E100GX Discontinued

[brianmquinn]

Elitechrome 100 or E100G with Skylight 1A or 1B filter (deeper blues as with a warming filter) are probably very good alternatives for E100GX users.

The problem with that is I often use a polarizer and would therefore have to stack filters. Stacking filters does not work well with wide angle lenses. I could spend a few hundred dollars and pick up some moose filters.

 

[okjspur]

Why don't we respond with the same loyalty that Kodak has show us. I will no longer purchase any Kodak product. They do not seem to want my money so I will help them out.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why don't we respond with the same loyalty that Kodak has show us. I will no longer purchase any Kodak product. They do not seem to want my money so I will help them out.

The typical anti-Kodak remark of the ilk of "I am not happy with my life so I will burn down my house so I can feel better."

I will bet that when Fuji discontinues a film you like, that will be just fine with you and you will give Fuji a pass.

Welcome to APUG.

Steve

 

[okjspur]

Steve,
I ahve been a Kodak user for over 30 years. Everytime I find a film that I love they cease production, and I am forced to find a different film that is almost as good. I feel that at this point Kodak feels that if I want their respect then I should switch to digital. I moved to ILford paper as the Kodak paper disappeared. I have moved to Ilford B&W film as I find them reliable. I am now testing Fuji chrome as a replacement for Kodak. I am not happy at all with this situation, I would continue to shoot E100GX if it were an option. If all film shooters move away from Kodak they might begin to see that while we are a minority, we do affect their bottom line. To Kodak: if you want are respect and our dollars, then treat us with respect. Short production runs will supply are need, and keep us loyal. If you feel that we are too small a group to respect, then fuji and Ilford here is you opportunity to win our hearts and wallets.

James

 

[aldevo]

Steve,
I ahve been a Kodak user for over 30 years. Everytime I find a film that I love they cease production, and I am forced to find a different film that is almost as good. I feel that at this point Kodak feels that if I want their respect then I should switch to digital. I moved to ILford paper as the Kodak paper disappeared. I have moved to Ilford B&W film as I find them reliable. I am now testing Fuji chrome as a replacement for Kodak. I am not happy at all with this situation, I would continue to shoot E100GX if it were an option. If all film shooters move away from Kodak they might begin to see that while we are a minority, we do affect their bottom line. To Kodak: if you want are respect and our dollars, then treat us with respect. Short production runs will supply are need, and keep us loyal. If you feel that we are too small a group to respect, then fuji and Ilford here is you opportunity to win our hearts and wallets.

James

Your logic is suspect. Short production runs are not economically viable. This has been discussed over and over and over again on these forums; it just can't be made to work if the production infrastructure is too large. E-6 film sales have fallen more than 95% in the past 10 years and are continuing to deteriorate. Kodak invested a huge amount of money 5, 6, 7 years ago to downsize its film production infrastructure to cope with lower demand. Unfortunately, demand quickly plunged far below even the most pessimistic predictions and shows no signs of leveling off. The company is bleedng cash at an accelerated rate and unprofitable products simply have to be discarded quickly.

If all film shooters move away from Kodak they will discontinue all their fim products. Fuji is also discontinuing products (e.g. Acros Quickloads) and even a cursory search of this site will show that Ilford has been dumping products from its Kentmere line up one after another. This is a necessity when demand falls or constituents in a product become very costly or unavailable altogether due to environmental concerns or the collapse of a supplier.

There's no sugar-coating it; product availability will continue to diminish as long as demand continues to erode.

 

[StorminMatt]

The writing was on the wall with the introduction of Ektar. All of that speil on their website about how Ektar is meant to be a replacement for slide film just didn't sound good to me: I pretty much KNEW that the days of Kodak slide film were numbered. Now, it's happening. Kodachrome and E100GX are gone. And I just don't see E100G, E100VS, or E200 lasting much longer, either. One little problem, though. Apparently, nobody told Kodak that Ektar is a negative film. And most of us who shoot slides do so because we actually LIKE slides. Kodak is in for one hell of a surprise if they think all of us slide shooters are going to embrace Ektar, or any other C41 film.

 

[okjspur]

Your logic is suspect. Short production runs are not economically viable. This has been discussed over and over and over again on these forums; it just can't be made to work if the production infrastructure is too large. E-6 film sales have fallen more than 95% in the past 10 years and are continuing to deteriorate. Kodak invested a huge amount of money 5, 6, 7 years ago to downsize its film production infrastructure to cope with lower demand. Unfortunately, demand quickly plunged far below even the most pessimistic predictions and shows no signs of leveling off. The company is bleedng cash at an accelerated rate and unprofitable products simply have to be discarded quickly.

If all film shooters move away from Kodak they will discontinue all their fim products. Fuji is also discontinuing products (e.g. Acros Quickloads) and even a cursory search of this site will show that Ilford has been dumping products from its Kentmere line up one after another. This is a necessity when demand falls or constituents in a product become very costly or unavailable altogether due to environmental concerns or the collapse of a supplier.

There's no sugar-coating it; product availability will continue to diminish as long as demand continues to erode.

To a point you are correct. However by your logic Kodak needs to end all production now. If these facilities are being run at less than 100% capacity then the rule, “as long as marginal revenue exceeds marginal cost then production should continue.” Every additional unit of production contributes to fixed cost there by increasing profit. I do however see Kodak discontinue production within the next couple years. As the numbers of producers shrink, the remaining producers will have an increasing market share allowing them to use the economies of scale to decrease costs and increase profits. Unless in the long-term they see that they are only getting an increasing share of a decreasing market, i.e. the economies of scale at a future point are no longer a possibility. Then we will all be shooting digital unless we start making our own film. In that case I will simply stop shooting at all. I will give my business to film producers that I believe will try to stay in business the longest, they are the ones that we all be using in the long term, I plan to shoot film as long as possible. OMG maybe someday we will all be shooting Lucky Film.

James

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Have to say, I saw this one coming...unfortunately.
Let me begin by saying that I went through a period the last couple years, where I shot almost nothing but chromes. Several hundred rolls - at a substantial cost (for my small budget). Practically all of my "hobby money" went to fund this. I figure it cost me at least $17 - $20 per roll including processing. All E100GX, Velvia, and a bit of Kodachrome.

During that time, I thought chromes were the S***. I had a Leica projector, purchased a portable light box & loupe to take around with me, etc. Anyone coming over knew they were going to see some slides one way or another! I was that dedicated to it.

Fast forward a little. Now that I would like to have some of these fine images printed, I am having a hard time accepting the results. For example, that wonderful looking chrome is awesome - but only with light projecting through it. It seems nearly impossible, at least on my budget (I cannot afford drum scans of everything) to get the best image out of these slides and onto the paper! And scans? I've not had much luck capturing the full detail there either - something, especially in the shadow detail, always seems lost. I need to be wealthy and get some drummed, I guess.

So...I am left feeling a little bummed...and not at all surprised by this thread. I see the love of chromes in your posts. Hey, I was there for years - I had it too. But, now I also see some of the reality of photography (for me - that is key here). Photographs were meant to be viewed, and that generally means prints...unless you just have a projection going 24/7; and even then, that will ruin the slide.

I do lament this loss along with you all; I have shot and paid for plenty of E100GX, and it is/was a worthy film. But, when the chips are down, to me anyway, it looks like shooting negatives are a better option - at least if you want to have an all analog workflow, from shoot to print, which is what I'm after.
All the best, and I do hope some chrome films will last for everyone,
Jed

 

[Chazzy]

I think the way that this is sorting out in the long term is that people will look to Fuji for transparency films, and perhaps keep shooting Kodak color negative films.

 

[2F/2F]

I think the way that this is sorting out in the long term is that people will look to Fuji for transparency films, and perhaps keep shooting Kodak color negative films.

This is exactly the opposite of my preference...of course. IMO, Fuji has never made anything I have used that I like as much as E100, E100 Plus, E100G, E100VS, E100SW, E160T, or E320T...and Kodak has never made anything I have used that I like as much as Reala, NPH/400H, NPZ/800Z, or Superia 800.

I did like both NPL and Portra 100T. I preferred the Portra for shooting with hot lights, and the NPL for night shooting.

One area where I feel that Fuji has the better comparable transparency film by a long shot is T64...and opposite for the 160 neg films. I like Kodak's 160NC and 160VC better than Fuji's 160S and 160C.

 

[nickrapak]

To a point you are correct. However by your logic Kodak needs to end all production now. If these facilities are being run at less than 100% capacity then the rule, “as long as marginal revenue exceeds marginal cost then production should continue.” Every additional unit of production contributes to fixed cost there by increasing profit. I do however see Kodak discontinue production within the next couple years. As the numbers of producers shrink, the remaining producers will have an increasing market share allowing them to use the economies of scale to decrease costs and increase profits. Unless in the long-term they see that they are only getting an increasing share of a decreasing market, i.e. the economies of scale at a future point are no longer a possibility. Then we will all be shooting digital unless we start making our own film. In that case I will simply stop shooting at all. I will give my business to film producers that I believe will try to stay in business the longest, they are the ones that we all be using in the long term, I plan to shoot film as long as possible. OMG maybe someday we will all be shooting Lucky Film.

James

4 total posts, 3 in this thread, all bashing Kodak.


Begone, troll!

 

[Sirius Glass]

4 total posts, 3 in this thread, all bashing Kodak.


Begone, troll!

AMEN!!

He would is one who would literally cut his nose of to spite his face!

Steve

 

[Ektagraphic]

Pat,

What about E200 and Elitechrome 200? Did you ask?

For now, they are safe.

 

[Ektagraphic]

If anyone has any E100GX that they are willing to part with please let me know. Thanks

 

[aldevo]

For now, they are safe.

I think E200 has been discontinued in (at least) 120.

 

[Vonder]

There's always Fuji's Astia... did I say always??? Yikes! Time for me to stock up.

 

[2F/2F]

I don't get the above post. Astia is nothing like E-100 GX. Did I miss something?

 

[Vonder]

You didn't mention it

I don't get the above post. Astia is nothing like E-100 GX. Did I miss something?

Not really, but I read your negative report on several Fuji slide films and as Astia wasn't among them, I posted a sample. Astia is my favorite slide film and it's a sleeper that many people don't know about.

 

[2F/2F]

Not really, but I read your negative report on several Fuji slide films and as Astia wasn't among them, I posted a sample. Astia is my favorite slide film and it's a sleeper that many people don't know about.

My negative report on several Fuji slide films? That's news to me. I like them all, and they are all good. I just said that I generally prefer Kodak transparency films.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I'll give you a negative report on fuji's films.

 

[2F/2F]

I'll give you a negative report on fuji's films.

Yes. We know. I wonder if you have ever seriously worked them over, or if you are just on some strange pro-Kodak anti-Fuji kick for no objective reason. They are all great films with plenty of uses. Pick the ones you like, and quit trying to present your likes and dislikes as facts.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I have tried them and I have looked over many scans of them. Perhaps I should try a couple.

 

[andrewkirkby]

I have tried them and I have looked over many scans of them. Perhaps I should try a couple.

You need to actually put the film into the camera and shoot it before you can knock it. There are certain films for certain times.

I think you will find some of Fuji's films brilliant. Provia 100F is a very nice looking film and despite your anti-Fuji attitude, you might get some enjoyment out of it.

I have a bunch of E100GX here in my desk. It should be alright

 

[EASmithV]

Wait, is Elite chrome 100 essentially E100gx?

 

[John Shriver]

Yeah, Elite Chrome 100 is pretty much the same thing as E100GX.