Ektachrome history

[Ed_Nyari]

Ron, do you happen to have any kind of characteristic curves charts for
old (pre mid-70's) materials, either color negatives, color papers or
reversal films?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ed;

The curves and sensitivities to light were pretty constant as were the speed relationships. What varied slightly were the dye hues and the toe and shoulder values. Speed increased, sharpness and grain changed. Dye stability improved 100 - 1000 fold.

For example, Ektacolor professional paper was slightly softer in magenta toe, due to the fact that a hard toe caused cyan highlights in wedding gowns in professional wedding pictures, so there was a very tiny bias in the pro paper from neutral.

Ektacolor 70 papers had a slightly redder magenta than type "C" papers in general, but the new Endura is slightly less red. It also had a new green sensitizing dye which is carried over into Endura AFAIK.

Metamerism changed across the papers. Films were rather constant with broader dyes in negative films than in positive films, but with much more correction.

I'm constructing this from memory as I have very little actual data. A few odds and ends.

Dye stability variations seem to have been more process related than actual product related. This is based on personal experience and reading posts on PN and APUG.

Bottom line is that negative films ran at about 0.6 - 0.65 contrast and the papers were kept at about 2.50 in contrast. There were minor tweaks in paper toe and shoulder.

I hope this helps. I think I have an old aim overlay for color paper that I might be able to locate, but looking at the data on the Kodak web site, things look pretty unchanged to me. My contribution would be redundant.

PE

 

[Ed_Nyari]

Thanks, regardless , if you find anything please post, it would be interesting to see

 

[Helen B]

Hi there

I bought a nice scientific article by Kodak engineers from 1952.
They studied interimage effects in old Ektachrome type B film.

Now I'm trying to figure out which film was that.
Tungsten from 1952. I'd assume the ASA rating was about 12-16 , but who knows.

So does anyone have any idea of what kind of Ektachrome films there were back then.

I'd settle for a rough estimate of speed, so just shoot the lowest ISO you ever heard for Ektachrome, and what year was it.

The film is sheet film, so it's either original E process or E3.
Since it's 1952. I'd bet it's original Ektachrome process.

...

US Camera of Feb 1951 mentions the 'new' Ektacolor Type B as having the same speed as Ektachrome Type B: Weston 6. That would be 8 ASA, wouldn't it? (But did the method change?)

A Kodak advert mentions Ektachrome daylight in 120, 620 and sheets, and Type B in sheets only.

1957 copies of US Camera mention 'New Ektachrome' as being 32 ASA, and available in 828, 127, 120, 620 and 135.

Best,
Helen

 

[copake_ham]

This has been a fascinating thread to read.

Thank you, Ed, Helen and PE.

My experience with Ektachrome was in the late 1970's through early 1990's as a (less than satisfying) substitute for Kodachrome when I wanted/needed a faster film. Then, KodaC only came in 25 and 64 (I'm speaking of 35mm here) and on cloudy days or at night - or when trying to shoot interior available light - EktaC was the only alternative at 200 and 400.

Helen, your photos confirmed what I always felt was "wrong" (to me) about EktaC (too much blue/green) but I was somewhat surprised to see that it rendered some red/yellows better than I remembered. Of course, never as "vivid" as KodaC - but then KodaC was always a bit "over the top" with the red/yellow side.

I want to go through my original slide collection that I scanned a couple of years ago when I get back down to NYC. Unfortunately, I mixed the KodaC and EktaC based on subject/time rather than film type - but I should be able to figure out which was which. I'd like to see again how my old EktaC rendered red/yellow.

Perhaps they were "on" to something that Fuji finally accomplished with Velvia? It seems to favor the blue/greens - but still produces very nice red/yellows....

