If Kodak Made A 'Warm' Version Of Ektachrome 100, Would You Try It?

[DF]

Remember Ektachrome 'GX' back in the 90's & early to mid 2000's - it was the 'warm' version of Ektachrome 'G'.
So then,
the rest of this post is self-explanatory...

 

[MattKing]

Sure - I preferred it back when it was current.
But I'm happy to accomplish essentially the same result with warming filters and the current product.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I did prefer the E100SW version over standard E100S, so that is a yes from me. I do often end up adding a Nikon A2 filter to warm up standard Kodak E100 these day.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It would be interesting, but at 29€ a pop, I'm not exactly hell bent on trying it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Provia has more orangey reds compared to Ektachrome' s redder reds and greener greens.

 

[AnselMortensen]

There were also the "Lumiere" Ektachromes in the 1990's, which had a 'warm' version.

 

[mshchem]

I really like the current Ektachrome. I remember the Ektachrome SW, saturated warm version. Not anything I would want, it was very saturated, and very warm.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Not sure I'd buy a warmer version, Provia has that and it's much cheaper (here in Europe).

 

[armadsen]

I would. I much prefer Provia to (current) Ektachrome, but I assume Provia is not long for this world. As it is, I nearly always shoot Ektachrome with a Tiffen 812 filter. Just bought a 40.5mm one for my new Pentax 17, in fact.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would. I much prefer Provia to (current) Ektachrome, but I assume Provia is not long for this world. As it is, I nearly always shoot Ektachrome with a Tiffen 812 filter. Just bought a 40.5mm one for my new Pentax 17, in fact.

Off subject, but how do you like half-frame?

 

[Dustin McAmera]

It would be interesting, but at 29€ a pop, I'm not exactly hell bent on trying it.

That.

 

[Pioneer]

I'll have to try some Ektachrome. I shoot Provia so often now I don't know if I would even like it any longer. I'll pick up a roll or two the next time I am near a real camera store that carries film.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

Yes I'd try a "warm" Ektachrome 100 version, definitely.

 

[George Mann]

It would be interesting, but at 29€ a pop, I'm not exactly hell bent on trying it.

I can by todays Ektachrome for as little as $13 a roll here in the US. $20 is acceptable where $29 is nuts (it ain't Kodachrome)!.

 

[George Mann]

Yes I'd try a "warm" Ektachrome 100 version, definitely.

Me too. It's due. But SW or VS? I vote for VS!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perhaps if it were made in 135 and 120 formats.

 

[armadsen]

Off subject, but how do you like half-frame?

Well, I've got my first roll in my Pentax 17 right now, and I haven't finished it, so I'm not really sure yet. I shot a couple rolls in an Olympus Pen EE that I found in an antique shop in Namibia a few years ago, and I enjoyed how some of those turned out, but the camera itself wasn't compelling enough to to really keep using. The Pentax 17 seems much more my style.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, I've got my first roll in my Pentax 17 right now, and I haven't finished it, so I'm not really sure yet. I shot a couple rolls in an Olympus Pen EE that I found in an antique shop in Namibia a few years ago, and I enjoyed how some of those turned out, but the camera itself wasn't compelling enough to to really keep using. The Pentax 17 seems much more my style.

Thanks. Maybe you can start a separate thread when you finish the roll, show the results, and provide some comments. That would be helpful.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Why not just use a filter? It's a cine stock after all and I assume that Big K assumes its DP target market is filtering basically everything they shoot to some degree. I use a KR-1.5 on my lenses (warm skylight) pretty much all the time.

 

[armadsen]

Why not just use a filter? It's a cine stock after all and I assume that Big K assumes its DP target market is filtering basically everything they shoot to some degree. I use a KR-1.5 on my lenses (warm skylight) pretty much all the time.

Because it's annoying to have to put a filter on every lens I want to shoot with. And filters are really expensive for medium and large format photography ($335 for a Tiffen 812 in 4"x5.65"). Also, while the current Ektachrome is sold as a cine stock, it originally came out as a still-only stock. No reason a warm version couldn't be sold for stills only use.

I'd guess the chances of Kodak making something like this go up slightly when/if Provia and Velvia are discontinued.

 

[Samu]

I would immediately try any new slide film. Instead of "warm" film, I would like to see a slide film with higher ISO rating than 100. There is a long fall with cloudy skies in this part of Europe. At the moment, there is only one slide film readily available in the marker - Kodak E100 (and 5429. its motion picture version). What are the plans of Fuji in slide film market, is unclear. E-6 film is of course a niche market compared to color negatives, but there is still demand for these films.

 

[Samu]

I can by todays Ektachrome for as little as $13 a roll here in the US. $20 is acceptable where $29 is nuts (it ain't Kodachrome)!.

Yes, if you buy 5294 in bulk, this is how much a roll would approximately cost. As long as Fuji is practically out of business, Alaris will demand ridiculous prices.

 

[ChrisGalway]

I would immediately try any new slide film. Instead of "warm" film, I would like to see a slide film with higher ISO rating than 100. There is a long fall with cloudy skies in this part of Europe. At the moment, there is only one slide film readily available in the marker - Kodak E100 (and 5429. its motion picture version). What are the plans of Fuji in slide film market, is unclear. E-6 film is of course a niche market compared to color negatives, but there is still demand for these films.

I agree, ISO 200 would be great! It's dark here in Ireland, forget the Sunny 16 rule! I find myself pushing Provai 100f one stop quite regularly.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It was more convenient to warm-filter standard Ektachrome than to cool the X version. Perhaps portrait photographers would differ from my opinion, but I bought "X" only once (in 4X5), and found it not very versatile.

Armadsen - filters for med and LF usage are NOT more expensive. Everything depends on size. An excellent multicoated Hoya 81A warming filter which fits a 52mm lens Nikon thread will fit any other lens of 52mm thread size, including ones I use for 4x5 and even 8x10 cameras, and only costs around $25 at most. A Euro style KR1.5 will cost just a little more. I have full sets of 52mm, 65mm, 72mm, and 80mm. But with chrome films, I rarely used a filter at all, except for distance at high altitude with a basic UV or skylight filter.

The flesh-tone Tiffen 812 is more of a sledgehammer approach. Once in awhile I'll resort to one of those in order to tame the cyan cast of deep blue shade when shooting Ektar CN film outdoors. But even those are quite affordable in common thread sizes. You lose a little bit of sharpness with sandwich-style Tiffen filters. You can get a similar tonal shift by stacking an amber 81A and 1B pinkish Skylight.

Using a warming filter does will not turn Ektachrome into Provia or Velvia - those have their own look. The current Ektachrome is actually better neutral balanced. The best balanced chrome film of all was the now extinct Fuji Astia series. Many folks shooting chrome film these days go ape anyway, disgustingly hyper-saturating it in PS afterwards. What's the point?

 

[George Mann]

It was more convenient to warm-filter standard Ektachrome than to cool the X version.

Which filter will turn it into the VS version?

Using a warming filter does will not turn Ektachrome into Provia or Velvia

I don't care for these films. I like regular Ektachrome better than Provia, and the VS version better than Velvia.