Astia 100F, Sensia 3, T64 discontinued

Lionel1972 · Sep 8, 2011

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about my wonderings Roger. I understand your points. I didn't know color negative film used to be so bad. I agree that a digital slide-show is way much easier to set up and share (especially if it is just on a monitor) than traditional projection of slides. I also think that the ability of large monitor screens to display a punchy backlit image often bigger and brighter that the usual 4x6 or 8x10 print has won people over to digital viewing (and thus the commercial mass-market decline of prints altogether). My love for transparencies also come in part from the wonderful experience of viewing a transparency on the lighttable. Now if color negative film could be easily inverted (in the way they produce movie picture prints) maybe I would be all for color neg, althought I still think transparency film provides one of the more direct ways to experience and to connect physically with the light that came from the subjet.
I have to say I don't have any experience with printing RA4, but what I saw so far lets me think that the results are way above anything I've seen from a scan of color negative film. I have found that with my flatbed scanner I never get a satisfactory scan of any of my color negative, so I tried to get a roll scanned through a minilab and I actually loved the scans produced but I couldn't say that they look very natural. I will continue to explore C41 but I would be very sad without any transparency film to shoot. Oh please give 4x5 large format transparencies a try, it's just mindblowing. Having just seen online what a WWII old 4x5 Kodachrome could look like is what decided me to seek out large format cameras and to get into analog photography. I wanted to have the change to capture my parents and family members with the degree of extraordinary sense of presence and beauty they can provide.

Roger Cole · Sep 8, 2011

Color negative films were "good enough" for most mass market purposes, and had lots of latitude then as now, so they weren't truly horrid (at least, C-41 - I have no direct experience with earlier processes though I vaguely remember shooting Kodacolor-X before I was really "into" photography) but they didn't compare to Kodachrome of the day and, later, the best E6 films. Vericolor type-S was hailed as amazing in its day, and it was in a way, but it was far inferior to modern films like Portra.

I will shoot that 4x5, I just wonder what to do with it once I do. I can scan it or have it scanned (the latter at very considerable cost) for inkjet output myself or Lightjet from a lab, but end up with something probably no better and more likely inferior to a print I'd get starting with good CN film and printing myself on RA4. I'm not back into color darkroom yet but will be soon and I've done it before so I don't expect huge surprises.

I was thinking the other night that if we had something like a little LED based light box, thin enough to hang on the wall and with a way to hold a transparency, in different sizes, it would make an awesome way to display sheet film transparencies! Build in a little magnifier behind the main display surface and you could make, say, an 8x10 that displayed a 2x magnified 4x5. It would be such a niche product it could probably never be manufactured economically but the wall display would sure be beautiful!

DREW WILEY · Sep 8, 2011

Astia never really caught on in a big way like Velvia did. Too bad. It was possibly the best balanced chrome film ever made. But folks were more concerned with how chromes looked on a light box (like a
slide projector) than how they actually printed. Keeping inventory fresh was a real problem. I loved
Astia for certain things but frankly didn't buy much at a time. It was hell to get in 8x10 anywhere. Its
own demise should certainly not be forecasted as the doom of E6 in general. Times are tough and all
kinds of manufacturers are trimming inventories. Meantime, I've been honing my skills with the newest
color neg systems, just in case Humpty-Dumpty does come tumbling eventually.

Roger Cole · Sep 8, 2011

Several of us mentioned this in another thread, but if you like and miss Astia probably the closest replacement is Kodak E100G. It's a bit more contrasty but only a bit, less contrasty than, say, Provia (which I find too contrasty for general use, YMMV.) I've been shooting it in 35mm and like it a lot, and it's available in all sizes up to and including 8x10.

Wayne · Sep 8, 2011

I've got one 50 sheet box left in the freezer...but I cant afford to print Ilfochrome anymore so I'll probably never use it...

