Ektachrome 100G and new E100 the same film?

[Robert Stone]

Hi everyone, I was shooting some of the new Kodak Ektachrome E100 film and I noticed the notch codes are the same as the old E100G

Is this the same emulsion makeup? Why change the designation and keep the same notch code? Was it just a mistake because the older technicians aren’t around to explain to new ones that notch codes should change with new versions of a film? It seems the bar codes are the same also.

Anyone know?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The two films are quite similar but not identical. Since E100G is fully discontinued, there's no harm done or confusion introduced by the newer film inheriting the same code notch. This kind of thing has occurred before.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Hi everyone, I was shooting some of the new Kodak Ektachrome E100 film and I noticed the notch codes are the same as the old E100G

Is this the same emulsion makeup?...

No, it had to be reformulated due to some E100G components sourced outside of Eastman Kodak no longer being available.

...Why change the designation and keep the same notch code?...It seems the bar codes are the same also...

Bean counters allocate a cost for every new SKU number. Since the old one is already in Kodak's "system," and associated with that notch code, re-using it keeps the cost of reintroducing Ektachrome lower. Marketing is simultaneously able to call it "E100" and thereby satisfy consumers' perpetual thirst for "new."

 

[MattKing]

With respect to the 35mm film, there are a number of improvements built into the new version, but they are incremental in nature - the sort of improvements that one can expect every few years within an existing product.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A new SKU number costs next to nothing; the precise product name and label was changed anyway. I could generate a couple thousand new SKU's a day almost fully automated. Bean counters are easy to deal with if you have them take a long walk on a short pier; they rarely do anything useful above sea level. There is probably some minor set-up cost to any new code notch, but they avoided that nuisance task. In this case, deliberate product continuity rather than shock and awe seems to have been the priority. And since it's out of the gate 50% more expensive per shot than Fuji 4x5 chrome films, any r&d and marketing overhead would presumably be factored in. I don't shoot chrome film anymore, except for curiosity testing; but I would call this particular product very desirable despite the cost. I already considered E100G Kodak's best chrome film ever, and this seems even a tad better.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The two films are quite similar but not identical. Since E100G is fully discontinued, there's no harm done or confusion introduced by the newer film inheriting the same code notch. This kind of thing has occurred before.

I'm young enough that I never shot the original before it was discontinued. I have shot this new one and quite like it. I wish it had just a tiny bit less contrast, but otherwise, it's pretty nice.

 

[Robert Stone]

I'm young enough that I never shot the original before it was discontinued. I have shot this new one and quite like it. I wish it had just a tiny bit less contrast, but otherwise, it's pretty nice.

Generally speaking, chrome has high contrast, almost exclusively, I would say the closest to “low contrast” was Astia, a Fuji film that’s been discontinued for many years now.

With respect to the 35mm film, there are a number of improvements built into the new version, but they are incremental in nature - the sort of improvements that one can expect every few years within an existing product.

Do you know the specific improvements? Just curious. I hope it scans better, the old stuff didn’t scan as well as Fuji chrome films from what I could find.

No, it had to be reformulated due to some E100G components sourced outside of Eastman Kodak no longer being available.Bean counters allocate a cost for every new SKU number. Since the old one is already in Kodak's "system," and associated with that notch code, re-using it keeps the cost of reintroducing Ektachrome lower. Marketing is simultaneously able to call it "E100" and thereby satisfy consumers' perpetual thirst for "new."

Thanks Sal, makes sense, especially if they still had the previous notch punches rather than having to re-tool.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Bean counters are easy to deal with if you have them take a long walk on a short pier; they rarely do anything useful above sea level...

We all look forward to the start of your employment at Eastman Kodak / Kodak Alaris. I'm sure you'll whip their bean counters, as well as the rest of their people/operations, into shape tout suite.

Please let us know when you've brought back all those other products that were pushed over the edge into discontinuation by SKU carrying costs allocated by Kodak bean counters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You seem to have quite a bean bag pummeling grudge, Sal. But so do millions of Americans; and I don't blame them either. Banking and tax auditors are a necessity; but "business school types", as we were prone to call them, were typically just parasites, and otherwise generally incompetent. My battles are over; I retired. But Kodak was full of buckshot holes from the "suits" for quite awhile till it finally bled out. Now just maybe it's small enough to think twice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Adrian, as advertised, the new E100 goes white pretty quick at the upper end. I don't know if that's an advantage to everyone, but it is a way to control the highlight crossover potentially afflicting some older films. Very tight metering is required. It does have the most neutral gray scale I've seen so far with the exception of the now discontinued Astia/CDU family of films from Fuji.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian, as advertised, the new E100 goes white pretty quick at the upper end. I don't know if that's an advantage to everyone, but it is a way to control the highlight crossover potentially afflicting some older films. Very tight metering is required. It does have the most neutral gray scale I've seen so far with the exception of the now discontinued Astia/CDU family of films from Fuji.

I’m actually OK with the upper end. Believe it or not, it’s very similar to how Adobe LR pulls the upper end up to white if you’re shooting raw with a digital camera since most digital cameras start clipping at least one channel on the upper end by the time you get to ~3 stops above middle grey. What I wish it did was just a smidge less contrast in the lower mid-tones and upper shadows just to open that up a tiny bit while still maintaining its max density/blacks, but that’s just me, and in all honesty, it’s a very nuanced thing. Solid blacks are a great thing, but I prefer it not to go to black quite so quick.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Precisely flashing chrome film for lower values is hardly worth it because there's so little scale that things get muddy right up to the midtone, and you lose your crisp black too. I sometimes selectively do it with Ektar using a warming diffuser to remove some of the cyan cast from shadows, but even that is fussy. Good ole Ektachrome 64 or Fuji Astia were a lot easier to manage due to about a step more both directions being usable. Still, I grew up shooting Kodachrome 25 with its strong contrast, and almost never botched an exposure, despite a relatively primitive CDS averaging meter. One just gets accustomed to matching scene illumination to the specific film or visa versa.