Archival properties of Ektar 100?

[Jedidiah Smith]

There is probably a simple answer for this, but I'm not sure where to look for the data. Basically, I'm just curious as to the comparison between Ektar 100 color neg film and a general E6 slide film such as Velvia100 or E100GX.

The reason is that I have just completed some (preliminary, non-scientific, only for me) scanning tests, and have satisfied myself that I really wouldn't mind just shooting Ektar 100 from now on and leave the slide film behind...it is that close for my purposes.

I'm just a little hung up on the archival properties, though...have they advanced for color negs at all recently?
Thanks,
Jed

 

[Prest_400]

It should be like other films, or a bit more archival. If I remember well, modern films resist up to 150 years or so.
There's an interesting "book" of Wilhelm Imaging research "The permanence and care of color photographs". I recommend you to download it and have a look. It was made in 1993 so lots of films today in the market aren't shown.
Wilhelm should have data about modern film archival proprieties, but I haven't found much.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I believe I have read that it will last about 60 years in normal everyday conditions.

 

[nickandre]

If you're concerned you might find some formaldehyde based stabilizer to stick it in. I think it will last quite a long time, probably not as long as many slide films though. However, having seen vericolor print film from the 80s, I would say it's probably set for 30+ years which is longer than I need.

 

[Prest_400]

If you're concerned you might find some formaldehyde based stabilizer to stick it in. I think it will last quite a long time, probably not as long as many slide films though. However, having seen vericolor print film from the 80s, I would say it's probably set for 30+ years which is longer than I need.

I don't think it should be necessary to use it. IMO, It's better to have the negs as-is without coating them in any substance.
If you want longevity, the best should be E6 and printing in Ciba/Ilfochrome. That may last 500 years at dark.
Or enlarge/contact on a tri-chrome carbon transfer print. Carbon is the most stable of the photo printing processes.
Also, in a LF camera, you could put in some microfilm.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Thanks guys, sounds like it will be around a decent amount of time, then. Obviously not the same as B&W negs or Kodachrome, but probably enough for what I'm thinking.
Take care,
Jed

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have been shooting Ektar 100 since way back in '09, and I have never had a problem with fading!

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

Formalin stabilzer is not needed with the new Ektar 100.

Henry Wilhelm has both good and bad data. His institute uses some rather hard and fast rules that the ANSI committed on image stability are not all agreed upon and so there will be lots of different tests. The best answer is that we don't know yet, but I can assume right now that Ektar 100 uses dye technology very similar to the Portra series of films.

PE

 

[StorminMatt]

If you want longevity, the best should be E6 and printing in Ciba/Ilfochrome. That may last 500 years at dark.

Make that Kodachrome printed on Ciba. With E6, you might not be able to print it again in 30 years if you desire.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt;

I have ~30 year old Ektachrome E6 that looks just fine! (actually, 29 years this June)

PE

 

[mudman]

I've also seen old Ektachromes from the 60's, maybe even a few from the late 50's (when did E6 come about?) They were good, but the old kodachromes were amazing. I guess we'll find out about Ektar in 30 or 40 years.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I've also seen old Ektachromes from the 60's, maybe even a few from the late 50's (when did E6 come about?) They were good, but the old kodachromes were amazing. I guess we'll find out about Ektar in 30 or 40 years.

E-6 came about in late 1970's. I remember processing the slides from my first wedding honeymoon in 1976 and they were E-4. E-4 was a fairly stable process. Most, if not all the slides I took from that period are still just fine.

 

[benjiboy]

Only time will tell

 

[StorminMatt]

Matt;

I have ~30 year old Ektachrome E6 that looks just fine! (actually, 29 years this June)

PE

E6 longevity seems to be spotty, as I have 26 year old Ektachrome that is already starting to go kaput (and I have even heard of cases of the first Velvia going bad). The REALLY funny thing about it is that I remember actually buying the film. Specifically, I bought it because the salesperson told me about how much better it was than Kodachrome (salespeople frequently pushed E6 over K14 back in the early 80s). So I felt like I just HAD to try it. Now, of course, I wish I didn't. Hopefully, some of the newer stuff I have shot (like E100G) will endure better. But, as with Ektar, only time will tell.

