Time to review the APUG database. Kodak is not alone in having to deal with wrapper offset from 120 backing paper. A single supplier for Ilford and Kodak has caused both manufacturers to experience the problem.
Time to review the APUG database. Kodak is not alone in having to deal with wrapper offset from 120 backing paper. A single supplier for Ilford and Kodak has caused both manufacturers to experience the problem....We didn't have a problem for a century or more, and now we are well on a year trying to "solve" an issue that other manufacturers don't seem to have.
You keep forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that there have been posts about Fuji and Ilford films with backing paper problems. All three companies have outsourced the making of this very difficult material and until it is done right there will apparently be problems. This is a very very complex part of the 120 film product lines.
We should do a poll to find out how many here have and use cameras that rely on the frame numbers on the backing paper.Do we really need to have the product logos or the exposure numbers on the backing paper except at the ends so we know what we are putting in and processing?
I'm no pro nor prophet but I did predict we'd see an E-6 Kodachrome.
In all honesty, Kodachrome has changed processes in the past and was still Kodachrome. If an E-6 Kodachrome is released and looks like Kodachrome then in my books it is Kodachrome. And if that happens I don't want to hear from nay-sayers that 'It's not reaaaaaaal Kodachrome!' That would be like saying nothing that was ever revised can carry a name and a legacy.
So hurrah for a new film!
I absolutely do. Frame numbers anyway.Do we really need to have the product logos or the exposure numbers on the backing paper except at the ends so we know what we are putting in and processing?
One week I hear "Bless you Kodak for bringing back Ektachrome!! Thou have not forsaken film users, you are willing to take risks for us." then the next week "We've been betrayed!! We hoped for Kodachrome but the best they can do is a reformulated version. This is treachery!!"...
I see a company willing to bring back a
+1
One week I hear "Bless you Kodak for bringing back Ektachrome!! Thou have not forsaken film users, you are willing to take risks for us." then the next week "We've been betrayed!! We hoped for Kodachrome but the best they can do is a reformulated version. This is treachery!!"...
All in all though, folks should be happy to feel this new breeze on the film industry. Film manufacturers are still there, still very alive and strong enough to venture.
Amusingly Ironic, all the difficulty into producing film, organic chemistry and synthesis, keeping B38 running, spooling, etc. The hardest part is paper. Paper! An ancient material. And Kodak has a strong positioning over Industrial printing themselves.This is a very very complex part of the 120 film product lines.
PE
I'm not sure That is what additive-subtractive means. Infact both E6 film and kodachrome produce a positive image by overlying a cyan, magenta and yellow immage therefore a subtractive process.I would hope that Kodak wouldn't just play on the name for sentimental purposes like Ford "brought back" the 5.0 in the Mustang... just another modular motor.
Kodachrome is inherently different and that is why it looks and acts so differently. It's an additive process where you put dies in after exposure. It's otherwise essentially just a 3-layer B&W film.
E6 is a subtractive system where all the dye needed is in the film and you take out what you don't need during processing.
E6 will never have the same color, density, contrast or "sharpness" that the Kodachrome processes had and certainly not the image stability/longevity. Just the very nature of the Ektachrome system is susceptible to color shifting and far less density/contrast. I love Velvia 50, Provia 100 and E100... but not like I loved Kodachrome. It was a total B$@%D to get right, but when it was right... it was so right!
Sorry, but you are wrong. Both are subtractive systems and use CMY dyes to remove RGB light that passes through the film on viewing. Ektachrome uses incorporated couplers, Kodachrome does not.Kodachrome is inherently different and that is why it looks and acts so differently. It's an additive process where you put dies in after exposure. It's otherwise essentially just a 3-layer B&W film.
E6 is a subtractive system where all the dye needed is in the film and you take out what you don't need during processing.
If Kodak introduced "Kodachrome '17" that was E-6 and looked even "kinda" like ol' Kodachrome, I would be delighted. It would likely be the impetus that would bring a few of my retired cameras out into the light again. I would in no way be angry that it was not identical to the original.
I think nevintagefilms is using "additive" and "subtractive" in a non-standard way. The reference to Kodachrome as "additive" has some logic in it, because there are things added to create colour during the processing steps, but because "additive" already has a generally accepted use and meaning in colour photography, nevintagefilms needs to find new, unused terms.Sorry, but you are wrong. Both are subtractive systems and use CMY dyes to remove RGB light that passes through the film on viewing. Ektachrome uses incorporated couplers, Kodachrome does not.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Both are subtractive systems and use CMY dyes to remove RGB light that passes through the film on viewing. Ektachrome uses incorporated couplers, Kodachrome does not.
I think nevintagefilms is using "additive" and "subtractive" in a non-standard way. The reference to Kodachrome as "additive" has some logic in it, because there are things added to create colour during the processing steps, but because "additive" already has a generally accepted use and meaning in colour photography, nevintagefilms needs to find new, unused terms.
E6 film is not coloured by removing dyes, couplers react to colour developer in its oxidized form to generate dyes. I believe that the colour look of kodachrome could be emulated if the right dyes are used. I don't think that the the reason why kodachrome looks different is because of how dyes are introduced onto the film.Hi All,
Obviously you are all correct and I was confusing terms/concepts when explaining my point. As far as generating an image, they are both subtractive.
My points was the way those subtractive layers were created. One is created by adding dye (Kodachrome) and the other is created by removing it (E6). It just results in a different look that they have come far closer to reproducing in Velvia 50, Provia 100F and E100D.... but it's still not the same. It just doesn't have that same silky (albeit not true to life) look and feel of Kodachrome. Kodachrome just always had a "colorized" look to it.
Dave
Maybe PE can shed some light on this.I don't think that the the reason why kodachrome looks different is because of how dyes are introduced onto the film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?