Film is NOT dead: NEW Film PORTRA 160 Film from KODAK

2F/2F · Mar 6, 2011

CGW said:
More on the new Portra 160, this time something concrete:

http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/0...-portra-160-film-new-negative-c41-scan-hybri/

Hard to believe so many here can't grasp that this is a new and truly improved film available in<<GASP>> 5 formats.

It is not that we cannot grasp that the new film is incredible. Where is the person who said that?

The problem is that the new lineup is geared toward those who scan, with only one flavor of film in each speed. Those who scan ("scanners?" ) would not miss the differences between NC and VC because they do not need the differences for their work.

The loss of two emulsions that were absolutely fine in technical quality in order to have a single emulsion that is technically better is not good, IMO.

But I don't think anybody knocked the new film's quality. At least I did not. That is not the point of the criticism of this move by Kodak. How would an illustrator like it if certain of his or her favorite markers were discontinued and replaced by a new and improved line of markers, but with a reduced choice of palette, when the old markers left not a thing to be desired? The criticism of this move by the marker company is then dismissed because the new inks are "improved" and because the old colors can be replicated by scanning the work colored with the new markers and then using Photoshop. That is the heart of the critique, not the quality of the new film.

Tim Gray · Mar 6, 2011

2F/2F said:
The loss of two emulsions that were absolutely fine in technical quality in order to have a single emulsion that is technically better is not good, IMO.

I don't color print, but from my understanding, the current state of color papers is a lot more of an impediment to good color printing than the films available. No more cut Kodak paper, and the couple posts I've read on the new Fuji paper (Type II?) have all been pretty negative.

CGW · Mar 6, 2011

2F/2F said:
It is not that we cannot grasp that the new film is incredible. Where is the person who said that?

The problem is that the new lineup is geared toward those who scan, with only one flavor of film in each speed. Those who scan ("scanners?" ) would not miss the differences between NC and VC because they do not need the differences for their work.

The loss of two emulsions that were absolutely fine in technical quality in order to have a single emulsion that is technically better is not good, IMO.

But I don't think anybody knocked the new film's quality. At least I did not. That is not the point of the criticism of this move by Kodak. How would an illustrator like it if certain of his or her favorite markers were discontinued and replaced by a new and improved line of markers, but with a reduced choice of palette, when the old markers left not a thing to be desired? The criticism of this move by the marker company is then dismissed because the new inks are "improved" and because the old colors can be replicated by scanning the work colored with the new markers and then using Photoshop. That is the heart of the critique, not the quality of the new film.

Think you confirmed my point. Kodak's 1/2 a loaf is pretty tasty. You're lucky to have the new 160 and 400.

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 6, 2011

CGW said:
Think you confirmed my point.

Think you may have missed his...

Ken

CGW · Mar 6, 2011

Ken Nadvornick said:
Think you may have missed his...

Ken

Really? The new Portra is a done deal. Why wring a hankie or engage in interminable end-of-Kodachrome style kvetching? Like the man said, "So, rejoice! Go shoot some film."

DanielStone · Mar 6, 2011

the majority of people shooting color neg films these days are scanning the film and outputting digitally(inkjet, lightjet, even Costco printing). I'd venture to guess that under 5% of color shooters are enlarging their film optically. I do it for some prints, when I want a print, and don't feel like sitting on my ass doodling in photoshop. Kodak's new coating facility is/was designed for larger runs, and can't handle smaller, more efficient coating runs of film or paper(it can do both on one machine). Ilford's coating facility is able to do smaller, cheaper runs, and they don't have to worry about film stock going bad before it expires(like Kodak does now).

so the moral of this post of mine?:

Kodak re-consolidated 2 fantastic emulsions into one(160NC/160VC-->Portra 160)/(400NC/400VC-->Portra 400) because they felt that it was more cost efficient to make one great emulsion, rather than having to make 2 separate coating runs. Now with PS and fantastic scanning software, a lot of the subtleties of the prior emulsions(contrast, saturation, color balance,etc...) can be input to the users desired output, tailoring it to each individual shot. This is good and bad. Good for scanners, bad for people who optically print, and like what a certain emulsion gives them in the darkroom.

-Dan

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 6, 2011

CGW said:
Really? The new Portra is a done deal. Why wring a hankie or engage in interminable end-of-Kodachrome style kvetching? Like the man said, "So, rejoice! Go shoot some film."

Seems so...

All of the above may be valid for you, but none of it remotely addresses the point 2F/2F was making. Rather, it skirts his point entirely. So to say it "confirmed my point" is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

Perhaps I am reading 2F's post incorrectly, but I certainly didn't get the impression he was rejoicing that he now has "1/2 a loaf" of options instead of the previous full loaf. Nor that he feels "lucky to have" two choices now where previously there were four.

But perhaps I misread?

Ken

Photo Engineer · Mar 6, 2011

Seems to me this kvetching is pointing dissenters to Kodak policy in this regard in one direction. Go buy Fuji color negative films! Of course, that presupposes that you can find a suitable one there.

Kodak did the best they could to split the difference between quality and production. The result, as some have said, is a fine film.

Thank you very much Kodak.

This was in spite of horrible losses this year in sales.

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 6, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak did the best they could to split the difference between quality and production. The result, as some have said, is a fine film.

Although I have not yet tried it personally, I believe this is undoubtedly the case. In my entire photographic lifetime I don't think I've ever used a Kodak film that was not of astonishingly high quality, relative to the manufacturing technologies of the period. There is no knock here against Kodak film quality.

But for those who wish to produce their color negative subtleness in camera (APUG), as opposed to in Photoshop (DPUG), I can easily see where Kodak's Portra product line consolidation might be a very valid concern.

And although I have no dog in that fight, I realize others do and their observations and opinions deserve a fair hearing. Not a dismissal via a film products version of "you should feel lucky you have a job..."

Ken

Tim Gray · Mar 6, 2011

Tim Gray said:
I don't color print, but from my understanding, the current state of color papers is a lot more of an impediment to good color printing than the films available. No more cut Kodak paper, and the couple posts I've read on the new Fuji paper (Type II?) have all been pretty negative.

I'll quote myself. What is that status of color paper right now?

Photo Engineer · Mar 6, 2011

Ken;

I don't disagree with what you said. But, you ignored the rest of my post. I suggested that they use Fuji film if that supplied their needs. If indeed Fuji does not, then why not? It then devolves to the point that the manufacturer(s) are trying to supply the needs of the maximum number of users. Therefore it becomes the old maxim that you cannot please all of the people all of the time!

PE

kb3lms · Mar 6, 2011

If you don't like the Fuji color paper, then your other option is to buy Kodak in roll format. I don't dislike the Fuji paper, but I find the color of the Type C to be a little over-saturated for some subjects. (Haven't tried the Type II yet) I bought a roll of Edge and I like the more subtle palette of the Kodak paper for some things. Also bought couple boxes of 8x10 Supra Endura which I find to be very similar.

So, paper can be had, but cutting it is a pain - although cutting it off the roll is cheaper. I'd say the status of color paper is OK, but not outstanding. It seems surprising that someone isn't out there pre-cutting Kodak paper for sale. (Or, I haven't found them yet)

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 6, 2011

Tim Gray said:
What is that status of color paper right now?

And that relates to members posting their concerns about Kodak's continuing consolidation in their color negative film product portfolios - and how it affects their personal work - exactly how...?

Ken

P.S. I don't think Freestyle would continue stocking this stuff if nobody was purchasing/using it. And even if you may not find the available choices to your personal liking, others may feel differently...

RA-4 Color Paper at Freestyle
RA-4 Color Chemistry at Freestyle

[Edit: "I'd say the status of color paper is OK, but not outstanding." --kb3lms. Well, there you have it from the post right above this one, from someone who presumably does have a dog in the fight...]

Tim Gray · Mar 6, 2011

Ken Nadvornick said:
And that relates to members posting their concerns about Kodak's continuing consolidation in their color negative film product portfolios - and how it affects their personal work - exactly how...?

^This is answered by this:

But for those who wish to produce their color negative subtleness in camera (APUG), as opposed to in Photoshop (DPUG), I can easily see where Kodak's Portra product line consolidation might be a very valid concern.

If all the easy to use color paper is going away, then 'those who wish to produce their color negative subtleness in camera (APUG)' might be out of luck. Freestyle only stocks Fuji Type II, which from the two reports I've read isn't so hot. To quote one of them, "The new Fuji paper - it sucks."

2F/2F · Mar 6, 2011

There would really be no comment for me to make if this was simply stated differently. It is a sacrifice made by Kodak to hopefully delay the inevitable demise of all of their still color film. It is a heavy reduction in the number of quality tools available for analog printers. (This is the Analog Photography Users Group, in case we forgot.) For analog photographers, this is not something to be raving excited about, but something to be more excited about than having nothing. Yet the whole event is being framed here by many (including the OP) as some sort of grand announcement for analog photography that is just so wonderful for everybody, as opposed to a possibly-necessary survival technique that might be hard for some to swallow! I would prefer a more realistic presentation of the issue for analog photographers. Quit blowing smoke up analog printers' asses as if this is the greatest thing in the world for analog photography, and just come out and say, "Sorry man. I know it sucks, but we had to do it to stay alive for now."

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 7, 2011

Tim Gray said:
If all the easy to use color paper is going away, then 'those who wish to produce their color negative subtleness in camera (APUG)' might be out of luck.

Perhaps so. But my point here is, they still have a right to post their concerns regarding that fact without being accused of "wringing hankies..." or being subjected to "you're lucky to have..." judgements.

And that's regardless of the "status of color paper right now." Which, if others are to be believed, is "OK, but not outstanding."

It's the bullying factor I'm objecting to here...

Ken

P.S. I just now read 2F's above response right before I clicked Submit. To my mind, he summarizes the facts elegantly and correctly. And he is allowed to express that summation even if others do not necessarily agree with him. It is not a wringing of hankies to do so.

CGW · Mar 7, 2011

Ken Nadvornick said:
Perhaps so. But my point here is, they still have a right to post their concerns regarding that fact without being accused of "wringing hankies..." or being subjected to "you're lucky to have..." judgements.

And that's regardless of the "status of color paper right now." Which, if others are to be believed, is "OK, but not outstanding."

It's the bullying factor I'm objecting to here...

Ken

P.S. I just now read 2F's above response right before I clicked Submit. To my mind, he summarizes the facts elegantly and correctly. And he is allowed to express that summation even if others do not necessarily agree with him. It is not a wringing of hankies to do so.

I've no interest in stoking another self-regarding doctrinal squabble. Kodak calls the shots. Quality scan/print lines operated by people with considerable optical printing experience can turn out stunning results with these new materials. That's the emerging consensus. Nothing's changed by a months' long lament over the passing of NC/VC Portras. Both 160 and 400 are available in FIVE formats. Let's shoot some.

hpulley · Mar 7, 2011

Don't forget that YOU can control the contrast and saturation in camera using under and over exposure. Under for saturation, over for pastels hopefully will still give us that control.

hrst · Mar 7, 2011

2F/2F, your point certainly is 100% valid and agreeable.

However, I would like to give you a small reminder;

In medium-speed color neg film, the number of choices really didn't go down!

Just a few years ago, we had two choices, NC and VC. Now we have "NC" and Ektar. Palette has changed, but not actually reduced. Of course there was a short moment (a few years) when all the three were available, but that was very special in the current situation.

IMO, having two choices that differ from each other more than before, is a good thing because interpolating is easier than extrapolating. The changes you can make in the darkroom are slight, but I'd bet if you tinker around a bit, you can find a good alternative to VC either from the new "NC" or from the Ektar, by tweaking development time etc. Then, you actually have two new choices. If you had to extrapolate from VC to try to make it look like Ektar, you'd only have one choice.

Of course, if you personally needed just the VC, and you don't like Ektar, this won't do anything good for you.

But, it is impossible to satisfy every need. So yes, I agree it's a compromise or even a sacrifice, but only from some people's point of view.

I also print analog and don't like scanning, and still I'm glad about the new product line with Ektar replacing VC, for the reason I just stated. I find that I now have more possibilities.

The loss of papers optimized for optical enlarging (Supra Endura, Portra Endura) is a real loss compared to this, but I think we can overcome even that.

Film is NOT dead: NEW Film PORTRA 160 Film from KODAK

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency