be visited by a Kodak team that would bring packages of their own materials for us to process in our seasoned chemicals - sensitometric tests and the like, as well as reviewing our own internal test results. Plus Kodak-processed negs for us to run through our printing equipment/processors, collecting chemical samples, etc.

We always ended up sticking with the Kodak portrait films, which were always incredible materials for their day. As well as a professional support operation which was second to none (at least in the US).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Mr Bill. I'll try to do your long thread due justice later, so just a couple minor clarifications first. I'm not really a portrait photographer. I did sometimes get portrait commissions from collectors of my prints, and the whole point was for me to personally print them myself, my way. That generally meant Cibachrome (yeah, heresy!) or classic 8x10 camera black and white work. I charged per print, delivered in high-end framed fashion from my own frame shop. But when color neg films or smaller equipment was more realistic, that's what I used - a lot of different films over the years. Most of what I do with color neg film today, mostly Ektar, would have been called impossible by commercial labs not too long ago, and looks more like high-end chrome printing, but actually better in certain hue categories. But if someone wants a non-headache film for portraiture or weddings, I'd steer them straight to Portra 160 or perhaps 400. There are very few weddings in this part of the world that don't pose the exposure challenge of mixed ethnicities as well as a black suit in the same shot as a white dress. Kodak and Fuji figured out these scenarios long ago and have only gotten better at it. Of course, most pros have gone digital, but film has the advantage of creating a higher end niche. The portrait studio right next door to one of the most famous restaurants in the country shoots ONLY film, and prints it darkroom style. If they were just another digital gig, the studio space lease would bankrupt them the first month. I'm more an outdoor type and retired.

 

[Mr Bill]

Hi Mr Bill. I'll try to do your long thread due justice later, so just a couple minor clarifications first. I'm not really a portrait photographer. I did sometimes get portrait commissions from collectors of my prints,...

Hi Drew; I appreciate that much of your work is outdoor/nature, and that sort of thing. So I'm trying to be clear that MY experience is primarily under studio lighting, and that the colors I've dealt with have been either skin, hair, clothing, and jewelry - that sort of thing.

So readers should appreciate some of the differences - you are trying to produce a color rendition of things such as the sky and foliage, and that sort of thing, in a situation where specular reflections from foliage may be of the blue sky. So the fine details will be a lot different than in a pure studio situation.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Film stock and exposure comparison - Fuji 400H, Portra 160, Portra 400 & Portra 800 http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/
It's hard to go wrong with modern film stock.

+1 In my experience, most all modern emulsions will tolerate quite a bit of over exposure. Ektar can start get a little weird in the highlights if you go to far, but if you're scanning and know your way around, it's easy enough to correct with some tone curve tooling.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's a myth. Easy to correct. Ha! I've seen a lot of those so-called corrections. It's not just the highlights that get contaminated. I've talked to a couple of digi printing gurus who went nuts slithering and dithering for days on end to try to get the colors back in shape. It's just so much easier to do right at the time of exposure itself.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, Bill. In the studio it's quite easy to control lighting ratios as well as color temp issues. And the nature of the shots differs too. My studio are is dismantled. It rarely did color in it. More like old school Arri fresnels and other hot lights for black and white portraiture. Commercial shots were done in my lab instead, and including some forensic copystand photography to detect art fraud under IR light etc, some product shots, etc. Most of my color portraiture was outdoors or window light. But that whole category of work was just a sideline. I'm more of a wilderness hiker with large format gear. Funny how everything gets larger and heavier as time goes on! Einstein was completely wrong. Gravity is a function of time, and the space that gets warped is one's waistline.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

That's a myth. Easy to correct. Ha! I've seen a lot of those so-called corrections. It's not just the highlights that get contaminated. I've talked to a couple of digi printing gurus who went nuts slithering and dithering for days on end to try to get the colors back in shape. It's just so much easier to do right at the time of exposure itself.

How many digital colorists are there in the world? Good ones? Not many. The truth is, the vast majority of people that claim to be digital experts don’t really understand how it works, so you can’t really base whether or not something is possible on seeing work from those people. They may know how to use the software, and if they have a clean neutral to start from, they know how to give it a certain look, but if you give them an image that needs corrections, more often than not, they’ll flounder, or do it in some cock-eyed fashion that doesn’t give good results because they don’t understand what’s actually wrong with the image. The fact that so many people struggle to invert and remove the mask and the vast majority of scanned film images still show signs that they haven’t correctly dealt with a correctly exposed image should tell you a lot about how much they know and how skilled they actually are, so I wouldn’t be so quick to call BS on something based off of that, especially if that process isn’t your normal mode of operation. That’s a lot like someone who doesn’t do darkroom prints calling BS on something you routinely do in the darkroom. Makes you wonder if they actually know anything about what they’re calling BS on.

That being said, yes, Ektar is best at box speed.

Personally, I prefer more shadows and blacks, so I add 1 stop of shadow detail by shooting it 50. My process linearizes the raw scan and I’ve built a characteristic curve for each color channel so I know where they start to shoulder off and linearize the shoulder so if you do happen to shoot it 2 or 3 stops over, you still get a linearized scan that maybe needs a minor tone curve tweak to deal with emulsion or process variations. If you understand what each color channel is doing and where it’s doing it, it’s not that hard to put it back into line.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What if they wrote the scanning software to begin with, and are the primary consultant for the inkjet company? That kinda changes the equation. When they call a project hell, and I'm looking at the result with my own eyes (not over the web), I believe it. They were well recognized darkroom printers before that, so understand the pros and cons. Over the hill somewhat now. So now maybe some new fixes have come around, that is, this side of Hollywood budgets. Admittedly, I have no interest in inkjet printing myself; but I do understand color theory better than most and am extremely skeptical that just anything can be fixed in PS. Dithering isn't a fix, but painting back in what one thinks it's supposed to be. I've seen examples of your style of control and it seems to make sense, but certainly not with Ektar more than half a stop over. But it's the poor reproduction of blacks in color inkjet that is one of the things that turns me off about it - uneven sheens from dual or multiple black inks. Then there's the opacity issue inherent with ink. Slightly off topic. There's nothing that can be done in PS that can't be done masking or making corrected color separation negs - not as conveniently perhaps; but it's all been done before - even better in terms of hue accuracy. The inks aren't ideal, or you wouldn't need more than four of them (CMYK). They're a complex compromise engineered with particles composed of pigments, dyes, and lakes small enough to get through tiny inkjet nozzles, adapted to four axis color analytic geometry mapping programs. How that's translated into software is someone else's job. I personally worked with predecessor technology, and had top level mfg contacts for several decades and developed an acute color eye. "Contacts" is an understatement. Quite similar except for particle size (industrial colorants); that's where it was all pioneered. Similar problems right down to how to keep the pigments from drying out. That aspect - the visual endpoint - doesn't change. But it would be fun to see some of your prints some day; it certainly sounds like you know what you are doing. I have to problem admiring other photographic media if well done. But I have my own groove.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

What if they wrote the scanning software to begin with, and are the primary consultant for the inkjet company? That kinda changes the equation. When they call a project hell, and I'm looking at the result with my own eyes (not over the web), I believe it. They were well recognized darkroom printers before that, so understand the pros and cons. Over the hill somewhat now. So now maybe some new fixes have come around, that is, this side of Hollywood budgets. Admittedly, I have no interest in inkjet printing myself; but I do understand color theory better than most and am extremely skeptical that just anything can be fixed in PS. Dithering isn't a fix, but painting back in what one thinks it's supposed to be. I've seen examples of your style of control and it seems to make sense, but certainly not with Ektar more than half a stop over. But it's the poor reproduction of blacks in color inkjet that is one of the things that turns me off about it - uneven sheens from dual or multiple black inks. Then there's the opacity issue inherent with ink. Slightly off topic. There's nothing that can be done in PS that can't be done masking or making corrected color separation negs - not as conveniently perhaps; but it's all been done before - even better in terms of hue accuracy. The inks aren't ideal, or you wouldn't need more than four of them (CMYK). They're a complex compromise engineered with particles composed of pigments, dyes, and lakes small enough to get through tiny inkjet nozzles, adapted to four axis color analytic geometry mapping programs. How that's translated into software is someone else's job. I personally worked with predecessor technology, and had top level mfg contacts for several decades and developed an acute color eye. "Contacts" is an understatement. Quite similar except for particle size (industrial colorants); that's where it was all pioneered. Similar problems right down to how to keep the pigments from drying out. That aspect - the visual endpoint - doesn't change. But it would be fun to see some of your prints some day; it certainly sounds like you know what you are doing. I have to problem admiring other photographic media if well done. But I have my own groove.

I don’t claim to be an expert because I constantly am learning something I didn’t know before, however, I am quite a lot better at the digital stuff than the vast majority simply because I’ve made it my business to be as good as I can get. I did write my own scanning software because I think the scanning software currently available isn’t as good as it could be, and don’t really use photoshop except to lay out a print that’s ready to go. The printer I have has 12 inks and can be considered state of the art by today’s standards, and while it’s output probably isn’t your cup of tea, it is quite good.

I don’t disagree with your skepticism about fixing any old thing in PS, however, with regards to digitizing film, there are a number of pretty specific things that are trivial to deal with if you know that it’s happening. PS is one tool you could use to deal with it, but not the only tool.

I have a number of images up on my media page that are Ektar if you look. Some of them are done with earlier versions of my process, and if I where to re-scan and re-do them today would be much better. I haven’t printed all of them, but I did do a 16x20 of the Stop sign (the one in color). It looks fantastic. It’s currently hanging on a wall in a house in Tomales, so I can’t show it in person unless I re-print it. My other prints that aren’t customer work is either hanging in my house or sold.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That's a myth. Easy to correct. Ha! I've seen a lot of those so-called corrections. It's not just the highlights that get contaminated. I've talked to a couple of digi printing gurus who went nuts slithering and dithering for days on end to try to get the colors back in shape. It's just so much easier to do right at the time of exposure itself.

My own experience is that if you have a decent inversion approach in Photoshop, you can see the exact colour issues you described with overexposed Ektar. Almost to the letter. It is correctable, but doing it well/ convincingly is another matter. It definitely makes me a much happier person if they don't screw it up at the taking stage.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, thank you Adrian. I see you've researched quite a variety of films, and that's certainly a feather in your cap by being able to offer clients a significant selection of looks. I feel black and white portraiture is currently under-represented in portraiture at the moment, but that's a slightly different subject. Lots of the techie crowd seems to like black and white imagery.

 

[wiltw]

One has to wonder IF the OP is the color purist who would even NOTICE any color shifting or even changes in contrast vs. shooting film at box speed!
Just perhaps this debate about color shifts with badly exposed shots needs to be tempered with the reality that not all photographers are exacting in their standards and would even notice any decline in quality due to any over/underexposure unless severe. For those folks, the 'latitude' of color neg film simply reflects that it is not as exacting as color transprency film in the ideal exposure. The very bad white balance in a lot of shots is a real and common indicator of just how forgiving the average non-purist is in their photo quality!

 

[DREW WILEY]

You are soooo correct, wiltw.... but I didn't want to be the one to say it. I spent years as a color consultant and taught professional color matchers, but keep getting better. Color vision is not just about physiology but psychology, and knowing what to look for, and how. In terms of darkroom use, I never make up my mind on a test strip or even full print until I've re-examined it with fresh eyes the next day - NEVER after computer screen use like this! Modern spectrophotometer analyzers certainly help with the initial stages of color calibration to reduce eye fatigue, but are no substitute for our own eyes when it comes to critical evaluation. A lot of color is also a factor of well-know things like simultaneous contrast and successive contrast, things taught in basic color theory manuals and known to even competent house painters (as rare as those can be), but not to many color photographers, who seem to habitually confuse color with noise, sheer decibels.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Clearly some color neg film has more latitude than others. Only of my favorite color films was Kodak PJM multispeed, it was rated to shoot between 100 and 800. I shot a ton of sports with it rated at 640 and got fantastic results. You could blast it rated at 100 and it still looked great.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Virtually all color film performs best when exposed as indicated by the manufacturer. Most color neg film won't bite you if you overexpose it by one or two stops.

this matches my experience;it also seems to me that color negative film shows more separation in the highlights,where B&W film easily blocks up.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Well, thank you Adrian. I see you've researched quite a variety of films, and that's certainly a feather in your cap by being able to offer clients a significant selection of looks. I feel black and white portraiture is currently under-represented in portraiture at the moment, but that's a slightly different subject. Lots of the techie crowd seems to like black and white imagery.

I have to be able to handle horribly exposed and stored film. Do you have any idea how much film comes through my door that is badly exposed, or old and expired, or wasn't kept well? A significant portion of it. Those people still expect reasonable results. I recently processed and rescued some 20 something year old film for somebody that turned out to be their high school graduation day photos. It was grainy as all hell, but I got reasonable images and they were grateful for it. After you process, scan, and deal with several thousand rolls, and feed what you discovered along the way back into your process, most things are reasonably easy to deal with if all you're doing is scanning and sometimes making a pigment print. I'm currently working on a handful of 8x10 scans for somebody where there appears to be some color shifting across the frame from either less than ideal storage, or whoever processed it didn't do a good job on a couple of the negatives. It's not un-rescuable, but does need some reasonably precise work to correct. When I'm done, they're going to have 460 megapixel images that they can make pigment prints from. That's an easy 60+ inches on the short side. The images I've delivered so far have blown them away (their words).

Next time I print something reasonable on Ektar (my own work, not client work) I'll let you know if you want to stop by and look at it. It might be a while though. I'm currently going through a Gold 200 kick and have a decent backlog of rolls to shoot as well a metric ton (not quite, but quite a lot of) expired E-6 I took off of @MattKing hands to shoot through. My kids have been having fun with the E-6 stuff, so I've been mainly on Gold 200 or Fomapan 200 in 135 format. I have two bricks of 120 Ektar that just expired this past fall that I'd like to shoot through, so I might do something with that in the next couple weeks, maybe do a photowalk around downtown Petaluma or something. I think there's an airshow this month at the Petaluma airport, so I might shoot it there, or shoot some it out at Doran Beach in the next weekend or two.

 

[MattKing]

Glad to see you and your family are getting good use of that film Adrian.
Now if only you could figure out how to get something in colour out of the extra bonus roll I sent you, you could really start something here on Photrio .

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Glad to see you and your family are getting good use of that film Adrian.
Now if only you could figure out how to get something in colour out of the extra bonus roll I sent you, you could really start something here on Photrio .

I have one of the boxes in the fridge, and the rest in deep freeze. When the first box is getting close to being done, I’ll pull one out of deep freeze and put it in the fridge. I doubt they’ll get through more than a couple of boxes before school starts back up, so we’ve got a bit to go.

I’ve got the bonus roll in deep freeze too. I wouldn’t even know where to start in getting color out of it, though there’s a guy in Portland who’s been experimenting and getting reasonably good results. He hasn’t published details. I’d be game for trying to get color from Kodachrome, but would need more than 1 roll.