 

[Aurum]

Only time will tell

Come back in 100 years and report your findings

 

[benjiboy]

Come back in 100 years and report your findings

No fear, I don't want to come back, one lifetime is enough .

 

[nworth]

Nobody knows. A few years ago, color negative film had relatively poor stability. (Look at old Vericolor negatives and Eastmancolor movies.) But that changed with the Kodak Portra series of negative films and their recent Fuji competition. Indications are that the modern negative films are quite stable and are getting better in that regard. From what I've read, the negative films may be somewhat less stable than the most modern E-6 films, but they are still quite good.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The color negative films have a more modern dye set than the E6 films from what I understand. Also, quite from the beginning E6 was variable in stability but C41 was better and more consistant. I have E6 films that are 30 years old that are just fine, and others that are turning reddish. I have C41 and C22 films that are 30 - 50 years old that are just fine. E1 - E4 films were pretty bad.

As for duplicating films such as prints for motion picture, the print films were not very good, but were never intended for archival keeping, just high resolution and fine grain with good color. After all, a projection print has a short projected lifetime. Even so, I have prints from the 60s that are excellent and others that are turning red. The cyan dye is reduced under some conditions.

Interestingly enough, that cyan dye can be regenerated and the negative or print can be restored depending on the source of the problem. I do not have specifics, but know it can be done. I suspect that it is through oxidation in a ferricyanide bath, but I am not sure.

PE

 

[srs5694]

The color negative films have a more modern dye set than the E6 films from what I understand. Also, quite from the beginning E6 was variable in stability but C41 was better and more consistant. I have E6 films that are 30 years old that are just fine, and others that are turning reddish. I have C41 and C22 films that are 30 - 50 years old that are just fine. E1 - E4 films were pretty bad.

Processing can also play a big role in this. I've seen lots of posts from people who say that their E-6 rolls done with 3-bath kits 20-30 years ago are fading but that their E-6 rolls done with 6-bath kits are fine. I've personally experienced something similar with C-22 and C-41, but these films were commercially processed. Some of the earliest C-41 films I've got (from the 1970s) are badly faded, to the point that I can't get good conventional prints because of color crossover. Earlier C-22 rolls, as well as later C-41 rolls processed at other labs, are fine.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And people sometimes ask me why I am against 3 bath kits or kits from companies other than Kodak or Fuji. Yes, early 3 bath kits lacked a certain je ne sais quoi that lent them to less robust image stability. The pH factor, the blix and what have you did contribute to this along with a sometimes less than potent stabilzer.

So, I remain reluctant to suggest that anyone use those kits. And, incidentally, Darkroom Techniques did a review of those kits back in the 90s. I cannot locate my copy, but IIRC, they gave some of those kits pretty bad reviews. IDK how much they have changed in the intervening years, but you are on your own, as I doubt that these companies have an entire dye stability testing unit that Kodak and Fuji keep on hand.

PE

 

[nworth]

Processing does seem to make quite a difference. I have some Kodacolor negatives that were processed by Kodak more than 50 years ago that are still doing fine. Although they have shifted a bit, they are still quite printable. I have other Kodacolor negatives (some processed by Kodak but mostly processed by commercial labs) from 30 to 40 years ago that are gone. Vericolor professional film from that period seems to have been particularly unstable, in my experience, although that may also have been a processing issue.

The early Kodak E-6 products may have had some stability issues, but I read in some Kodak releases and also in a testing article that the recent products (since the release of Elite Chrome film) have outstanding stability, nearly as good as Kodachrome. Most of my E-1 through 4 materials have faded or shifted, but I'm surprised that they are still as good as they are. E-3 probably has seen the worst shifts, which is particularly disappointing since the early EP was a very nice film and I had some good work on it. E-2 has faded the most.

 

[Pupfish]

For Photo Engineeer: on my 2nd roll of Ektar 100, using a Tetanol 3 bath C-41 kit (CD, Blix & Stab) the other day, using distilled water for mixing and for washes, I got a trace of pink staining on the Pec pad I squeeged the drips with. Is this the orange mask (which is a bit different-- reminds me of Mercurichrome-- seems a bit odd). Is this anything to be concerned about?