In my commercial work, before digital, I used tons of Ektachrome and Fugichrom films. The soon to come re-release of Ektachrome 100, begs a question- Which E100 is it gonna be? The ISO 100 family of Ektachrome emulsion came in 4 types. as follows:

E110-S- Saturated colors- reminiscent of Kodachrome (kinda) and good for general purpose outdoor and studio situations. It could be pushed up to 2 stop withou horrible color shifts.

E100-SW- Warmer saturated colors- good for unpredictable outdoor light- overcast etc. Nice for portraiture. Can be pushed up to 2 stops.

E1000 EPN (Professional) Accurate color with moderate saturation. Good for advertising illustrations etc. Very nice skin tones.

E100 EPP One of my favorite for advertising illustration and art reproduction. Could be overexposed one stop and pull-processed to reduce contrast in art production where polarized ligh and filtration tends to increase contrast and saturation. The +1 exposure and pull process normalizes the contrast and renders excelant shadow detail with accurate color.

Fugi(?) There was a period before some of the professional emulsions were introduced where Ektachrome (ISO64) had a very blue or cyan bias especially with electronic flash and certain daylight conditions, especially where there were high levels of UV. Theses films required significant filtration and even some of the later version of the ISO 100 stock came with filter recommendations which varied form one emulsion batch to another. We had to stock large inventories of one batch and there were different filtration requirements between various large format sizes and roll films. Each batch had to be tested for the filter pack required for color correction. Sometimes, exposure was a nightmare in that filter factor required more light output and longer exposure times to enable practical aperture for depth of field. Add bellows extension and reciprocity law failure and that required even more filtration- a vicious cycle of unfortunate events. So... an ordinary table-top shot of a small product might have required 4,000 watt-seconds with flash or long exposure with hot lights- bad for food photography!

So- I went over to Fugi! One of the types (something designated like "RDP DRP"? as I recall) was perfect. It delivered warm to neutral colors, nice saturation and all this with very little or no filtration. I suspect the introduction of this film woke Kodak up to the fact that Ektachrome 64 and 100 left a lot to be desired among professional photograhers and began to vastly improve their E-6 transparency materials.

Nothing good, however, last forever! The Fugi materials changed and many of their transparency materials tended to produce more saturated and exaggerated colors. At that point, I made the transition to digital and began to do all my commercial assignment in digital. Nowadays, whatever Fugi materials remain in production have different names. I don't know what the Provia 100F or the Velvia 50 are equivalent to in the old or future Kodak selections. You will need to test the film out and make comparisons.

E-6 Processing is still commercially available. There are a number of custom color labs offering the service. The processing chemistry is still available as well. When I was doing a high volume of E-6 work, I did set ip a line in my darkroom. Temperature control is critical as well as immersion times and agitation requirements. I found processing intermittently and in low volume is not practical and in higher volume of production, chemical replenishment is critical and can easily go out of control lead to serious color shifts. It is better to use a lab that does a good volume of work and conducts tight process control and monitoring.

I don't want to be discouraging but I don't see the practically or advantage of getting back into "chromes". It may not be very economical what with the film will probably be sold at a premium prices as well as the processing costs. Ciba and Type "R" print materials are gone. You can scan and print. Personally, I can replicate just about anything I could do with film in digital and I don't feel nostalgic about the darkroom- too many hours in their back in the day. Sadly, most of my favorite films and papers are long gone.

Recently, I have sold most of my old Hasselbald and large format equipment. I do have a mamiya RZ system which I have digitized and of course, I still have the film magazines for it- just in cases! If the Ektachrome comes back on 120 size, I might try out a few rolls. There is only one lab left in my city that still offers E-6 and the do enjoy a niche market. The problem I can foresee is that there is going to be a lack of parts and service for their automatic processing gear and as I alluded to, I can't see them continuing on with a small tank system- time will tell!

Y'all might wanna dust off the old slide projector!

Background: I know there are threads on tripods almost everyday on here, but they are mostly about wanting to buy inexpensive tripods or have other considerations and I haven't wanted to hijak the threads with my very specific questions. I currently have a Benro COM39C Series 3 carbon fiber tripod and a used Gitzo GT3531S Systematic 6x carbon fiber tripod. I have been using an acratech GP-s ballhead on the Benro and a Sirui K-40x on the Gitzo. I think they are both supposed to support about 37-39 pounds. My heaviest system is a Canon 5d mk iv or 5dsr with a 100-400L II lens and a 1.4 teleconverter, but I frequently use the tripods with lighter lenses. The Benro has been fine in all conditions including very windy conditions pretty much everywhere. Even though the Gitzo, I think, should be a better tripod, it was hard to control in 30 mph winds in Monument Valley. I mostly shoot landscape, nightscapes, and wildlife with the tripods.

My question: some friends and professional photographers are telling me I should get a tripod like a really right stuff set of legs because it will support more weight. I know Gene on this site has said that the weight is less important than other factors and recommends a Feisol. I am think of going with either one, but not sure if there are any advantages of one over the other or if either will be significantly better than what I have. Either one can be in my budget, and I know I can sell the tripods I have. I like the Benro because it folds up short enough that it is good to travel with. I am really looking for the sturdiest legs I can find around $1000 or so (I can go over--i am just using this as a figure). I got a rrs ballhead for Christmas so I am think of going with rrs legs, but I have been mixing up legs and heads for awhile so if the Feisol is a lot better, I could go with that.

Since I have experienced shakiness with the Gitzo and had a manfrotto that was only good in very little wind, and I know I mostly use tripods in windy conditions, I know I need something that is very good. I have tried to give as much information as I can to get the most help I can get.

I have jumped back into photography after a 20 year hiatus and wound up doing so in a pretty major way . . I purchased a D7200 and assorted lenses last year (14-24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 70-200 and the kit 18-140mm) and had a great time shooting and learning but never was quite satisfied with the quality of images of a variety of subjects and the printing quality of larger prints was just not . . . .

Being a past Hasselblad user as a commercial photographer in the 70"s, I understood the quality of and wanted larger files to work with, and have now stepped up to the FF D810 with the 24-70 and the 70-200 (using the 14-24 purchased with the D7200), so I have a full range of lens capabilities . . .

For landscape, architecture, animals (not wildlife) and low key portraiture, I purchased a refurbished D810 with a refurbished Nikon 24-120mm 1.4G ED thinking that would be the only lens I would need starting off as a "walk around" lens and then add as needs arose . . I soon found that the images were all "soft" and not as sharp as the D7200 with the 18-140 kit lens, even with using all adjustments in shooting and the D810 focusing adjustments, nothing changed, still not focusing sharp.

I felt disappointed in the results and on a valued suggestion, purchased the 24-70 1.2 (non VR), and the images from this lens is so sharp it would cut paper !!! Nothing changes, just the lens . . (also added the new Tamron 70-200 1.2 - what a gem!)

NOW, I am planning on returning the 24-120 (already have the RMA) BUT every time I pick up the D810 with the 24-70 lens, I realize the "walk around" feature is probably a thing of the past . . . the size and weight is enough to stop my gym membership for upper body strength conditioning! (of course the D7200 is still the "walk around" solution!)

I still have the 24-120 packed in the box waiting to return, but have not sealed it yet . . . any suggestions or comments on why this lens is not as sharp as the reviews say, AND what I should do with this $550 "investment", return it?

My first 24-120 wasn't very sharp and I bought an older version and it's much better.

Thanks - I look forward to reading the responses!

Sam