CGW · Sep 8, 2011

Lionel1972 said:
I wonder why there is not as much concern expressed for transparency film to be find among the APUG community. Come on we need to support E6 full force, let's not let it die as we did Kodachrome. E6 is the analog process that needs it the most right now.
In the pre-digi-devolution of the pro market, when transparencies were king, this process seemed highly regarded and the lattitude and exposure limitations didn't seem to be a valid point to prefer color neg over it. Now that the pro market has switched mostly to digital and that the mass-market of everyday people have forgotten about the experience and benefits of projecting slides, the market for E6 has shrinked dangerously. We need to revamp the concept and find smart ways to sell it to as many people as possible. Now is actually a great time to do so, with all those youngsters and new comers from the digital world starting to discover how much analog photography processes can bring to their practice and enjoyment of photography. I admire what Lomography has already achieved in promoting analog photography in a way few people could predict. I dream of someone coming up with a complete DIY at home kit for developing and viewing slides of all sizes (including 3D). They could sell it in partnership with Lomography for example: a small batch developping machine (à la Jobo ATL 1500), E6 films and chemistry, and a portable lightbox with a good loupe or any other smart new device that would be able to provide similar practical viewing experience as an iPad does. Hip and clever marketing to promote medium and large format transparencies as what they really are: one of the most awesome photographic medium ever created.

For much of N. America, quality E6 processing was the first casualty in the digital onslaught. Pros simply stopped shooting it as digital files became the industry standard. Film prices rose, labs closed E6 lines, quality fell and processing prices jumped. Small batch E6 processing became problematic when Kodak killed its kits--something that shut a few JOBO garage labs in my area. Friends still have occasional "Jurassic" nights with 6x6 and 67 slide shows but it's obvious they've lost interest as labs thin out. It's a very hard sell in 2011.

lxdude · Sep 8, 2011

Roger Cole said:
Several of us mentioned this in another thread, but if you like and miss Astia probably the closest replacement is Kodak E100G. It's a bit more contrasty but only a bit, less contrasty than, say, Portra (which I find too contrasty for general use, YMMV.) I've been shooting it in 35mm and like it a lot, and it's available in all sizes up to and including 8x10.

I wouldn't mind so much if the extra layers which enabled Astia to handle mixed lighting were present in Provia. I shoot a lot at night in mixed lighting and filter correcting for fluorescent often knocks off the overall, plus often the fluorescent lighting in one picture varies depending on type and age of sources. Astia was a big help in minimizing that. Digital doesn't have the same ability. So it's a shame that a way in which film is clearly superior doesn't get preserved.
Astia's lower contrast helped the images also, so together with its great resistance to reciprocity failure and fine grain it was my favorite by far.

lxdude · Sep 8, 2011

Roger Cole said:
Several of us mentioned this in another thread, but if you like and miss Astia probably the closest replacement is Kodak E100G. It's a bit more contrasty but only a bit, less contrasty than, say, Portra (which I find too contrasty for general use, YMMV.) I've been shooting it in 35mm and like it a lot, and it's available in all sizes up to and including 8x10.

I like it for daylight work-it's very nice, and I'm saying that as a former Kodachrome user. It is important to bear in mind as this shrinking continues, that there was a time when chrome film selection was very limited. There were K-25 and K-64, Ektachrome at ASA 64 and High Speed Ektachrome at ASA 160, and Fujichrome, Agfachrome, etc. Mostly I stuck with the K-films and used some Fuji and Agfachrome. I liked Agfachrome much more than Ektachrome; I considered it to be much more compatible with Kodachrome color-wise. Fujichrome was always to me rather gaudy, which to me is one reason Astia was so exceptional.
So even as selection shrinks, I can't say I have it worse than I did when I started, and for a long time after that. We've had it really good for the past couple decades. Not much consolation, but a little perspective, given the way things are now.

Roger Cole · Sep 8, 2011

lxdude said:
I like it for daylight work-it's very nice, and I'm saying that as a former Kodachrome user. It is important to bear in mind as this shrinking continues, that there was a time when chrome film selection was very limited. There were K-25 and K-64, Ektachrome at ASA 64 and High Speed Ektachrome at ASA 160, and Fujichrome, Agfachrome, etc. Mostly I stuck with the K-films and used some Fuji and Agfachrome. I liked Agfachrome much more than Ektachrome; I considered it to be much more compatible with Kodachrome color-wise. Fujichrome was always to me rather gaudy, which is one reason Astia was so exceptional.
So even as selection shrinks, I can't say I have it worse than I did when I started, and for a long time after that. We've had it really good for the past couple decades. Not much consolation, but a little perspective, given the way things are now.

