Ektachrome is back......

Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 1
  • 1
  • 61
Summer Lady

A
Summer Lady

  • 2
  • 1
  • 84
DINO Acting Up !

A
DINO Acting Up !

  • 2
  • 0
  • 47
What Have They Seen?

A
What Have They Seen?

  • 0
  • 0
  • 63
Lady With Attitude !

A
Lady With Attitude !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 53

Forum statistics

Threads
198,773
Messages
2,780,692
Members
99,701
Latest member
XyDark
Recent bookmarks
0

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
PS : Kodak and Leica (today Leica Camera AG) started a joint venture during the 90th to show
what 35mm can support at its maximum.
Leica hired the best proffessionas, Kodak sponsored their best film (Ektar25) and the finishing without digital was made from best lab experts.
As a result enlargements up to 1meter showed the superb quality.
So this was a demonstration effect to make clear what you'll get from superb Leica M lenses at its best with Kodaks best Film : Grain what is nearly not visible at 1 Meter enlargements from 35mm film !
Till today they never reached it again because there is no film avaible to top EKTAR25 smallest grain. Ektar100 is also superb and with smallest grain and it has ISO100 - great (but Ektar25 was better):sleeping:

Got a link for that?
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
May be Zapruda made experience with E2 Ektachrome ?

Kodak_Ektachrome_F_35mm_Slide_Film_-_Expired_February_1963(2).jpg


And decided on Kodachrome ?

with regards
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Got a link for that?

Some hundred (definitivly more than hundred's) saw actually presentation (Leica / Kodak Jointventure)
on "Photokina" like me. (Somewhere in the midt 90th) pls. don't beat me for the correct year because during the 90th I was often on Photokina for job a.s.o..

The max. was 1 Meter (80 x 100) so we are not talking about 140 x 100 ! And indeed it looked like today's 50megapixes prints. (nearly without "visable" grain.
The max. I personally printed from Ektar100 (35mm) was 40 x 60 and there you have grain !
Ok perhaps it was caused from my own workflow - nowbody is perfect....:cry::redface:!
But I also made prints from lab developed films:whistling:.....
And I also let some prints made by professional lab (the better ones) in 50 x 70 = same quality as mine:kissing::kissing::kissing: !!!

So in general : fine color negative films (not Agfa Vista 800!!! ) are good from grain up to 30 x40 to me.
With Extar & Co. it is ok in 40 x 60. The max. in 50 x 70 is realy difficult to many films (just to me others may see this different if they like grain).

AND Ektar25 was much better in 80 x 100 in comparison to today's Ektar100 50x70!!!

With different workflows this advantage may be smaler (like PE's statement to state of the Art labs)
with NASA workflow on Ektar100 it may come close on Ektar25. But at last it is a real task to top
2 full ISO stops from grain characteristics via reformulation. And Ektar100 isn't able to reach
characteristics from grain. You may not prove it from Expired Ektar25. That's the problem.

with regards
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Some hundred (definitivly more than hundred's) saw actually presentation (Leica / Kodak Jointventure)
on "Photokina" like me. (Somewhere in the midt 90th) pls. don't beat me for the correct year because during the 90th I was often on Photokina for job a.s.o..

The max. was 1 Meter (80 x 100) so we are not talking about 140 x 100 ! And indeed it looked like today's 50megapixes prints. (nearly without "visable" grain.
The max. I personally printed from Ektar100 (35mm) was 40 x 60 and there you have grain !
Ok perhaps it was caused from my own workflow - nowbody is perfect....:cry::redface:!
But I also made prints from lab developed films:whistling:.....
And I also let some prints made by professional lab (the better ones) in 50 x 70 = same quality as mine:kissing::kissing::kissing: !!!

So in general : fine color negative films (not Agfa Vista 800!!! ) are good from grain up to 30 x40 to me.
With Extar & Co. it is ok in 40 x 60. The max. in 50 x 70 is realy difficult to many films (just to me others may see this different if they like grain).

AND Ektar25 was much better in 80 x 100 in comparison to today's Ektar100 50x70!!!

With different workflows this advantage may be smaler (like PE's statement to state of the Art labs)
with NASA workflow on Ektar100 it may come close on Ektar25. But at last it is a real task to top
2 full ISO stops from grain characteristics via reformulation. And Ektar100 isn't able to reach
characteristics from grain. You may not prove it from Expired Ektar25. That's the problem.

with regards

A simple "No, I don't have a link" would suffice. Man you love to type.

