Ektar 100 - interesting quote on Kodak website

alanrockwood · Mar 22, 2009

From a Q&A at the Kodak website:

It sounds like EKTAR 100 Film might be an alternative to high color reversal films?
Exactly. And thats important as E-6 processing becomes less readily available.

Source: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...ar/qAndA.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328/13344

Do you thinkg this hint that E-6 will eventually be phased out?

IloveTLRs · Mar 22, 2009

I've found that slide film captures detail that color negative cannot, and it gives consistent results. I hope E-6 doesn't go away.

Ian Grant · Mar 22, 2009

E6 processing has already gone away in some places, that doesn't mean it's not available just at far fewer labs. Often labs who still offer a slower E6 service are just farming the work out to another lab in a different town or city. My local Pro lab (in the UK) stopped it's E6 back around 2001/2 and now sends the films to a lab 18 miles away.

Modern colour negative films are superb, and have been for many years, the original Ektar was very good but suffered from being 25 ISO, the new version is supposed to be far better, for me it may well be a far better alternative now to E6, particularly when it becomes available in 120 next month. I'll be testing it as soon as I return to the UK in a couple of weeks.

Ian

Removed Account · Mar 22, 2009

I'd like to try Ektar 100 as a potential replacement for my favourite E-6 films, but I like to project slides and C-41 films tend to project with an ugly orange cast. They also make the sun look dark and tend to display false colours (yellows being blue, magentas being green etc...) This is a severe defect that I'm surprised the manufacturers overlook when trying to replace E-6 films!

On a serious note I do see E-6 as being in its final stages. AFAIK the only 400 speed slide films left are Fuji Provia 400X and Sensia 400. It saddens me because even ignoring the characteristics of each film seeing a projected slide is a unique and wonderful experience; different and much more theatrical than looking through prints.

frdrx · Mar 22, 2009

On a serious note I do see E-6 as being in its final stages. AFAIK the only 400 speed slide films left are Fuji Provia 400X and Sensia 400.

But 400X is so good that it doesn't matter.

Phormula · Mar 22, 2009

I hope not. If E6 will disappear, I have no reason to shoot film anymore. I am not interested in color print film, and it make no sense to shoot print film and then scan. If this will happen, I plan to sell all my stuff, give up serious photography and just keep a medium range digital camera, such as a Canon G10 for my vacations snapshots.

Tjibs · Mar 22, 2009

As reversal cine film is still processed in E6, I really doubt that. Ektar 100 seems to me to be competing with Velvia 50 film, which is often used for the high saturated look. That question makes it look like Ektar 100 has an advantage by being C41 instead of E6, and as it's all about selling anyway..

Ian Grant · Mar 22, 2009

Tjibs said:
As reversal cine film is still processed in E6, I really doubt that. Ektar 100 seems to me to be competing with Velvia 50 film, which is often used for the high saturated look. That question makes it look like Ektar 100 has an advantage by being C41 instead of E6, and as it's all about selling anyway..

Ektar 100 has a major advantage being C41, it can be processed in virtually every town & city in the world, and quickly. You can't say the same for E6 films my nearest city is an hours drive away and I don't think there's an E6 lab, but there are plenty of C41 labs

When I'm in the UK my nearest E6 lab is at least 40 minutes away by car, but there are at least 15 possibly 20 C41 labs, including one Pro lab within 10 minutes drive.

So for me Ektar is now a strong competitor for E6 particularly as I can do my own RA-4 printing.

Ian

Q.G. · Mar 22, 2009

IloveTLRs said:
I've found that slide film captures detail that color negative cannot, and it gives consistent results. I hope E-6 doesn't go away.

My experience is exactly the opposite.
Colour negative film captures lots more detail. And has lots more latitude, so is more consistent too.
You get better images using colour negatives, and they are easier to get too.

Reasons why i haven't used slide film for ages now.
Unless you need a slide to project, i do not really know why you would want to use slide film. And even then: most places that offer projection facilities expect that you bring your images on an USB stick and use their beamer.
I don't quite think that i alone am why E6 is going away so i believe that others will agree.

IloveTLRs · Mar 22, 2009

My local photo place can't do Ektar in-house. They claim because it's a special emulsion that it has to be sent to Kodak. It takes about 2-3 days and costs almost $9. My favorite slide films can be done over night (by Kodak or Fuji) and cost around $6. Results aside, price-wise there is no reason for me to shoot Ektar.

frdrx · Mar 22, 2009

Q.G. said:
My experience is exactly the opposite. Colour
negative film captures lots more detail.

This is strange, because all technical data sheets and numerous
resolution suggest otherwise. In my experience, no negative film holds
the same amount of detail as well exposed frames of Astia, Velvia
etc. Dynamic range is another matter, though.

Q.G. said:
You get better images using colour negatives, and
they are easier to get too.

Depends on what you want. I certainly get better landscape images with
slide film. Of course, I prefer colour negative film for certain
purposes.

Q.G. said:
Unless you need a slide to project, i do not really
know why you would want to use slide film.

Slides give you grain that is noticeably finer than even Ektar can
offer. The colours and tonality attainable using transparency film are
another reason. And you don't have to project them in order to enjoy
them.

Q.G. said:
And even then: most places that offer projection
facilities expect that you bring your images on an USB stick and use
their beamer.

This is true and also very sad. There's nothing wrong with digital
images, but digitally projected ones are simply horrible, even with the best beamers in the world.

Q.G. said:
I don't quite think that i alone am why E6 is going
away so i believe that others will agree.

It may be retreating, but it won't disappear, at least in Europe. Most
people who I know and still shoot colour film use E-6 film and very
little C-41, probably because it is so easy to get superb and
consistent slides than to get acceptable colour prints. I'm glad I
live in Prague, where I can choose from at least four professional E-6
labs.

frdrx · Mar 22, 2009

IloveTLRs said:
My local photo place can't do Ektar in-house. They claim because it's a special emulsion that it has to be sent to Kodak.

Tell them they are wrong. Because they are. Perhaps they thing that Ektar is a motion picture film, which it isn't.

Doug9345 · Mar 22, 2009

Originally Posted by IloveTLRs View Post
My local photo place can't do Ektar in-house. They claim because it's a special emulsion that it has to be sent to Kodak.

frdrx said:
Tell them they are wrong. Because they are. Perhaps they thing that Ektar is a motion picture film, which it isn't.

I suspect that, since it's new, when they goto look up the code to punch into their machine they don't find it and have no idea how to procede from there.

StorminMatt · Mar 22, 2009

Justin Silber said:
It saddens me because even ignoring the characteristics of each film seeing a projected slide is a unique and wonderful experience; different and much more theatrical than looking through prints.

Phormula said:
I hope not. If E6 will disappear, I have no reason to shoot film anymore. I am not interested in color print film, and it make no sense to shoot print film and then scan. If this will happen, I plan to sell all my stuff, give up serious photography and just keep a medium range digital camera, such as a Canon G10 for my vacations snapshots.

Good point on both counts. C41 prints just don't do it for me. Looking at a print will NEVER, EVER do it for me like looking at a projected slide. And quite frankly, I see NO advantage to C41 vs digital, which does a damn good job if you use a good DSLR (go ahead, flame on!!!), but does not allow projection of quality images. Then again, if E6 is discontinued, there is always B+W (and hopefully dr5), which digital just CAN'T handle.

frdrx · Mar 22, 2009

Doug9345 said:
I suspect that, since it's new, when they goto look up the code to punch into their machine they don't find it and have no idea how to procede from there.

That sounds more likely.

Q.G. · Mar 22, 2009

frdrx said:
This is strange, because all technical data sheets and numerous resolution suggest otherwise. In my experience, no negative film holds the same amount of detail as well exposed frames of Astia, Velvia
etc. Dynamic range is another matter, though.

All technical data sheets? Perhaps.

Zeiss once measured the resolving power of various films (Camera Lens News 19, 2003).
Ektar 25 managed to resolve 200 lp/mm. Velvia did 160 lp/mm. Portra 160VC 150 lp/mm. Portra 160NC 140 lp/mm. Ektachrome 100 VS recorded 130 lp/mm.
Not much in it.

But then add the effect of dynamic range you also mentioned, and unless you are shooting 'flat' subjects, colour negative film clearly is the better of any slide film.
Velvia may indeed do a tiny bit better than Portra, but in a smaller part of any typical scene.

Q.G. · Mar 22, 2009

StorminMatt said:
And quite frankly, I see NO advantage to C41 vs digital, which does a damn good job if you use a good DSLR (go ahead, flame on!!!).

I don't feel like flaming right now but if what a 'good' DSLR delivers would be the best we could get, it would be my turn to consider selling all my stuff and give up photography.
C41 is the better of digital capture with one hand tied behind its back and both legs in a plaster cast.

But i guess the thing is about projectability.
And then (unless you like the effects Justin described) yes, nothing beats slides.

Ektagraphic · Mar 22, 2009

I think E-6 will eventually have to be just like Kodachrome and there will be one place left in the world that processes it. That will be really odd. Before we know it, one of us will be starting The Ektachrome Project, as we have The Kodachrome Project right now. Maybe we need to prove Kodak wrong with that statement and we need to continue to shoot Ektachrome like never before.

dfoo · Mar 22, 2009

Your local place is run by an idiot. I've processed Ektar at the local supermarket. No problems, great looking shots!

frdrx · Mar 22, 2009

Q.G. said:
All technical data sheets? Perhaps. Zeiss once
measured the resolving power of various films (Camera Lens News 19,
2003).

I've read this years ago but had forgotten the astonishing figure of 200 lp/mm
for Ektar 25. Thanks for reminding me of it. It would be nice if Zeiss
could repeat the test with the new Ektar 100.

Q.G. said:
Ektar 25 managed to resolve 200 lp/mm.

Wow, isn't that great? You've really caught me by surprise. I'll shoot a roll of Ektar 100 on my next trip.

Q.G. said:
Velvia did 160 lp/mm. Portra 160VC 150
lp/mm. Portra 160NC 140 lp/mm. Ektachrome 100 VS recorded 130 lp/mm.
Not much in it.

Not much in it in terms of lp/mm, I agree, but when I also compare the
granularity of the films (not RMS directly, of course) and the overall
rendition of colours and textures, my observation is that transparency
film is noticeably better (comparing 160S to Astia, for
example). Nonetheless, I usually prefer negative film for portraits,
and I'm thrilled by the latest improvements and can't wait to try a
roll of Ektar 100.

Q.G. said:
But then add the effect of dynamic range you also
mentioned, and unless you are shooting 'flat' subjects, colour
negative film clearly is the better of any slide film.

A agree, which is why I use slide film for flat subjects such as
landscapes lit by morning and evening light and so on.

Velvia may indeed do a tiny bit better than Portra, but in a
smaller part of any typical scene.

For scenes that I'm interested in, I find Portra or any other negative
film inferior to Fuji slide film. But never mind. Let's use what we
like and use as much of it as we can afford, because that is what will
ultimately determine which films or processes will disappear and which
ones will stay. I'm pretty sure E-6 will stay, though. Nothing blows
your socks away as far as a nicely exposed slide.

epatsellis · Mar 22, 2009

For offset reproduction work, D$%(^#$ reigns supreme. However, when you need to use film (significant movements, etc.), E6 used to be "the" film, as the color house had a reference to go by, with the jucicious placement of color references (I use a Q13 chart), C41 can be just as "process friendly" and give as good, if not better results, depending on the aforementioned dynamic range advantages

nickandre · Mar 22, 2009

IloveTLRs said:
My local photo place can't do Ektar in-house. They claim because it's a special emulsion that it has to be sent to Kodak. It takes about 2-3 days and costs almost $9. My favorite slide films can be done over night (by Kodak or Fuji) and cost around $6. Results aside, price-wise there is no reason for me to shoot Ektar.

You're being cheated. If they run C41 they run ektar. It's not special. Every still film negative emulsion produced for the last few decades can be processed in the same chemistry.

Slides are the only reason to start shooting color film if you're a digital shooter. It looks so much cooler. They're also the gateway to digital printing/duplication from film. Negatives are reproduced depending on the minilab or paper used, but slides can be made to "look like the original."

nickandre · Mar 22, 2009

Ektagraphic said:
I think E-6 will eventually have to be just like Kodachrome and there will be one place left in the world that processes it. That will be really odd. Before we know it, one of us will be starting The Ektachrome Project, as we have The Kodachrome Project right now. Maybe we need to prove Kodak wrong with that statement and we need to continue to shoot Ektachrome like never before.

It could become more limited but the process is easy to control to the point where any home user with some experience could process it with good results. Kodachrome is not the same. With E6 the only step that does not go to completion is the First Developer. As long as that is "in control," the temperature is set on the Color Developer, and the other solutions are still working you're good to go. With Kodachrome a single variant in any of the first 3 developments or 2 re-exposures can cause hell and pinpointing said problem requires a high IQ and large data sheets that read like mission impossible debriefings.

Paul Howell · Mar 22, 2009

IloveTLRs said:
My local photo place can't do Ektar in-house. They claim because it's a special emulsion that it has to be sent to Kodak. It takes about 2-3 days and costs almost $9. My favorite slide films can be done over night (by Kodak or Fuji) and cost around $6. Results aside, price-wise there is no reason for me to shoot Ektar.

I think you are being "had", I process my Ektar at Taget, same my dollar store C 41 film.

chriscrawfordphoto · Mar 22, 2009

Phormula said:
I hope not. If E6 will disappear, I have no reason to shoot film anymore. I am not interested in color print film, and it make no sense to shoot print film and then scan. If this will happen, I plan to sell all my stuff, give up serious photography and just keep a medium range digital camera, such as a Canon G10 for my vacations snapshots.

If losing E-6 film would make you totally give up photography, I'd suggest just giving up now. Photography can't mean much to you if the materials are more important than the image. I use black and white film for 95% of my work but if it was totally discontinued I'd switch to digital and keep going. It is about the image not the equipment or the materials.

Ektar 100 - interesting quote on Kodak website

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency