December 15, 2017, 03:16:56 PM

Author Topic: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film  (Read 14818 times)

Normalnorm

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2017, 03:33:16 PM »
I shot transparency and negative film professionally for many years.
I also owned a commercial processing lab for 20+years.

Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
Home processing of C-41 films will easily yield negatives that will print well.

Home processing of E-6 film is a dog's dinner of variability starting with the chemistry available at retail.
I cannot tell you how many people would come into the lab and ask what was happening with their home slide processing. Their color varied wildly despite their pride in temperature control and processing technique.

Then we would get people in who would test a photo setup on chrome and process with us (a Kodak certified Q-lab) and then shoot a big job and process it with retail chems from the camera shop. Needless to say the images were wildly different from their tests.

As a student I was convinced of the superiority of transparency over negative film. However, once I learned to print Type-R, Cibachrome and Type-C prints I saw the inhernet superiority of negative film over transparency in its ability to render contrasty scenes well.

For all the praise of transparency film for its "accuracy" those same people then enthuse about its deep saturation that has only a passing acquaintance with accuracy.

In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.

If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2017, 03:33:16 PM »

slclick

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2120
  • You might have more or less gear
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2017, 03:38:02 PM »
For years I would shoot C-41 and take it to Costco to get negs made, they charged me $1.00 and it took one hour. Then I would scan with decent results. But the Kodak mask on the C-41! It takes quite a bit of trial and error to work around. Ilford doesn't have that same orange hue so it's closer to a b/w like Tri X and has greater latitude.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 09:54:15 PM by slclick »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 5-1500mm f/1.0L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 13752
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2017, 09:34:33 PM »
I always had difficulty developing Ektachrome at home, I ended up with a greenish tinge, and for color slides, that's bad.  I've sold all my developing apparatus, but have many film cameras, as well as 8mm and super 8. 

I expect developing to be mail-in, so it will be expensive, just the cost of mail 2 ways will be ~$5.20

slclick

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2120
  • You might have more or less gear
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2017, 10:00:13 PM »
Ilford charges $17.00 per roll of film which gives you a CD of medium quality scans + $6.95 for shipping. ~ .67 an image for a 36 exp roll. Not horrible but not as 'free' as digital.



*Free....right.

Zeidora

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2017, 11:09:39 PM »
Interesting, no 4x5" option on the Ektachromes. Pretty much the only game still surviving is Fuji Provia and Velvia. Re pros/cons negative/positive, you match the capture medium to the scene. That is one of the nice things about sheet film, you take it one sheet at a time. Use your spot meter to get contrast, pre-visualize final print, select the desired tonal range, and chose film type accordingly.

Also shot Kodachrome and E6 for many years, but for 35 mm I don't foresee of getting back into it. For 4x5, there is no half way decent (or affordable) digital option, so here film rules.
5D2 full spectrum, 5DsR, a bunch of Zeiss (some other) primes, for documentary natural history, macro, and micro.

Pookie

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 854
  • You talk, I show... who do you believe?
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2017, 12:32:47 AM »
Of all the film I've processed Ektachrome wa the very best to be Xprocessed. I love the contrast and slight saturation boost, unlike fuji that goes a bit extreme. Never had any issues processing E6 but I've met many who have issues processing even BW and are scared sh*&less to even try C41... many just couldn't follow temps/protocols and most can't figure out the chemistry. I prefer C41 and E6 over BW these days, it's just easier. I'd guess 70% is C41 and 25% isd E6, rarely shoot BW that much now days.

Regardless, I'll be buying a case of this when it comes out and crossing most of it as I do with my expired Ektachrome. Looking forward to this release!!!
I'm limping by with my current equipment... once I get that new lens with IS and blue goo... then I'll finally be able to go out and take my first decent picture...

Hillsilly

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2017, 02:17:50 AM »
Good luck to Kodak.  Personally, I gave up on E6 last year when shipping restrictions stopped most chemicals being sent outside of continental US or EU - I've had to cross process my last few rolls.  I would have been more interested in some Vision 3 film without the Remjet layer. Maybe that will come one day.
Camera Obscura

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2017, 02:17:50 AM »

Hillsilly

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2017, 02:48:23 AM »
If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.
I wonder if the success of Instax is the driver here.  When you look at Amazon's most popular camera items, it is dominated by Instax.  https://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo

And that's been the case for at least the last three years. 