I remember those days too, albeit barely.

And thanks to your quote I edited my message. I had meant to say that E100G was less contrasty than Provia, not Portra. It is certainly contrastier than Portra or most other neg films!

tomalophicon · Sep 8, 2011

If it was easier to print transperancies I wouldn't be using print film at all.

Roger Cole · Sep 8, 2011

tomalophicon said:
If it was easier to print transperancies I wouldn't be using print film at all.

With type R paper it WAS easier, and is arguably easier in some ways with Ilfochrome. At least, color balance is easier. The process was far less touchy and critical, the filter pack seemed to change less from one image to another on the same type of film (as in, pretty much not at all per emulsion batch of paper if properly exposed in even remotely similar light) and perhaps best of all you had a positive original with which to compare the result. Against that the contrast is higher, particularly with Ilfochrome - sometimes not a problem, other times you'll need to learn masking (which I never did, just straight prints with dodge and burn) and the cost of type R somewhat higher and Ilfochrome higher still, though on the RC Ilfochrome nowhere near what it costs now.

I still have type R prints I made in high school. Some have faded but most are in good shape. I've no idea why some faded and some didn't as they were the same paper, Kodak type 2203, and same chemistry, Unicolor whatever-it-was. Ah, the old days...but modern RA4 is very good and easy in other ways.

2F/2F · Sep 8, 2011

It is incredibly frustrating to me that they can hold on to three Velvias, yet axe the two most useful and beautiful transparency films they have IMO. The lack of demand for T64 and Astia, yet the existence of a market for three varieties of Velvia, says a lot to me about the current stylistic trends in photography. It's too bad, as my work on film is not generally in line with those trends.

2F/2F · Sep 8, 2011

Roger Cole said:
I still have type R prints I made in high school. Some have faded but most are in good shape. I've no idea why some faded and some didn't as they were the same paper, Kodak type 2203, and same chemistry, Unicolor whatever-it-was. Ah, the old days...but modern RA4 is very good and easy in other ways.

The "superior archival properties" that are often touted for type R prints are true, but they do not take into account the fact that they are still sensitive to UV light and to processing quality. Ilfochromes will start to fade in under an hour if you take them out into bright sun. We tested this on the roof at the museum exhibit preparation company at which I used to work.

I would suspect a processing issue if some of your prints are faded and others are fine, yet they were stored identically.

hpulley · Sep 8, 2011

I used to shoot chromes almost exclusively except when I knew I just wanted 4x6 prints for snapshots. I loved Fuji R paper too but now I just shoot negative film as I can easily develop and print it at home. E6 labs don't give me good results anymore, haven't for years really. Even if I did E6 at home people run when I bring out the slide projector so unfortunately its C-41 and B&W for me these days, sorry chromes...

tomalophicon · Sep 8, 2011

I came too late to the party for R-type printing unfortunately. When I first discovered my dad's old catalogues in which a variety of this mysterious paper was listed, I felt pretty sad that it had gone away.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 8, 2011

2F/2F said:
[...] Ilfochromes will start to fade in under an hour if you take them out into bright sun. We tested this on the roof at the museum exhibit preparation company at which I used to work.[...]

That's a very interesting finding indeed.
ChromaColour here in Adelaide, Australia that ceased trading last year, carried out a stability test exposing a variety of format Ilfochromes to intense light and only found evidence of derangement of dyes after 25 days continuous exposure, and such derangement was very small. They published this on their website, which along with their business, is no more. Involved long-term tests were also carried out at the request of clients for the long-term stability of Ilfochromes under spot illumination of various intensity; no fading was found over more than 30 years of continuous exposure in typical gallery illumination. I have viewed those prints myself dating back to the 1970s.