I'm simply interested in reading about this directly from Kodak or Leica, as opposed to Trendland's memory of a trade show a quarter of a century ago. I can't find mention of it online but it's no big deal.

Most photographers that are interested in printing that large without grain would simply use a larger negative. I saw a show of William Eggleston prints a few years ago that were larger than a meter, and they had huge grain of course, because he was using a 35mm Leica and slide film.
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
As it goes about performance of Ektar25 vs Ektar100(reformulated) the advantage of Ektar25 on higher formats would be from same impact on Ektar25:whistling:!

Seriously to "prove" grain on a 35mm film makes Allways sence in regard of general characteristics.
(How big enlargements would you realy need to compare emulsions on 4x5 inch???)

But today there is a general problem on all kind of comparison indicated with the term "versus" !
Film vs Digital is a great example : To find a lab finisher for comparable enlargements isn't easy.
Because it has to be a 100% optical workflow. And such prints are crazy expensive by the way.

What all published comparisons (where you will have a link) show is the digital resolution of the scanning unit in comparison to xxxMegapixel cameras. (Not in comparison to the tested Film).:whistling:

with regards
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
As it goes about performance of Ektar25 vs Ektar100(reformulated) the advantage of Ektar25 on higher formats would be from same impact on Ektar25:whistling:!

Seriously to "prove" grain on a 35mm film makes Allways sence in regard of general characteristics.
(How big enlargements would you realy need to compare emulsions on 4x5 inch???)

But today there is a general problem on all kind of comparison indicated with the term "versus" !
Film vs Digital is a great example : To find a lab finisher for comparable enlargements isn't easy.
Because it has to be a 100% optical workflow. And such prints are crazy expensive by the way.

What all published comparisons (where you will have a link) show is the digital resolution of the scanning unit in comparison to xxxMegapixel cameras. (Not in comparison to the tested Film).:whistling:

with regards


I don't know what you're talking about but that's not new. Maybe Leica or Kodak wrote an article somewhere about the quality they were achieving and I can find it. I'll look.

Anyway, for those interested here are a few cel phone snaps I made at the Eggleston show. The prints as you can see are huge, and so is the grain, as you would expect. (He used a Leica and Kodak film and has access to the finest scanning and printing services.)

The quality of the prints was fantastic and the grain was not distracting when viewed at an appropriate distance. But grain? Of course there was grain in a big print. Grain is what the print is made of.

44769265195_371ac135a1_z.jpg




 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
I don't know what you're talking about but that's not new. Maybe Leica or Kodak wrote an article somewhere about the quality they were achieving and I can find it. I'll look.

Anyway, for those interested here are a few cel phone snaps I made at the Eggleston show. The prints as you can see are huge, and so is the grain, as you would expect. (He used a Leica and Kodak film and has access to the finest scanning and printing services.)

The quality of the prints was fantastic and the grain was not distracting when viewed at an appropriate distance. But grain? Of course there was grain in a big print. Grain is what the print is made of.

44769265195_371ac135a1_z.jpg





Yes - nice examples of "grain" jawarden!

Concerning grain : it may be a style, it may be an aesthetic experience. But grain is also one central
limiting factor of resolution.
Remember 5 x7 inch prints of 70th pocket film. There is no aesthetic experience with it. Nothing more than unsharpness. Perhaps modern Art ? 70th pocket 110 prints !

From own experience with bigger prints I have to state : Resolution is often in concern of a photograph iical subject. Do you reach the border of technical corectness in regard of grain/resolution is different from the photographs subject.
Fine Details are often not nessesary with close-ups. So AS it is shown by Eggelstone.
It is much different on photographs with lots of details from a shot - so a grainy look is allways in regard of intention.

with regards
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Concerning grain : it may be a style, it may be an aesthetic experience. But grain is also one central
limiting factor of resolution.
Remember 5 x7 inch prints of 70th pocket film. There is no aesthetic experience with it. Nothing more than unsharpness. Perhaps modern Art ? 70th pocket 110 prints !

Yes. 110 film (17mm on the long end) enlarged to 5X7" (177mm on the long end) is about a 10X enlargement of the negative so I would expect grain, but not intolerable at 10X if there was a quality lens and film used.

But earlier you said "Grain what is nearly not visible at 1 Meter enlargements from 35mm film !" when you were talking Kodak/Leica. But a one meter print would require a 27X enlargement of a 35mm negative, far more than your 10X enlarged 110 example above. I can't think of a camera/lens/film that can make such a print without a lot of grain. I would expect them to be quite grainy like the Eggleston work I just shared.
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Yes. 110 film (17mm on the long end) enlarged to 5X7" (177mm on the long end) is about a 10X enlargement of the negative so I would expect grain, but not intolerable at 10X if there was a quality lens and film used.

But earlier you said "Grain what is nearly not visible at 1 Meter enlargements from 35mm film !" when you were talking Kodak/Leica. But a one meter print would require a 27X enlargement of a 35mm negative, far more than your 10X enlarged 110 example above. I can't think of a camera/lens/film that can make such a print without a lot of grain. I would expect them to be quite grainy like the Eggleston work I just shared.
Jawarden...:pinch:....seriously - would you compare color emulsions out of the 70th from 110 pocket (most had ISO [ASA] 400) with 90th Ektar25 ?

What you would need from comparing this......
e597ebbc-b6ef-11e6-9b03-5b605255928b.jpg
[Ektar25 35mm out of today's productions (fresh manufactured)]

......with this here :

s-l400(8).jpg


isn't avaible today......:sad:

Because of discontinuation of Ektar25 long time ago.
[The problem with "expired" film is : from all parameters of a brand new film emulsions the characteristics in regard of grain suffers imense while expiration
So you might prove expired films without knowing of its age if you just regard its grain characteristics -
so you are able to conclude on storage condition or time of storage (often you are knowing that time from expiration dates but you can just guess on actual storage condition) ]
Color characteristics would also give answer about condition of expired films but to c41 grain is a better Indikator (just to me - others may see this different:wink:)
So if you have frozen Ektar25 wich has seen a permanent storage (without any "breaks") from the week it came in best (fresh) condition from a store (perhaps 1991?) you may have a chance with
a serious " prove " - but I have strongliest doubts if such Film exist actualy.:sick:

The Ektar100 in the described condition is no problem:wink:

10_18.jpg



A comparison with this here would also make sence (just for coming back on topics again :wink:)



Kodak-EKtachrome36_3DBLK-Reflx_2x-630x350(2).jpg



with regards:kissing:
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Jawarden...:pinch:....seriously - would you compare color emulsions out of the 70th from 110 pocket (most had ISO [ASA] 400) with 90th Ektar25 ?

What you would need from comparing this...... View attachment 210480 [Ektar25 35mm out of today's productions (fresh manufactured)]

......with this here :

View attachment 210481

isn't avaible today......:sad:

Because of discontinuation of Ektar25 long time ago.
[The problem with "expired" film is : from all parameters of a brand new film emulsions the characteristics in regard of grain suffers imense while expiration
So you might prove expired films without knowing of its age if you just regard its grain characteristics -
so you are able to conclude on storage condition or time of storage (often you are knowing that time from expiration dates but you can just guess on actual storage condition) ]
Color characteristics would also give answer about condition of expired films but to c41 grain is a better Indikator (just to me - others may see this different:wink:)
So if you have frozen Ektar25 wich has seen a permanent storage (without any "breaks") from the week it came in best (fresh) condition from a store (perhaps 1991?) you may have a chance with
a serious " prove " - but I have strongliest doubts if such Film exist actualy.:sick:

The Ektar100 in the described condition is no problem:wink:

View attachment 210484


A comparison with this here would also make sence (just for coming back on topics again :wink:)



View attachment 210485


with regards:kissing:

I was comparing negative size and enlargement, not suggesting using expired 110 film. Fresh 110 in other words. Never mind.
 

faberryman

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
I was comparing negative size and enlargement, not suggesting using expired 110 film. Fresh 110 in other words. Never mind.
It's hard to have a rational discussion with an irrational person. So much blah, blah, blah it's hard to know where to start.
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
I can respect your opinion, Jim#####.

The problem is... trendland, me, and you are all guessing with little-to-none in terms of real data/information. We all have our past experience, impressions of the current/future situation, and our individual biases/opinions. You could be right... who knows.

I agree with you, though, that most old film/Ektachrome users have moved on with little interest in returning to that as a primary media. But over heard a bunch of codgers express interest in “trying a roll” out of curiosity or nostalgia.

Only time will tell, it seems...

One of the observations that colors my opinion is that Kodak released two new emulsions yet there isn’t a swell of “look at how great this new film is... look at my pictures with it” postings. There have been a few on social media by folks blessed to be pre-release testers, a guy on large format film site, and maybe one here. Not as many as I’d expect for a film enjoying an overwhelming success, as some describe the sales. Nobody even has a good guess as to the number of rolls released, but we all know it was insufficient to satisfy the demand... which we also can’t quantity or even estimate.

Repeated hand waving and unabashed enthusiasm can take the conversation so far...

10_18.jpg


Ektachrome 100 (35mm) is in highest scales Brian....,.

with regards:wink:

PS : "Mission accomplished"
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,523
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Sorry... I forget to say “I’m done”. But thanks for the thought. Bye
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
I'm done too. Thanks everyone for the fun. I received an email yesterday that my Ektachrome has shipped so I'll look forward to trying it out next week.
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
I'm done too. Thanks everyone for the fun. I received an email yesterday that my Ektachrome has shipped so I'll look forward to trying it out next week.

By the way : Will you usw Ektachrome 120 also next - jawarden....:tongue:..!


with special greetings to "Earth.." .:cool:
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,930
Format
8x10 Format
jawarden - Eggleston died as far as I'm concerned once big inkjet prints starting being made of his 35mm shots. Not the same thing. Lost all the charm of the little dye transfer prints he had made in the beginning. Have you ever seen some of those?
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
william-eggleston-red-car.jpg
william-eggleston-red-car.jpg
william-eggleston-red-car.jpg
william-eggleston-red-car.jpg
jawarden - Eggleston died as far as I'm concerned once big inkjet prints starting being made of his 35mm shots. Not the same thing. Lost all the charm of the little dye transfer prints he had made in the beginning. Have you ever seen some of those?
Sure if you mean this here :


....but that was with Kodachrome - right?

with regards
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Sorry "upload failure".....?

with regards
 

Attachments

  • william-eggleston-red-car.jpg
    william-eggleston-red-car.jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 101

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
jawarden - Eggleston died as far as I'm concerned once big inkjet prints starting being made of his 35mm shots. Not the same thing. Lost all the charm of the little dye transfer prints he had made in the beginning. Have you ever seen some of those?

Hi Drew, yes the same show with the giant inkjets also had Eggleston's smaller dye transfers, which are truly special and I prefer them to all others. I almost purchased a William Christenberry dye transfer a few years back before coming to my senses - he was making small ones (about 3x5") form brownie negatives and they're take-you-breath-away gorgeous.
 
Last edited:

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,930
Format
8x10 Format
Bingo. Christenberry's almost amateurish looking little Brownie snapshots suited his raw subject matter far better than when he decided get "serious" with an 8x10 camera. You want a raw brassy saxophone when playing the blues. I'm an 8x10 shooter myself, but do know that a Nikon is better suited for deliberately simplified subject. So understandably, I often make big extremely detailed prints from 8x10 film, but prefer small poetic prints from 35mm. Big just for sake of big is just a fad.
Give it a few more years and it will get passe, and museums will start showing Minox contact prints instead.
 
Last edited:

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Bingo. Christenberry's almost amateurish looking little Brownie snapshots suited his raw subject matter far better than when he decided get "serious" with an 8x10 camera. You want a raw brassy saxophone when playing the blues. I'm an 8x10 shooter myself, but do know that a Nikon is better suited for deliberately simplified subject. So understandably, I often make big extremely detailed prints from 8x10 film, but prefer small poetic prints from 35mm. Big just for sake of big is just a fad.
Give it a few more years and it will get passe, and museums will start showing Minox contact prints instead.

Christenberry tried lots of stuff, from the large formats down to 35mm and sculpture too, but my favorites are those Brownies and his Kodachromes. At his final show (well not final, but the last one he was involved with) I inquired about printing his Kodachromes and the gallery/family is happy to make them, but not dye transfer unfortunately. Maybe dye transfer will come back one day. I certainly hope it will.

The brownies and Kodachromes seem a kind of note taking, and I think that's what makes them appeal to me in a way that the large format careful stuff doesn't. It's all good of course, but smaller is better for me.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,930
Format
8x10 Format
Dye transfer is still alive, but on a very restricted basis. It was always expensive, but would look inordinately so today when inkjet is so comparatively cheap. Custom runs of the necessary materials have been made in recent years, but not for public usage.
 
OP
OP
trendland

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Dye transfer is still alive, but on a very restricted basis. It was always expensive, but would look inordinately so today when inkjet is so comparatively cheap. Custom runs of the necessary materials have been made in recent years, but not for public usage.
Next comparison :
Screenshot_20190501-143025~01~01.png


.....same dealer but here : Kodak Ektachrome in 135 - 36 !

So you have to order 26 Provia 100F to come to the same price (I remeber ~ 11USD last year:cool:)!

with regards
 

unityofsaints

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
141
Location
Sydney
Format
ULarge Format
What are the odds of the sheet film formats actually materialising? They said 2019 but there's not that much time left in the year.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom