Ektar 100 - interesting quote on Kodak website

[Q.G.]

O.K.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ganbatte Fuji-san!

Boku wa "Kodak Banzai" to iimasu!



PE

 

[BobNewYork]

Boku wa "Kodak Banzai" to iimasu!



PE

Come on chaps, watch the language. There's kids on this site.

Bob H

 

[mrladewig]

On point for this discussion or at least in an attempt to get it back on track, I do see what Kodak means in their statement. E-6 services are being offered less and less at the drugs stores and grocery chains where many people take their snapshots to be processed. Don't forget that while Kodak has provided good products for professional industry, their bread and butter, or the very reason for their corporate growth was that they were able to bring consistent products to snapshot consumers. So for the 1 person in a million who has not gone to digital, who used to shoot slides and still wishes to film, but their minilab doesn't offer E-6, but has no passion for photography and is just taking snapshots, Kodak has something that supposedly provides a solution. OK. I guess that makes sense.

I don't think that E-6 will go away all together. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no longer a lab in Colorado Springs that processes E-6. This is a city of nearly a half million people. The pro lab shut their E-6 line, then shut down all together last year. I'm fine sending my film to Denver for processing, but it does add to my cost and causes me to batch up my film.

On the other side of this discussion. If Kodak intends for Ektar to be used as a replacement for E100VS, they've missed the target by a mile. Don't get me wrong, I like Ektar and have been shooting quite a bit of it. But it is a very different product from their slide films. The saturation is reasonable, but the contrast is not nearly as high.

I don't really understand where this whole E-6 projecting versus printing argument is coming from. You could transform color negative to transparency without all that much trouble if you're willing to scan. There are lots of places that do slides from digital. Personally I like prints, matted and framed. As I see it, slide film is great when the SBR fits the film or can be managed well with filters. Negative is great when the SBR is too large for a slide film. I've shot stuff on C-41 that would never work on E-6 and I've used E-6 to bring out colors that C-41 would never emphasize. Somebody was going on and on about how E-6 could be pushed and pulled. The same is true of C-41, and since almost every C-41 film will offer a fully printable image at -2 or +2 stops with standard processing, push and pull on C-41 can be extremely powerful.

I personally use both film types and I hope that I'm able to do so for a long time to come. As for the Fuji E-6 versus Kodak E-6, in most cases I prefer Kodak's emulsions, though I have a stockpile from both. In C-41, there's things I like about both Kodak and Fuji products, so again, I've got stockpiles from both.

 

[Q.G.]

I don't really understand where this whole E-6 projecting versus printing argument is coming from.

Don't see it as a "versus" argument.

The use of images is what leads to reduced numbers of E6 processing facilities.
If labs get as many E6 films to process as they get C41, it would be as easy to get an E6 film processed as a C41 film.

Slide film was a "must have" before the printing industry went digital. Now, they don't care.
That alone will have had a considerable effect.

What will keep E6 processing facilities having enough supply for them to earn a crust must be another thing that slide film does exclusively, or at least best.
And the most likely thing that would be is projecting.
So if the question is about whether E6 processing facilities will reduce in number, it is important to know how big a supply the 'projection market' will generate.

And then you inevitably arrive at the once very widespread sunday afternoon slide show, that has now been replaced, mostly by digital images presented in many different ways.

That the slide show is now getting to be a rarity is because we consumers are expecting things to become more convenient everyday.
A wallet full of prints always did get more viewings than a tray full of slides. Even decades ago. The balance has shifted towards the wallet full of prints.

The fact that the man from Kodak is suggesting that a C41 might be an alternative for E6 films is an expression of that.
Something you can't understand by just saying "slides are great!" and stop there.

 

[StorminMatt]

The fact that the man from Kodak is suggesting that a C41 might be an alternative for E6 films is an expression of that.
Something you can't understand by just saying "slides are great!" and stop there.

I think the one thing that everybody is missing here is that people shoot E6 (or K14) because they DON'T want to shoot C41. They want slides and NOT prints, as well as everything else that goes along with E6/K14. So for Kodak to come along and say that C41 is somehow a good alternative to E6 is a little like a slap in the face. We slide shooters DON'T want to be FORCED to shoot C41. And that's what it's really all about. Oh, and all the talk in the world about how C41 is somehow 'better' than slides is not going to change things, because slides are our PERSONAL PREFERENCE. After all, most of us slide shooters have tried C41 at least a few times, and have not found anything better about it in our eyes. Otherwise, we would already have switched over.

 

[Q.G.]

Ah, but the man from Kodak did not say that slide shooters have to use C41.
He comments that Ektar might be an alternative.

The reason why there may be a need for an alternative is, what?
He says it is "important as E-6 processing becomes less readily available".

And - and that is the major question - what's the reason for that?


And then you come down to market figures, too few E6 films used to support E6 processing, etc.
In short: apparently (i don't know that it is true) not many enough of you* DO shoot slides as your personal preference.


*I once used many slide films too. Projection every saturday evening.
I have no reason for that anymore, so i am both no longer amongst those whose personal preference it is to use slide film, and thus - in a very small way - part of the reason why E6 processing facilities are perhaps disappearing (i can still get slides processed locally without a problem, so haven't noticed any such problem myself).

 

[Ian Grant]

You're missing a point Matt.

People shoot films for a variety of reasons but the end use is important. Virtually all commercial work is digitizes so it makes zero difference whether the original is E6 or C41.

Very few people now want to project the images, most want to be able to make or get high quality prints. C41 is now far more practical in that instance and that has a major impact on choice as there's no wet processing vavailable now except Ilfochrome. This impacts on personal preferences because our range of choices is diminishing.

I always preferred E6 and very occasionally when there was no deadline K25, but times change and a good C41 films like the range from Fuji has been my choice for around 7-8 yearts, the new Ektar offers me the potential of even higher quality.

Ian

 

[StorminMatt]

Ah, but the man from Kodak did not say that slide shooters have to use C41.
He comments that Ektar might be an alternative.

Perhaps he didn't say that slide shooters MUST use C41. But in this day and age of films being discontinued left and right, one cannot help but feel a little paranoid about this sort of thing. It's almost like the guy is saying that 'We are going to discontinue making E6 film. But here we have this new Ektar, which we are going to replace it with. Besides, it's better than E6. And you are brain-dead anyway if you prefer to shoot slides'.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

Kodak Ektar 100 is a standard C-41 process film.

Tom.

 

[StorminMatt]

If labs get as many E6 films to process as they get C41, it would be as easy to get an E6 film processed as a C41 film.

As I said before, from my experience here in Sacramento, it is every bit as easy to find a bona-fide lab that will do E6 as C41 (Calicolor actually did E6, but NOT C41 until it stopped all film services back on March 12!). The problem is that these professional-level labs are either closing completely OR discontinuing ALL film services (including C41). C41 processing is only more widely available if we consider drugstore processing, where quality can be spotty.

 

[Ian Grant]

Most Pro labs have switched to using the same Digital Minlab systems as drug stores and photo stores. The only difference is better operators & quality control..

However E6 processing is far less prevalent now than 5 years ago and that was already well down on 10 years ago. Yes most reasonable sized cities still have an E6 lab, sometimes a handful but even in large cities the number is severely reduced.

We have to hope that number doesn't drop further because it's the whole range of services that suffers.

ian

 

[stealthman_1]

I like slides.

 

[donbga]

So... somebody remind me, why should I care what Kodak thinks of E6? Or the future of film in general? Film has plenty of future left in it, but it's not at Kodak, that's for sure.

Typical Keith Williams drivel.

 

[keithwms]

Typical Keith Williams drivel.

lol :rolleyes:

Finally, a fitting quote for my signature.

 

[EASmithV]

Sexy packaging

 

[alanrockwood]

Maybe the long term future of E-6 processing is in small machines like Photo-therm used as a small adjunct to a company's main business (or, alternatively, hobbiests wanting to either help out fellow hobbiests or to pick up a little cash to offset expenses), assuming that E-6 film production continues over the long term and assuming that chemicals continue to be available.

 

[Phormula]

I like slides.

Me too, and I plan to keep shooting 35 mm slides, at least for now. Apart from a few rolls of B&W, I shoot 35 mm slide film only. But if those rumors are serious, I think I should plan my exit strategy from 35 mm slides, entering the digital arena. Prints have never been attractive to me, except for the few ones I have hanging on my walls or gave away to friends.

 

[StorminMatt]

So... somebody remind me, why should I care what Kodak thinks of E6? Or the future of film in general? Film has plenty of future left in it, but it's not at Kodak, that's for sure.

Why should I care what Kodak thinks of E6 or the future of film? Because I have never been particularly fond of Fuji cartoon colors.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I also like slides, I also do prints also(color and B&W).

Jeff

 

[keithwms]

Why should I care what Kodak thinks of E6 or the future of film? Because I have never been particularly fond of Fuji cartoon colors.

So what you're saying is that you've never tried Astia...

 

[keithwms]

...or 400x or T64...

 

[2F/2F]

...or Provia, or Velvia 100F, or Sensia 100/400.....

The only films he must have actually tried are Velvia 50 and 100.

 

[Phormula]

I agree, when Agfa RSX II was discontinued, I moved to Astia and I have been pleased of the choice. I use Velvia only when I am looking for its "postcard" colors and Elite Chrome or Sensia when I want to shoot cheap (i.e. in the P&S camera).

 

[keithwms]

...or Provia, or Velvia 100F, or Sensia 100/400.....

The only films he must have actually tried are Velvia 50 and 100.

True, true. It is unfortunate that those who comment on velvia (or parrot the comments of others, as opposed to actually showing their own results) usually don't realize that there are three velvias (or 4 if you count the original)... each with quite different characteristics. My own velvia of choice is 100. I have posted straight drum scans around here before and although I would describe the v100 colour treatment as vivid, it certainly isn't disney.

Anyway I use use colour film when I see interesting and unusual colours in a scene. If the scene is blah and has no natural colour interest, them I am not going to attempt to disneyfy it.


You're quite right 2F, sensia is very nice too, I had looked down on it for years as a 'non-pro' film, but then tried it and was very pleasantly surprised.

Provia 100F isn't one of my personal favourites, but 400x is the bomb. I suspect that 400x has little or nothing in common with 100F. I would very happily shoot 400x in LF if it were available.