 

[Ed_Nyari]

It is also worth mentioning in this thread, that Ektachrome 64 (EPR) in its current version is pretty much the same emulsion as it was back in 1976. Kodak says there were changes to the base, but nothing was changed that would affect the image rendering itself.
Kodak has been know to say some pretty silly things, but I believe them on this one, because EPR looks pretty "retro" to me when developed today.
It also teaches us that films didn't look THAT much different back then, but there is still something, a subtle charm that I think is lost in modern too-accurate emulsions

 

[Photo Engineer]

George;

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

In tests with viewers, the viewer preferred exaggerated colors to accurate colors. Kodachrome was designed to make a garbage dump pretty.

So, what do you want to depict, no disrespect intended, reality or what you imagine to be reality. The real world or 'OZ' to pick a phrase.

This is why so many dismiss negative films, but they are mainly designed to represent reality more than positive films. That is why the orange mask is there to correct for errors.

Oh well, I feel like a one-man crusader.

Just a comment.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ed, the emulsions have been updated, believe me on this.

Two of my good friends, with whom I correspond regularly, were the architects of the Ektachrome emulsion improvements in the 90s.

But, to be fair, no reversal film will ever approach a negative film for color quality.

PE

 

[PHOTOTONE]

But, to be fair, no reversal film will ever approach a negative film for color quality.

PE

I think a more appropriate statement would be "No reversal film wll ever approach a color negative film for color accuracy."

The "quality" of almost all E-6 films is outstanding. You're right, though, the public in general favors exaggerated intense colors over color accuracy. Look at how many people have the color on there televisions turned up way too high.

 

[Ed_Nyari]

So, what do you want to depict, no disrespect intended, reality or what you imagine to be reality.
PE

Well , isn't that the whole point of art, to express what you imagine to be the reality and not to document actual reality?

People like Kodachrome because it ISN'T accurate, that's the whole point of Kodachrome, it has character

Materials which are completely accurate lack character, and often look cold.
Photography for the most part is about fantasy, not reality. Or to be more accurate,
the reality in which the photographer lives.

For the same reason, many musicians output their digital recordings to analog tapes to get HD distortion, tape saturation and other analog effects.
It's technically incorrect, but it's pleasing, and adds character

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think a more appropriate statement would be "No reversal film wll ever approach a color negative film for color accuracy."

The "quality" of almost all E-6 films is outstanding. You're right, though, the public in general favors exaggerated intense colors over color accuracy. Look at how many people have the color on there televisions turned up way too high.

You are right. The way you state it is more accurate than mine. Thanks.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well , isn't that the whole point of art, to express what you imagine to be the reality and not to document actual reality?

People like Kodachrome because it ISN'T accurate, that's the whole point of Kodachrome, it has character

Materials which are completely accurate lack character, and often look cold.
Photography for the most part is about fantasy, not reality. Or to be more accurate,
the reality in which the photographer lives.

For the same reason, many musicians output their digital recordings to analog tapes to get HD distortion, tape saturation and other analog effects.
It's technically incorrect, but it's pleasing, and adds character

Unfortunately, more people prefer Ektachrome if they want reversal, than Kodachrome. That is the current problem with sales.

And, regardless of my prior post, more people prefer color negative films. Reversal films are dying off more rapidly than negative films.

PE

 

[dmr]

This is a very interesting discussion ...

In tests with viewers, the viewer preferred exaggerated colors to accurate colors.

I don't doubt this at all, and I admit that I am a sucker for a punchy landscape or cityscape with that "Fuji Blue" sky. (However, I can also appreciate more subtle colors when appropriate and B&W when appropriate.)

So, what do you want to depict, no disrespect intended, reality or what you imagine to be reality. The real world or 'OZ' to pick a phrase.

I think it's human nature to want to view the world (through photographs) as we might want to see it, as opposed to the way it really is. I don't think this is at all limited to photography, however, if you know what I mean. ...

Kodachrome was designed to make a garbage dump pretty.

I really don't think of Kodachrome as having exaggerated colors at all, in fact of today's films, I think of Kodachrome (64, the one I have been shooting now off and on for the past 2 years) as being the most natural in rendition of the films I normally shoot. Many will use terms such as "muted" when describing Kodachrome today.

This is why so many dismiss negative films, but they are mainly designed to represent reality more than positive films.

Now back in ancient history when I first started getting into semi-serious photography, I did think of Kodacolor (probably Kodacolor-X at the time) as the most accurate, but I didn't think of Kodachrome as being artificially vivid by any means. I think of Ektachrome (the 64 version that I remember) as being the most "punchy" of those days, but tending toward cooler tones.

Now with today's film, I have to agree that punch sells. UC 400 and Velvia and the like. Even the off the shelf Fuji 200 and the Kodak Gold 200, the films I probably shoot the most of, I think of as having colors that "pop", but not artificially so.

One thing I do keep saying is that the combination of today's film and 1970s glass is very hard to beat!

Oh well, I feel like a one-man crusader.

And feel free to keep crusading.

 

[copake_ham]

George;

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

In tests with viewers, the viewer preferred exaggerated colors to accurate colors. Kodachrome was designed to make a garbage dump pretty.

So, what do you want to depict, no disrespect intended, reality or what you imagine to be reality. The real world or 'OZ' to pick a phrase.

This is why so many dismiss negative films, but they are mainly designed to represent reality more than positive films. That is why the orange mask is there to correct for errors.

Oh well, I feel like a one-man crusader.

Just a comment.

PE

PE,

You do not need to "crusade".

I understand that the negative films have greater latitudes and since I now scan all my film - I use them more now than ever before. But, for various reasons (less so now, than then), some of us just prefer 'chromes. While I'm less and less likely to pull out the old carousel projector - I still have one. It's how some of us showed-off our shots back in the day.

Yes, I agree, undoubtedly, Kchrome is, as I said earlier, over the top. And I stand by my observations that EChrome was too "blue",

But my ultimate point is that the "other guys" may have really "nailed it" with Velvia.

I've shot the "old" 50 and the 100. Still waiting on the "new" 50 to try.

Velvia seems to "blend" the better elements of KChrome and EChrome very nicely! Sorry if it doesn't come from Rochester - but aren't they blowing up the buildings there now anyway?

More important, isn't it great that we have Velvia since we are all taking new pictures in the here and now? And isn't that what it's all about?

 

[Flotsam]

In tests with viewers, the viewer preferred exaggerated colors to accurate colors. Kodachrome was designed to make a garbage dump pretty.

I have authoritative information that Kodachrome was engineered to give nice bright colors, the greens of summers and to make you think all the world's a sunny day.

These may not be desirable characteristics in some photographic situations... in the winter or on cloudy days for instance.

 

[copake_ham]

I have authoritative information that Kodachrome was engineered to give nice bright colors, the greens of summers and to make you think all the world's a sunny day.

These may not be desirable characteristics in some photographic situations... in the winter or on cloudy days for instance.

Hi Flotsam,

Now, I must ask something. Would your "authority" happen to come from Queens, NY and have been the guy who used to hang out with a sidekick who's first name was Art?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodachrome has a unique cyan dye in it that has a very narrow band pass. It therefore requires a lot of cyan dye to make a neutral thereby making greens look 'different' than other films. At the same time, a neutral does not look exactly neutral.

It is for this reason that people report it difficult to scan Kodachromes. OTOH, I have seen some superb scans done by Al Weber. He has not had any problems with it by simply adjusting his parameters correctly.

Again, no mystery, just an accident of chemistry regarding the greens and cyans and blues. As to why overall? Kodachrome can pick any dye set they want due to being able to use 3 developing agents. They picked the couplers and developing agents for color purity (bandpass), and dye stability among other features.

PE

 

[Flotsam]

Hi Flotsam,

Now, I must ask something. Would your "authority" happen to come from Queens, NY and have been the guy who used to hang out with a sidekick who's first name was Art?

Sorry George, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and meet my friend Julio down by the schoolyard.

 

[Ed_Nyari]

Helen, did you perhaps have time to prepare those files?

 

[nworth]

Unfortunately, more people prefer Ektachrome if they want reversal, than Kodachrome. That is the current problem with sales.

And, regardless of my prior post, more people prefer color negative films. Reversal films are dying off more rapidly than negative films.

PE

I think the real problem with sales is processing. It now takes two or three weeks to get back your Kodachrome slides, but it only takes a day for E-6 processing. Of course, digital is taking a great toll.

With the recent (well, 8 or 10 years ago) changes, I find Kodachrome colors are much more accurate than Ektachrome. The accuracy of all the Kodak reversal color films is much improved over what it was years ago, but the saturation has been increased to unrealistic levels to comply with consumer demands.

The preference for color negative films probably has many causes. The improved color accuracy compared to the early Kodacolor (pre-1956) made these films acceptable. Certainly the one-hour processing labs are a factor. The fact that you can view prints and pass them around instead of fussing with a projector is another. That the films are very forgiving for exposure errors means that users get very few spoiled shots even with simple cameras. For serious photographers, all these factors combined with better color accuracy, broader selection of films with different contrasts, saturation, and subtle color effects, and ease of manipulation and printing with either direct or scanning methods makes the negative films real winners.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think the real problem with sales is processing. It now takes two or three weeks to get back your Kodachrome slides, but it only takes a day for E-6 processing.

I think you have the cause and effect reversed and I've said this over and over. Processing availability came after sales decreased, not the other way around.

PE

 

[dmr]

It now takes two or three weeks to get back your Kodachrome slides, but it only takes a day for E-6 processing.

Not to be fussy or argumentative here, but people are always quoting weeks, plural, to get Kodachrome back. Since I resumed using Kodachrome about 2 years ago, I've always got finished slides back in less than a week. If they go out in Monday morning's mail, they come back usually on Saturday, sometimes on Friday. This is very consistent. This is using plain old USPS snail-mail, no special handling or expediting.

 

[srs5694]

I think you have the cause and effect reversed and I've said this over and over. Processing availability came after sales decreased, not the other way around.

I'd say it's a feedback loop; the effect feeds back into the cause, sending Kodachrome sales into a downward spiral. This also makes it difficult to say what's the cause and what's the effect, since both factors function as both cause and effect.

Also, even a few decades ago, Kodachrome had to be sent out to one of a handful of facilities for processing, whereas E-6 (and earlier Ektachrome processes) were more easily done locally. This would give a speed advantage to Ektachrome -- not as great an advantage as exists today, but a real one nonetheless. Once some other factor (improvements in E-6, decline in film sales generally, UFO thought-control rays, or whatever) causes a dip in Kodachrome sales, the aforementioned feedback loop would take over.

 

[srs5694]

Not to be fussy or argumentative here, but people are always quoting weeks, plural, to get Kodachrome back. Since I resumed using Kodachrome about 2 years ago, I've always got finished slides back in less than a week.

Where are you located? My guess is it's someplace close to Dwayne's in Kansas, which is (AFAIK) the only remaining commercial Kodachrome processing facility on the planet. I don't shoot a lot of Kodachrome, but the last few rolls I sent out took about 1.5 or 2 weeks to return. I live in Rhode Island, so mail to and from Kansas would probably take a week or so.

 

[dmr]

Where are you located? My guess is it's someplace close to Dwayne's in Kansas, which is (AFAIK) the only remaining commercial Kodachrome processing facility on the planet. I don't shoot a lot of Kodachrome, but the last few rolls I sent out took about 1.5 or 2 weeks to return. I live in Rhode Island, so mail to and from Kansas would probably take a week or so.

Yes, I am Somewhere In Middle America (for Counting Crows fans) only one state away.

I always figured it took 2 days to get there, one day there, and 2 days to get back, depending of course on the weather, the phase of the moon and all that.

Out of curiosity, I checked the postal calculator (http://postcalc.usps.gov/) to see what they said. Punching in my zip code and Dwayne's, using the icon for "envelope with a solid object inside", yes, it confirmed that first class should be 2 days.

Then I punched in my old zip code from when I lived back east, and it came up with 3 days, so I can see it taking a couple days more, even counting as a week and a half if you do something like miss the last mail pickup on a Friday evening, but the multiple weeks (2-3 I hear cited) does not make sense.