And it is the same everywhere.  Locally, all the department stores, camera shops and supermarkets move a lot of Instax products and film.  And reading Fuji media releases, you get the impression it is a real global phenomenon with no signs of slowing.  People love it.  If you go to an 18th or 21st birthday party, it is the only camera you'll likely see.

I can imagine Kodak wanting just a small piece of the sales pie.  But like I think you are alluding to, the sort of people who enjoy and shoot instax aren't going to start buying Kodachrome.
Camera Obscura

Hillsilly

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2017, 03:01:01 AM »
Just curious, what are the advantages of film over digital?  How does the image quality compare?

Slide film isn't about image quality.  Instead, it is about inviting close family and friends over for a slide night.  Lots of beer, pizza, a rattling old slide projector, and a handful of carefully selected images to show.  It is just a fun experience that digital struggles to match.

(My new years' resolution was to stay away from film threads....oh, well, maybe I'll have better luck next year.)
Camera Obscura

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2940
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2017, 08:45:25 AM »
I shot transparency and negative film professionally for many years.
I also owned a commercial processing lab for 20+years.

Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
Home processing of C-41 films will easily yield negatives that will print well.

Home processing of E-6 film is a dog's dinner of variability starting with the chemistry available at retail.
I cannot tell you how many people would come into the lab and ask what was happening with their home slide processing. Their color varied wildly despite their pride in temperature control and processing technique.

Then we would get people in who would test a photo setup on chrome and process with us (a Kodak certified Q-lab) and then shoot a big job and process it with retail chems from the camera shop. Needless to say the images were wildly different from their tests.

As a student I was convinced of the superiority of transparency over negative film. However, once I learned to print Type-R, Cibachrome and Type-C prints I saw the inhernet superiority of negative film over transparency in its ability to render contrasty scenes well.

For all the praise of transparency film for its "accuracy" those same people then enthuse about its deep saturation that has only a passing acquaintance with accuracy.

In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.

If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.

+1000. AMEN!

slclick

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2120
  • You might have more or less gear
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2017, 09:13:05 AM »
Some folks enjoy the journey more or as much as the destination. YMMV

LDS

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1067
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2017, 10:28:02 AM »
Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
Home processing of C-41 films will easily yield negatives that will print well.

True

Home processing of E-6 film is a dog's dinner of variability starting with the chemistry available at retail.
I cannot tell you how many people would come into the lab and ask what was happening with their home slide processing. Their color varied wildly despite their pride in temperature control and processing technique.

You got a filter effect here. Of course those who couldn't process E-6 properly asked for advice. Those who could, didn't. Not everybody has the same DIY skills and knowledge (despite what they tell). Frankly, knowing myself, I wouldn't attempt to develop it without a processor.

Do you mean Kodak, Fuji and others were selling bad chemicals? And "retail shop" means little - there are large retail shop from which many pros buy from too, and others who have just non-pro customers.  You got very different results from labs too, and some labs were inconsistent too (especially for consumer processing), probably depending on what side of the bed the technicians got up that morning... or if you were lucky your films were processed when chemicals were still good enough.

As a student I was convinced of the superiority of transparency over negative film. However, once I learned to print Type-R, Cibachrome and Type-C prints I saw the inhernet superiority of negative film over transparency in its ability to render contrasty scenes well.

If one was truly superior, the other would have had no market. Both had their inherent advantages and disadvantages. For example negatives were harder to scan, so the press industry preferred transparencies until digital. Some photographers too for their own reasons.

For all the praise of transparency film for its "accuracy" those same people then enthuse about its deep saturation that has only a passing acquaintance with accuracy.

Not everybody was looking for "scientific accuracy" - and after all negatives didn't had that either, just the print stage allows for changes. For many "accuracy" meant you got consistent results from the same batch of film. Thereby you could test and know what you would have got.

Anyway Franco Fontana used to duplicate his Kodachromes directly onto another Kodachrome to reach the saturation his photographic style required. If you are a commercial photographer in other sectors, you have different requirements.

In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.

Oh well, Lomography build a whole business around it. But it is not true the process is "largely uncontrollable".


Pookie

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 854
  • You talk, I show... who do you believe?
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2017, 11:58:29 AM »
If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.
I wonder if the success of Instax is the driver here.  When you look at Amazon's most popular camera items, it is dominated by Instax.  https://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo

And that's been the case for at least the last three years. 

And it is the same everywhere.  Locally, all the department stores, camera shops and supermarkets move a lot of Instax products and film.  And reading Fuji media releases, you get the impression it is a real global phenomenon with no signs of slowing.  People love it.  If you go to an 18th or 21st birthday party, it is the only camera you'll likely see.

I can imagine Kodak wanting just a small piece of the sales pie.  But like I think you are alluding to, the sort of people who enjoy and shoot instax aren't going to start buying Kodachrome.

Let's hope this is true... I shoot Instax Wide on a converted Polaroid 600SE. Full exposure control and MF quality images with great DOF. It is a instant money maker at wedding receptions. I've felt a little guilty charging 5$ per shot but always sell out. Even when people have a Instax camera the Polaroid produces much better images. Leica's Sofort may finally give you a bit more latitude over the exposure that Fuji cams don't have and that might change the game. It unfortunate that it's an f/12.7 lens so maybe the Polaroid still kicks any instant camera offerings for now.

My true hope is this resurgence of film and instant film will bring back Fujifilm 100C and 3000B, dearly miss that film. Only have 1 much coveted case of 100C left and it's expiring this year    :( Impossible and the New55  just are not comparable but they are commendable in their efforts.
I'm limping by with my current equipment... once I get that new lens with IS and blue goo... then I'll finally be able to go out and take my first decent picture...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2017, 11:58:29 AM »

Pookie

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 854
  • You talk, I show... who do you believe?
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2017, 12:13:15 PM »

In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.

Oh well, Lomography build a whole business around it. But it is not true the process is "largely uncontrollable".

It's funny how many people I run across that say they did this and that with film, ran a development lab or worked years in a dark room but then come up with utter nonsense like that statement. No wonder why this guy "ran" a lab and doesn't anymore... with that statement you could figure out the quality of his work.  Like film was/is a complete mystery producing wide ranges of results. When just not that many years ago it was used at the highest level in commerce and daily use. It's not like analog photography has been around for many years as we all know now that it was just a prelude to digital  ::)

Any real developer, professional developer would scoff at that statement... check out Richard Photo Lab or The Find Lab. It's not a uncontrollable process or at least it shouldn't be when you know what you're doing.

Lomography ?!?!?! What? Ilford... Fujifilm... Kodak... all of them are just uncontrollable messes and products.
I'm limping by with my current equipment... once I get that new lens with IS and blue goo... then I'll finally be able to go out and take my first decent picture...

Berowne

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2017, 05:11:16 PM »
I shot transparency and negative film professionally for many years.
I also owned a commercial processing lab for 20+years.

Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
Home processing of C-41 films will easily yield negatives that will print well.

Home processing of E-6 film is a dog's dinner of variability starting with the chemistry available at retail.
I cannot tell you how many people would come into the lab and ask what was happening with their home slide processing. Their color varied wildly despite their pride in temperature control and processing technique.

Then we would get people in who would test a photo setup on chrome and process with us (a Kodak certified Q-lab) and then shoot a big job and process it with retail chems from the camera shop. Needless to say the images were wildly different from their tests.

As a student I was convinced of the superiority of transparency over negative film. However, once I learned to print Type-R, Cibachrome and Type-C prints I saw the inhernet superiority of negative film over transparency in its ability to render contrasty scenes well.

For all the praise of transparency film for its "accuracy" those same people then enthuse about its deep saturation that has only a passing acquaintance with accuracy.

In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.

If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.

Most of it true. I never ever considered to process slides at home, too expensive, too critical. But with appropriate equipment (automatic Processors like that from Jobo), original chemicals (especially in the case of Fuji-Films) and enough experience nothing should go wrong.

Of Course, slides are demanding. But this is the very reason to use these films. You have to master it and if you can, the results are most satisfying, at least for me. In contrast, the reason, why I did not use color-negative-film was the usually bad Quality of the prints. If only Kodak will bring back the Kodakchrome!
70D - EF-S 10-18 STM; EF-S 18-55 STM; EF-S 60/2.8.
6D - EF 28/2.8; EF 35/2 IS; EF 50/1.8 STM; EF 85/1.8; EF 200/2.8L II USM; EF 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS STM.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2017, 05:11:16 PM »