Roger Cole · Sep 9, 2011

2F/2F said:
The "superior archival properties" that are often touted for type R prints are true, but they do not take into account the fact that they are still sensitive to UV light and to processing quality. Ilfochromes will start to fade in under an hour if you take them out into bright sun. We tested this on the roof at the museum exhibit preparation company at which I used to work.

I would suspect a processing issue if some of your prints are faded and others are fine, yet they were stored identically.

They were stored identically (in the same box in the same closet. )

No big loss that some have faded. They're ok but none are masterpieces - they were made by a kid in high school fooling around with photography. No big surprise there might have been processing variations either - they were made by a kid in high school fooling around with photography and processing them in his basement with a tub of water for temperature control and solutions in empty (cleaned of course, I was a methodical and careful kid...) soda cans because they conveyed the temperature of the water bath well.

It was a ton of fun, though. I had an English teacher who kept telling me they had a night class in photography I could take. I finally retorted, "Mrs XXXX, I could TEACH that class!" and then, in an ironic twist, wound up doing just that for one night. The guys who taught it were only doing black and white. They invited me to come in and show color printing. I asked for a slide to print, one of them gave me one of his, I took, it home, made some test strips and then exposed a sheet, loaded it in the drum, and took the drum back that night with my other gear and processed it for a demo.

That same English teachers actually bought several prints from me. I think I charged $10 for an 8x10 which was a pretty good haul for me in 1980-81.

I would shoot a LOT more chromes today if I could still get type R materials, or Ilfochrome for a reasonable price, say twice to three times the price of RA4 instead of more than six times the price of RA4 materials.

perkeleellinen · Sep 9, 2011

When I lived in Sweden I shot a lot of slide film as I didn't have access to a darkroom and this was the best way to see what I was shooting. However, I haven't shot a single roll of slide film since I started printing colour at home. I came close to trying Ilfochrome last year but the cost was huge and I don't really have enough masterpieces to warrant the expense. With RA4 I can print snap shots just out of curiosity and I'm only spending pennies. If I was scanning I'd probably go for slide film but I don't think I've even turned my scanner on this year.

2F/2F · Sep 9, 2011

Poisson Du Jour said:
That's a very interesting finding indeed.
ChromaColour here in Adelaide, Australia that ceased trading last year, carried out a stability test exposing a variety of format Ilfochromes to intense light and only found evidence of derangement of dyes after 25 days continuous exposure, and such derangement was very small. They published this on their website, which along with their business, is no more. Involved long-term tests were also carried out at the request of clients for the long-term stability of Ilfochromes under spot illumination of various intensity; no fading was found over more than 30 years of continuous exposure in typical gallery illumination. I have viewed those prints myself dating back to the 1970s.

Interesting, perhaps. But very true. It happened right in front of me. The reds lose their brilliance quite quickly. The printer, who taught Richard C. Miller Cibachrome after he could no longer do carbro printing, made a point of showing me so I would learn the importance of keeping artwork out of the sun even for brief periods. Based on what I saw, I would say that the lab in Australia must not have used very intense light sources in their tests. The L.A. sun caused a change in under an hour.

lxdude · Sep 9, 2011

2F/2F said:
The L.A. sun caused a change in under an hour.

Are you sure it wasn't the smog?

lxdude · Sep 9, 2011

2F/2F said:
It is incredibly frustrating to me that they can hold on to three Velvias, yet axe the two most useful and beautiful transparency films they have IMO. The lack of demand for T64 and Astia, yet the existence of a market for three varieties of Velvia, says a lot to me about the current stylistic trends in photography. It's too bad, as my work on film is not generally in line with those trends.

I'm right with you on that. I'm so tired of over-amped color. I looked at the Galen Rowell retrospective book that came out a few years back, and it was easy to tell, even on the printed page, which were Kodachrome and which were Velvia. The intense, artificial color of Velvia overwhelmed subtle variations discernible with Kodachrome. A pink cloud was just pink, no delicate shadings which make it interesting.
Velvia's purty an' all, but to me it quickly gets tiresome. I do use it under strongly overcast conditions, where I think it does well. Why is it color photography is expected to have these gaudy colors, but representational paintings are not? I'll tell ya what, I wouldn't want to put a large landscape photograph full of overblown colors on my wall.

Interesting to me is how popular the desaturated look is these days. Now if we could just establish a 'realistic' midpoint...

Simon R Galley · Sep 9, 2011

Interesting :

I have been party to all kind of fading tests etc for ILFOCHROMES since 1987 when I joined ILFORD:

ILFOCHROME because of its unique construction, process and use of permanent azo dye's is deemed the most stable of all colour photographic processes EVER, this is a fact. I have never seen a visible shift in an hour on any correctly exposed and processed ILFOCHROME print EVER. As an FYI we had them on our roof as well...

All images fade...including ILFOCHROME and those exposed to high levels of UV fade fastest. ILFOCHROME had a huge advantage in that the different coloured dye's faded at a much closer rate to each other than other colour print processes, hence even if it had faded it was not as obvious as where typically on other colour products different dye's faded at different and in some cases accelerated rates.

ILFOCHROME in many ways was a challenging product, especially contrast wise, and cost wise but a correctly printed ILFOCHROME was, and still is, a joy to behold and I am fortuanate to have many, indeed my kids pictures have all been printed on ILFOCHROME and MONOCHROME as I want them to last well over a century and these are the only two photo processes that can be guaranteed.

I do not, and would not doubt, you saw fading 'in an hour' but can only presume something was very wrong with the stock that was used or the process that produced it. To be fair to RA4 products I have never seen them fade in an hour either, they too can to be very, very good.

I have seen inkjet products fade in 'hours' especially in the early years of dye based inks.

The ultimate accolade for ILFOCHROME is that it is still called 'CIBACHROME' by many, and that within the fine art community and the buyers of those 'colour' images ILFOCHROME is the print out product of choice as it remains the most stable media bar none.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 9, 2011

^^ Most educational. My understanding is that Ilfochrome prints, conservation-framed, would last 400-600 years. No, I wouldn't expect to be around to prove it, but hey, no harm in leaving a lasting image...

Simon, do you have knowledge of Chromacolour/Adelaide/South Australia's testing processes and the superb print quality they consistently achieved? They were also quite bitter about irregular quality of the raw materials. The company's demise was a terrible loss to us in Australia.

RA4 prints are OK too. They were much easier to print from contrasty Velvia stock than e.g. Ilfochromes, but I was smitten by the Ilford product. But having said that, as you observe, Ilfochromes have no match. I've recently seen some ultra large format Epson K3 Ultrachrome prints-on-canvas and am not convinced either by archival stability claims or the astronomical prices being asked for the finished works (around $14,000). With the poor availability of Ilfochrome now we are actually being pushed into alternative processes. I say, Ilford, bring your prices down, and promote the product more widely as the standard by which (electronic) printing should be judged.

Athiril · Sep 9, 2011

2F/2F said:
It is incredibly frustrating to me that they can hold on to three Velvias, yet axe the two most useful and beautiful transparency films they have IMO. The lack of demand for T64 and Astia, yet the existence of a market for three varieties of Velvia, says a lot to me about the current stylistic trends in photography. It's too bad, as my work on film is not generally in line with those trends.

Yes my thoughts exactly. I can imagine the only reason they hold onto Velvia 100f is because it's "f" and that is their "must have" part of their product line matching the rest of the marketed names, while Velvia 50 and 100 are there from sales/usage.

Sigh if only I had a good income atm.. I really want to get as much Astia as possible.

lxdude · Sep 9, 2011

Poisson Du Jour said:
I say, Ilford, bring your prices down, and promote the product more widely as the standard by which (electronic) printing should be judged.

That of course is the OTHER Ilford--not Simon's current gig.

And what is it with those guys- do they not want to sell product? I mean, I know the Swiss are reserved and all, but that's ridiculous!:confused:

Astia 100F, Sensia 3, T64 discontinued

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency