Ektar 100 - interesting quote on Kodak website

chriscrawfordphoto said:

It is about the image not the equipment or the materials.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Familiarity with the medium or specific film leads to maximizing its capability - understanding its strengths and weadnesses. The best images are taken with the materials with which you are most comfortable.

Bob

For me it is about the image and the materials. I may give up photography if I have to give up film.

I agree that the image is more important than the materials (after all, you could make the finest print possible but if the subject is uninteresting, it won't matter), but what about images that look the way they do simply because of the process used to create them? Lith prints and Polaroids are good examples—digital images can never replace them.

Actually, scanned negatives on a monitor look as good as E6 originals projected. If you don't believe me, you are not scanning properly.

But, I've said before that E6 films represent a very tiny fraction of sales nowdays. Digital has eaten into E6 sales more than negative film sales at both Kodak and Fuji.

PE

chriscrawfordphoto said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is not that the materials are more important than the image. It is that I love the process (with slides light does not give you a second choice) of shooting slides, bringing them back from the lab, looking at them over the lightbox, trashing the bad ones, picking the best ones, arranging slide shows for myself and friends. I have been doing it since I was eight and I still love spending my time doing it as much as I love spending time shooting with my camera. Negatives don't give me the same pleasure and I cannot afford to set up a darkroom in my small flat. Hence, as long as I will have slide film available at a reasonable cost, I will keep taking pictures the way I like. When slide film will become either unavailable or outrageously priced, I plan to move this hobby to a different level, I have been shooting digital for business since 2000, but sitting at a computer doing post-processing and looking at my pictures either on a computer screen or as 10x15 cm prints is not my cup of tea.

Photo Engineer said:

But, I've said before that E6 films represent a very tiny fraction of sales nowdays. Digial has eaten into E6 sales more than negative film sales at both Kodak and Fuji.

Click to expand...

Actually, 35 mm E6 sales started to drop in the '80s, when development and printing of pictures became less expensive and families started to use print film for their vacations. Until then there was a slide projector in every family and endless invitations to see the slides after a vacation.
Slide film remained a professional choice until the early 2000s, because it was easier to scan for printing in books and magazines with drum scanners. Then professionals moved to digital and nowadays it is by far a niche market than 35 mm. In some turistic locations finding even basic 100 ISO slide film is a nightmare.

Phormula said:

Actually, 35 mm E6 sales started to drop in the '80s, when development and printing of pictures became less expensive and families started to use print film for their vacations. Until then there was a slide projector in every family and endless invitations to see the slides after a vacation.
Slide film remained a professional choice until the early 2000s, because it was easier to scan for printing in books and magazines with drum scanners. Then professionals moved to digital and nowadays it is by far a niche market than 35 mm. In some turistic locations finding even basic 100 ISO slide film is a nightmare.

Click to expand...

Well, actually, I said that before, but you are one of the first to believe that statement. Actually, Kodachrome sales began slipping first!

However, your monitor is too small to really enjoy slides or negatives and I never knew anyone that enjoyed putting up the projector and screen and sitting in a dark living room to view slides. They do enjoy passing prints around and talking about them though.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Actually, scanned negatives on a monitor look as good as E6 originals projected. If you don't believe me, you are not scanning properly.

PE

Click to expand...

Were it not for the immense respect I have for you, PE, I would write without hesitating that perhaps you are not projecting properly. But I'm sure that you know better than I do which monitors are capable of displaying all the colours and hues as well as fine detail that can be seen when a slide is projected and how large they are. I am yet to see the output of a monitor or beamer that would come close to what a half decent slide projector can do.

Maybe we misunderstood the statement? :confused:

Photo Engineer said:

... I never knew anyone that enjoyed putting up the projector and screen and sitting in a dark living room to view slides. They do enjoy passing prints around and talking about them though.

Click to expand...

We do. I mean me and my circle of friends, when we look at our vacations pictures. There is a simple reason, when you pass a bunch of prints around, everybody has to look a them quickly, because the beer is sitting on the table getting warm, and then pass them to the next one. Instead when you show slides, everybody is looking at the same picture, everybody can use his hand to hold a good beer, and everybody is making comments, noticing things that other don't. This, together with the projection and the pleasure of looking at pictures and drinking beer at the same time, adds a lot to the experience.

Back in the '60s and '70s everybody was doing this, but mainly because it was far cheaper to return from a vacation with five rolls of slide film than to develop and print 180 (36 x 5) pictures. When automated one hour minilab came out and the cost of print came down to a fraction, most people turned to print film, given also the fact that print film was more forgiving of exposure mistakes.

Ian Grant said:

Ektar 100 has a major advantage being c-41

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

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian,

I am currently printing some 35mm Ektar 100 negatives in the darkroom while I am writng this. Waiting for my next print to come out of the processor. This film is amazing! The grain is so fine its almost hard to focus neg even using a good grain focuser. I am making really sharp 11x14 prints from 35mm. When this comes out in 120 format its going to be awesome! Heres a scan of one of the negs Im printing right now.

Thanks for the info. I haven't worked seriously with colour films for about 5 or 6 years but get the feeling it's time to dust of the Leica M3 and get some Ektar 100 and begin a new colour project. Then perhaps stick the 120 version in my Rolleiflex too

I realised that C41 films had caught up with and probably passed E6 films & Kodachrome around 15 or so years ago, personally there's no going back.

Ian

frdrx said:

Were it not for the immense respect I have for you, PE, I would write without hesitating that perhaps you are not projecting properly. But I'm sure that you know better than I do which monitors are capable of displaying all the colours and hues as well as fine detail that can be seen when a slide is projected and how large they are. I am yet to see the output of a monitor or beamer that would come close to what a half decent slide projector can do.

Click to expand...

In answer to you frdrx and Phormula, I have a Kodak Carousel projector which was top of the line in the mid 80s. I have boxes and carousels of slides. The video I am referring to is either a large screen such as mine here (9" x 14" approx or my other one, 21' diagonal) or a good 56" diagonal HD such as one of my friends has. The brightness is wonderful and my friend does 3d by showing polarized images on his HD. Much more convenient and you can do it with slides and with negatives. He also makes stereo prints which he brings to show us at lunch. Can't do that with slides.

Negatives are pretty zippy when done as "slides" that way with good tone scale and wonderful color reproduction due to being a Neg-Pos system. Well, just like the movies as they say.

As for the beer, well, maybe part of the enjoyment you have comes from imbibing a lot of beer. Then the pictures look good. As far as passing around the prints, then having the kids look at their pictures in prints and watching their faces light up, well you can't see that in a dark room. That makes viewing family pictures fun, not sitting in a dark room drinking beer. I can do that at a sports bar if so inclined.

I think I will take it my way. After all, the general public prefers it my way as well. You are certainly in a minority based on all market research and my own personal experiences.

PE

I agree, I (and my friends) belong to the minority of people still enjoing slide projections. The majority of people nowadays owns a digital camera, has not bought a roll of film in the last 3-5 years (let's say one year after they made the switch from film to digital) and do not pass printed pictures around (with or without beer) because they keep the picture inside the PC and use the laptop monitor to show them, without even spending the money and having the trouble to get them printed. As I said, I use the system I like. The day this system won't be available, I will trash my equipment and do something else, involving or not involving photography. For the moment, I keep doing what I like, regardless of what the other 99.99% of the world poipulation do or do not.

What I tend to like color reversal film is that you can see the results directly.

That is THE reason.
No other media can do this feat.

Of course you can see through color negative, but it is very difficult to evaluate color directly from that media.

I think that is “one reason” that it used to be popular as a professional media.

Of course, no matter what the D stuff advances, you cannot see anything directly from a flash card.

If I am going to print only, color negatives are normally better choice for me; prints from color reversal s often seems to have a tendency of having trouble with tone (not always but often dupey kind look to me if directly printed).

Photo Engineer said:

Digital has eaten into E6 sales more than negative film sales at both Kodak and Fuji.

Click to expand...

And I've always found this odd. After all, digitial can do ANYTHING C41 can do, and sometimes better. But digital CAN'T do SO much of what slides can do. Then again, SO many people who shoot film don't even think of slides.

Well, many people "refuse" to learn to evaluate color from a color negative. It is not that hard. I suggest that more people give it a try.

PE

StorminMatt said:

And I've always found this odd. After all, digitial can do ANYTHING C41 can do, and sometimes better. But digital CAN'T do SO much of what slides can do. Then again, SO many people who shoot film don't even think of slides.

Click to expand...

Digital actually can pretty much do anything E6 can do, but cannot easily replicate C41 materials due to the tone scale and aliasing problems.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

They do enjoy passing prints around and talking about them though.

PE

Click to expand...

I've shot slides since the late sixties, love them, but negatives are taking over virtually all my work.

PE nails the biggest failing of E-6 for me: the normal end use. Most people I know like to touch the paper, put prints on the fridge, and share their dreams by the proverbial "water cooler".

Pulling a few 4x6 prints of my 18 year old "baby" out of my pocket to brag is cool. I can do the same thing at a gallery or with a portrait client. This doesn't require a computer, projector, batteries, cords, or an internet connection.

I can make an extra properly done small print or two and use them as post cards or stuff them in envelopes and the recipients can see it at the mailbox.

Phormula said:

I agree, I (and my friends) belong to the minority of people still enjoing slide projections. The majority of people nowadays owns a digital camera, has not bought a roll of film in the last 3-5 years (let's say one year after they made the switch from film to digital) and do not pass printed pictures around (with or without beer) because they keep the picture inside the PC and use the laptop monitor to show them, without even spending the money and having the trouble to get them printed. As I said, I use the system I like. The day this system won't be available, I will trash my equipment and do something else, involving or not involving photography. For the moment, I keep doing what I like, regardless of what the other 99.99% of the world poipulation do or do not.

Click to expand...

Well I'm with you, at least. I find it much easier to narrate a trip or subject when everyone is looking at the same shot appearing brilliantly 4 feet wide in front of them rather than pawing through a bunch of prints that I have to explain 3 times as they go around the room. And family and friends really seem to enjoy it as long as I observe some basic principles of presentation such as keeping things moving and showing only good stuff. My 4-year-old gets excited seeing herself on the big screen much more than she does looking at prints. The fact the she has sat attentively through 20 or 30 minutes of images that do not even feature her says something positive for slide shows.

I also love slides because I'm most interested in the pre-exposure aspects of photography and have never really cared to spend time interpreting a negative either in the darkroom or on a computer (not that I begrudge all those who do...). Slides are about the only medium that give the photographer full control over an image that is finished when the shutter closes, where all the creativity can be invested in making the most of what's in front of the lens. It's just the way I like to play the game, and while Ektar may be great (I've got a roll in my 'casual shooting' camera now) no C-41 can get me going like shooting, editing, and projecting slides.

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, modern negative film does quite well at holding detail. There are a couple of things that can make it seem otherwise, though. Probably the biggest is contrast. Negative films have very low contrast compared to transparency films. Even though the detail may be visible through the microscope, it is hard to see because of the low contrast. Another is the fact that transparencies are usually viewed more or less directly, but negative films are viewed as prints. Both projection (for viewing) and enlarging have their faults, but more is generally lost in a commercial print. A good custom print does better. The data in the discussion on the Kodak web site, cited earlier, shows that Ektar performs in the same area as the best transparency films with regard to sharpness and grain. (I should note that although I hate Velvia, I find Astia is an outstanding performer in all regards, especially for a fairly low contrast transparency film. Other transparency films do not perform as well, and would compare to more ordinary negative films.)

frdrx said:

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.

Click to expand...

(See above)

frdrx said:

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.

Click to expand...

Pretty much true. The best digital projectors resolve 1280 by 1024 now, about the same as a so-so slide projector. Worse than that, the color calibration is usually off, and the gamma and color tracking are often bad. I have seen some very expensive professional projectors that do a decent job, but even they require a least a half hour of finicky calibration (by an experienced person using very fine, professional equipment) before each use to get really good images. (The equipment does not hold its calibration well.) Beyond the projection problems, to get a negative into the digital realm you have to scan it. There are excellent scanners, but they are not commonly available to the likes of us. Add to that the problems of calibration and profiles (which also plague scanners), and it is hard to get a really good projected image.

I think, sadly, that E6 films must be on the way out. Almost all of their commercial applications have been replaced by digital. They were the preferred commercial medium for color work because of the speed of obtaining a positive image, and the fact that for reproduction, they are highly preferred over type C prints by the print industry.

It is tragic, IMO, because of how pliable these films are for a color medium. They can be pushed and pulled in a way that matches anything but extreme tweaking with black and white. No such luck with C-41 films.

On the plus side, I have had VERY good luck with VERY expired E6 films and chemicals, so when the time comes when E6 goes away, making a good stockpile should keep me set up for about a decade past that point.

I Love TLRs, Ektar is a C-41 film. You can do it in the same tank with any other C-41 film...as I have done twice so far, with fine results. The film itself is not my cup of tea, but I can see why some people would like it, and it does not need to be sent to Kodak.

Photo Engineer said:

Digital actually can pretty much do anything E6 can do, but cannot easily replicate C41 materials due to the tone scale and aliasing problems.

PE

Click to expand...

I would say that all of the *uses* of E6 can be and are done by digital nowadays. However, I would not say that the digital medium itself can do everything an E6 film can do. Digital cannot be pulled like an E6 film. Ability to be pulled is *the most important* characteristic of a photographic medium for me in many situations. This ability is often what makes the choice between C41 or E6 for me. When small format (i.e. affordable) digital can match the dynamic range of a transparency pulled 2 stops, and have the same smooth tonal transitions, I will gladly embrace it as a replacement (unless I want a physical transparency for some reason).

However, it was commercial workflow characteristics, not aesthetic film characteristics and artistic usefulness that kept E6 alive all those years. Thus I don't expect the fact that they are more pliable than digital to help keep them around.

nworth said:

Actually, modern negative film does quite well at holding detail. There are a couple of things that can make it seem otherwise, though. Probably the biggest is contrast. Negative films have very low contrast compared to transparency films. Even though the detail may be visible through the microscope, it is hard to see because of the low contrast.

Click to expand...

I'm quoting this to emphasize it. I think you've nailed it and feel embarrassed for not having mentioned contrast myself in the first place.

2F/2F;

I said "pretty much". I agree with you.

As for other comments, if E6 were that good, and if the Pos-Pos train was as good as the Neg-Pos train, then we would be seeing reversal film used in Motion Picture.

As it is, Negative originals hold far more information than Positive images. I'm sorry to disssapoint you and shake up your world, but this has been true for about the last 30 years since C-41. If you "see" better results in positive imaging it is probably due to the higher contrast rather than real sharpness, and as for color reproduction, there is no equivalent to masked negatives.

PE