Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film

[symmar22]

That's excellent news, the choice in slide film has been so reduced lately, that I was expecting E6 to disappear soon. If Kodak brings back a chrome fllm, that will force Fuji to keep going and maybe Agfa to increase it's product range.

Hopefully they will do more formats in the future, at least 120 and 4x5 where Fuji has 100% market share. I still have a small stock of Kodak 4x5 taht I keep frozen, but it won't last forever, and having worked with slide since the late eighties, my choice was always for Kodak's subtle colours.

I hope they will bring back something with the colour balance of the EPP, that was IMO the best slide film of all times.

 

[AvTvM]

while i am happy for the few slide shooters left, i really do not believe there is more demand for ektachrome cine or stills film than in 2012 whrn production was stopped due to lack of demand. sometimes i really wonder how/what kond of shareholders allow such corporate follies.

myself i shot almost exclusively KB slides from the 70ies to 90ies - mostly kodachrome and some ektachrome. for a number of reasons i have not scanned my stock of 15.000 slides (yet). once in a blue moon we take out our still working slide projector and watch some images from our youth on a sort of magic time machine trip. wish i could have captured those images in digital form and have them on my PC ready at all times and without taking up hals a cupboard of storage space ...

on the other hand ... mainly to see how well canon eye control AF works, i purchased a canon EOS 30 (elan 7E) in excellent condition for 40 euro a year ago and have just finished the first roll of ilford HP5 bw film. will take it to one of the 2 last labs (pro) left in my city today to develop & scan. curious to see results, but ready for some disappointment. probably mostly low contrast grey soup, although i tried to shoot mainly high contrast b&w motive scenes. we'll see.

also backed "Ferrania / 100 years of analogue film" on kickstarter. those sympathetically crazy italians are way delayed but still beabering away and may just succeed in getting their first batch of ferrania color reversal film (slide) made some time this year. if and when that happens i will shoot my reward rolls with great respect and will do a little series of images in italian national colors - green / white / red.

 

[Berowne]

There are many questions. I think it well be a Relaunch of the Kodak E100G. At least in Germany, there is a professional Lab in Stuttgart "Studio 13", they are pretty good in all analog processing. The Prices are hefty. A Fuji Velvia 50 costs 15€ in Germany and another Lab, "Prolab" charges ca 6€ for E6-Development. Then you Need the slide Frames. If you will do film-development by your own, an automatic processing unit is absolut necessary for slides. (Jobo - ca 1200€). Foto Brenner offers chemicals for E6-process 50€ the kit enough for 30 films, but these are no original chemicals. At least for Fuji you cannot use it, may result in wrong Colors!

B&H offers nearly everything you Need. Seems to be more expensive. A slide processing mailer for E6 by B&H costs 10$.

Is there any analog SLR in production except Nikon F6? I think not. There are of Course masses of used gear. If Kodak will be back in the slide-market I consider to purchase a used Film-EOS. I wonder how modern lenses will do on Film.

 

[jhpeterson]

I shot slide film exclusively (except for a few rolls of bw) from around 1990-2010 (in other words two decades). Kodak E100G was my favorite and it looks like this will be a reinvention of that. The main reason for using slide (positive) instead of print (negative) was to shoot for publication, as that is what they required (not that I got published very often, but occasionally). Now that digital is the de facto medium for this, I see little use for slide film. As someone has already said, print film is preferable for portrait and wedding, which is where film is still being used. Just within the last month I traded in my film body because in spite of the nostalgia I realized I would never use it again.

Of course I have no problem with Kodak producing slide film again (Fuji btw never stopped), I am just not sure if there is a market to sustain it. I guess there must be or they would not be doing it.

I shot slide film extensively (along with a lot of black and white, especially in the early years) from the late 1970s well into the 21st century, a span of nearly three decades. My work, both editorial and commercial, was nearly always for publication, so transparencies were almost the universal rule. Thus, I always considered color negative to be the bastard stepchild of the film family, devoid of sharpness, saturation and the "look", and to be used only as a last resort.
Maybe it's because I taught myself to deal with the limited color and contrast latitudes in these materials that I developed this disdain for color neg and considered the portrait and wedding guys to have things a little soft. As a photojournalist dating back to college days and later picking up the advertising work, I shot Kodachrome (later Velvia) when there was good light and Ektachrome when there was not, in the process learning to push the ASA (the old ISO equivalent) to the "astronomical" to 1000 or so. It always seemed a challenge to get things just right out of the camera, but, when they were, they were great.
I'm looking forward to get my hands on the Ektachrome. Guess I will now keep my last film body around.

 

[LDS]

Hopefully they will do more formats in the future, at least 120 and 4x5 where Fuji has 100% market share.

It looks still film will be mostly a by-product of motion picture film.

From what I read, it is (Eastman) "Kodak" that wants to bring back Ektachrome film because it looks some directors would like to use it - and it's also betting on Super8 again (some arts institute like it as an introductory media to learn filming), where a reversal film would avoid the "print" stage and may be easier to scan.

"Kodak Alaris", the spin off that now sells the still products, and also shares some of the Rochester facility, may also sell it in 135 format. Other formats availability may depend on how the film is actually manufactured - i.e. if 35mm film is produced in 70mm stripes and then cut and perforated, delivering 120 would be easier, if it is made directly in 35mm stripes a different production line would be needed, and for larger formats as well.

 

[Pookie]

Having a PhD in Molecular and Cell bio ..... no-brainer.

A molecular biologist is a bright young person who knows no chemistry. A cell biologist is a bright young person who knows no chemistry or biochemistry.

What a joke... you're either a liberal arts major taking orders at McDonalds or you got your degree at DeVry

I'm guessing no degree at all because biochemistry is a main aspect of both subjects... Physical chemistry and thermodynamics are crucial to these interdisciplinary subjects. Tell me how PCR and DNA structure related? Why Van der Waals force is important in cell biology? Or how crystallography was deciphered and why a molecular biologist needs to understand that? Why Michaelis–Menten kinetics is important for enzymatics? All of which has to do with molecular and cellular biology... when you're dying of cancer and their about to give you a new drug you better hope all the PI's that developed that drug knew more than a little something about both chemistry and biology.

Stick with bird pictures my friend it makes you sound a little less ridiculous...

 

[Pookie]

Excellent news...

Just curious, what are the advantages of film over digital? How does the image quality compare?

I'd agree, there are no advantages of film over digital... there is a definitive difference though. Currently MF format film has great quality IMO and I also shoot with a Pentax 645z. Better? That depends on your needs. I own both and I use both. I develop my own film because I like to, I like the challenge and I like making my own images. It's kind of like asking if a stick shift is better than an automatic... if it were so cut and dry based on a spreadsheet, you might never have a choice now days.

After many years shooting weddings and portraits for clients and being asked to make their images look a certain way, I've found that what many are asking for is a film look. To prove this point, look at how many companies out there make a living with presets based on film types. VSCO being a huge one. Why does a camera phone have Instagram with hundreds of filters mimicking film? This is what the masses love, what they want and there is a real reason why this thrives.

I've been asked many times to make a digital image look like a film image but have never been asked to make a film image to look like a digital. To that end I just started shooting film, the real deal... and more and more people ask for it these days. I'm not one to say film is better or digital supreme... I like both and shoot both. As I said initially, choice is good.

 

[Pookie]

Film has been slowly building and coming back over the last 3-4 years in the wedding/portraiture industry. Even amateurs are starting to shoot more film. I think this news announcement really highlights this trend.

But isn't that a market better suited for negative films like the Kodak Portra or Fujicolor Pro? But do you thn digitize the films, or print them on chemical paper as well?

I'm just happy anyway if Kodak reintroduce Ektachrome because it was what I used to shoot with (besides Kodachrome...)

I don't know where you live but here in the states there are many good options for development.

I live in Italy, not far from Milano, where some good labs can still be found (thanks to the fashion and art markets). As said, however, they are not cheap. If you can make the right money from your photos, of course it doesn't matter. For amateurs, it may start to become expensive, especially for those who live far away from a good lab.

I learnt developing E-6 films many years ago helping a family friend who worked as a photographer, he was using a Jobo processor too, but he always pointed out the shelf life of chemicals (as a student, I couldn't afford mine own color darkroom then to test). Can you really achieve years of conservation? Well, you have the right background, I never liked chemistry too much... but I'd like to get back again to develop film, if it becomes a sustainable niche.

Don't know where your getting your info for on the film selling point... as a wedding photographer I've seen more interest in shooting film than digital here in this market now days.

I was pointing out what Kodak said in its statement. It doesn't look to me commercial projections and scans for print could be really selling point for reversal films today. Hi-res digital projectors, big screen and fully digital workflows in most cases work better. But there are of course reason to shoot reversal film today.

Oh, and the biggest surprise in event shooting is INSTANT film... I take a Polaroid 600SE with Instax wide to wedding receptions and make a killing.

I'm not surprised at all, such cameras are welcome in any kind of party/event.

Kodachrome !!!! Your ARE dreaming... that ain't going to happen anytime soon.

I know, I known...

I print in a darkroom and scan... depends on the needs.

Chems can be saved easily and not too hard to figure out. Most of the info in literature comes from people that really don't understand chemistry. Years in the University made this quite easy for me and I like it.

This might be cine industry driven but stills are making it a reality for everyone... just look at CineStill and there continuing success. Once you get over the remjet prob (either mechanically or chemically) it's all good.

And yes, my film Leicas are singing with this news. My absolute favorite EDC, this M6 goes everywhere...

and I use it for pleasure and work...

 

[Cochese]

Sounds like a crowd-funding opportunity: a cheap, fully-automated film processing apparatus.

Interestingly, Kodak did announce the desire to bring Kodachrome back.
Enjoy. https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/

 

[Pippan]

Interestingly, Kodak did announce the desire to bring Kodachrome back.
Enjoy. https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/
[/quote]

Really hope so. I found a box with a half dozen exposed but undeveloped rolls I must have misplaced well over a decade ago. Probably of my kids. AFAIK there's now nowhere in the world that can process them.

 

[deleteme]

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.

 

[slclick]

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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Pookie]

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!!!

 

[Hillsilly]

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.

 

[Hillsilly]

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.

 

[Hillsilly]

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.)

 

[AvTvM]

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!