Kodacolor 100. New

[BrianShaw]

Why is there no data sheets available is what I'd like to know. Kodak has not released a data sheet for ColorPlus to my knowledge in many years of that film's availability. There might be a bit less guesswork required if Kodak was a bit more transparent about these products.

 

[Ten301]

Im leaning towards Lomo 100 which is basically Kodacolor VR 100 which by name later became VR Plus.

Kodacolor VR Plus was a definite improvement over Kodacolor VR, not just in name only. Kodacolor VR, while having improvements in grain and sharpness that were developed for the Disc film emulsions, still was lacking the color and the “3D” effect that Fuji unleashed with their HR series Fujicolors. Those films were game-changers and ushered in the bright saturation that we see in consumer color print films today. Kodak had to play a bit of catch up, which it did with VR Plus, considered to be the first iteration of Gold. Lomo 100 cannot be VR, but has to be VR Plus or some variation there of. It is too saturated to be VR. I used a lot of all of the stuff back in the day.

 

[MattKing]

It is always important to remember that even if a current emulsion is based on an historical iteration of any film, it has had to be re-engineered, due to the substantial changes in the marketplace respecting the availability, price and environmental impact of constituent components.

Plus any necessary re-design if the substrate has been changed from acetate to Estar (polyester).

 

[Cholentpot]

There are people who swear by ProImage 100, but I remember when it was introduced, LONG time ago, at least 22 years ago. It was a cheaper, budget pro film that AFAIK was sold only in latin america and such markets.

It was grainier than other 100-speed films, but could render skin tones correctly, intended (as per the brochures) for wedding photography.

I never liked it, but on other sites there are people raving about it... go figure.



Well, Lomography Lady Gray 400 used to be repackaged Tmax 400! Believe it or not, it was the fantastic TMY.
But I think Kodak didn't do the repackaging.

I have a half dozen rolls or so of ProImage 100 I bought new a few years ago. I was not impressed with the stuff. Maybe others like it but it didn't click with me, if anyone wants to trade for it I'm game.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why is there no data sheets available is what I'd like to know. Kodak has not released a data sheet for ColorPlus to my knowledge in many years of that film's availability. There might be a bit less guesswork required if Kodak was a bit more transparent about these products.

Could be because this is amateur film. Or maybe just slow on the drawer.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Video is live now. Picture samples are in the last 7 minutes of the video.

Kodacolor 100 seems very bland. The pumpkins had the juice squeezed out of them. The other ProImage 100 shots are more saturated. Thanks for your research. Did I miss Kodacolor 200?

 

[braxus]

I didnt buy any Kodacolor 200, as its already been suggested its Color Plus, and I prefer 100 speed films over 200. I didnt find a need to get the 200 speed. All I wanted to know is if I got Gold 100 back or not. If others are suggesting Kodacolor 100 is like 90s and 2000s Gold 100, then I need to shoot another roll to be sure. I still have a roll or two of ProImage 100 I can test again with my 2 rolls left of Kodacolor 100. I have a portrait shoot next weekend Id like to use another roll of this new stuff, so I'll see how it does with that. Assuming it doesnt bloody rain when Im taking pictures.

 

[Agulliver]

I never liked Gold because I found it too garish alongside VR(Plus) and the offerings from Fuji and Agfa. Which is probably why I like Color Plus and Lomography 100. If they are very closely related to pre-Gold Kodacolor VR (or VR-plus) that would explain my preference.

As for the "new" Kodacolor 100 and 200, the images I see look quite pleasing but until I've used some myself I can't really draw too many conclusions.

 

[pentaxuser]

I quite like the muted but IMO more natural look of Kodacolor 100 in the comparisons in the video but do wonder what scans of RA4 prints made under an enlarger would look like?

It seems from everything I read on Photrio that one can tell little or nothing from scans we see in terms of what traditional RA4 darkroom prints might look like

On the other hand those skilled in both sets of crafts of enlarger produced prints processed in RA4 and scanned prints might be able to help me with this or otherwise tell me that there is no way of translating anything meaningful for traditional darkroom prints and that the only way for me to find out anything meaningful is to "suck it and see"

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

but do wonder what scans of RA4 prints made under an enlarger would look like?

I bet they don't look anywhere near as muted.

It seems from everything I read on Photrio that one can tell little or nothing from scans we see in terms of what traditional RA4 darkroom prints might look like

Absolutely; then again (and I realize I'm arguing with myself to an extent now) - very few people RA4 print these days. So most people will want to know how it scans. To which my response would be, by default: "flexibly."

the only way for me to find out anything meaningful is to "suck it and see"

I think that's also the case, by default, if you get down to it!

 

[MattKing]

It does surprise me that there doesn't seem to be in existence a digital version of a standardized Color Checker - something a scanning setup can be calibrated to to match, given identical input. I guess one would need a calibrated negative and/or slide to implement it.

 

[koraks]

I guess one would need a calibrated negative and/or slide to implement it.

Yes, that's correct. And when it comes to negatives, there are a couple of pitfalls since there's no absolute benchmark in how they're supposed to encode color information.
However, comparing two films is relatively straightforward, provided one can actually expose both films (i.e. you don't have to make do with existing negatives).

 

[bfilm]

Why is there no data sheets available is what I'd like to know. Kodak has not released a data sheet for ColorPlus to my knowledge in many years of that film's availability. There might be a bit less guesswork required if Kodak was a bit more transparent about these products.

Could be because this is amateur film. Or maybe just slow on the drawer.

This has been very frustrating in recent years. Kodak has been inconsistent in providing technical data sheets and they have been inconsistent in what information is provided in the technical data sheets.

Among other things, this has contributed to the mystery of what film base they are using on different films.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it, the Kodak human resources necessary to prepare and maintain datasheets for still films were one of the casualties of the bankruptcy - mostly not retained by Eastman Kodak, and mostly not taken up by Kodak Alaris.

 

[braxus]

I shot my last two rolls, of which to finish off the 3rd one, Im saving them for portraits being done next Saturday. Then I'll get them all to the lab. I too was frustrated in my scans. Ive worked in a photolab for 19 years, so I know how to correct film color. But the lack of profiles that seemed to work on my scanner was the issue. I shot all three rolls with basically the same shutter speed (all at F5.6) except the AE1 which I had to slightly fudge (no half stops). Scanning was left alone during scans for all 3 films. I only tweaked brightness a little and took out the blue cast. Saturation was left alone. That said my last two rolls Im getting the lab to scan them next time. One of my last two rolls was shot in Xpan format on my 67. And it was sunny during the last two rolls, so color should be more correct this time. Videos will come too, if I can deal with my extremely slow laptop. I really need to get my main computer back up and running again.

Im really starting to now think Kodacolor 100 is Lomo 100, which in Kodak terms, is Kodacolor VR Plus 100.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As I understand it, the Kodak human resources necessary to prepare and maintain datasheets for still films were one of the casualties of the bankruptcy - mostly not retained by Eastman Kodak, and mostly not taken up by Kodak Alaris.

Maybe Kodak doesn't provide data sheets anymore because we'll be able to tell which films are really the same.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe Kodak doesn't provide data sheets anymore because we'll be able to tell which films are really the same.

None of the current films are the same as the old, discontinued emulsions.
Eastman Kodak has had to replace too many constituent components for that, because they no longer have the capacity to manufacture all of those old constituent components themselves, and they either cannot source those old components elsewhere, or they cannot be sourced economically, and/or their are environmental barriers to using them.
In addition, many/most of the old films have needed to be revised due to the change in substrate employed.
EK is a relatively tiny version of what it once was, and they are under constant pressure to reduce costs, if they don't want their resources diverted from photographic film to other growing areas of business for which their technological abilities are well suited.
There are still some people on staff who have knowledge of the older emulsions, but many are gone.
And if they need to divert their relatively scarce resources to preparation of things like completely new datasheets, they have to first convince management that there is an economic benefit likely to flow from that.

 

[BrianShaw]

Maybe Kodak doesn't provide data sheets anymore because we'll be able to tell which films are really the same.

Ron M told me that “there’s a reason but I’d have to kill you if I told you.” Anything is possible…

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If they don't have money to create new data sheets, why would they have the money to develop new emulsions? It would be cheaper to use an old one or just modify it slightly.

 

[MattKing]

If they don't have money to create new data sheets, why would they have the money to develop new emulsions? It would be cheaper to use an old one or just modify it slightly.

They don't necessarily choose to make changes.
Changes are thrust upon them, and before they are able to spend the resources to adapt, they have to convince management that doing so will result in a return on precious investment - otherwise the lines are diverted to other product lines.

 

[Ten301]

Let’s not forget that in its press release for Kodacolor 100 and 200, Kodak stated the films were already existing in the market. Kodacolor 200 is unmistakably Color Plus, the results are identical. Kodacolor 100 looks dead on for Lomo 100. It does not resemble Pro Image, which is more saturated and has more controlled contrast. It is said Lomo 100 is either VR Plus Gen 2 or VR-G Gen 3, the first two iterations of Gold. There was very little difference between them back in the day. Both had greatly improved saturation over VR, so I believe it’s a fairly safe bet to say, even given scanner variations, that Kodacolor 100 / Lomo 100 are one and the same.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Let’s not forget that in its press release for Kodacolor 100 and 200, Kodak stated the films were already existing in the market. Kodacolor 200 is unmistakably Color Plus, the results are identical. Kodacolor 100 looks dead on for Lomo 100. It does not resemble Pro Image, which is more saturated and has more controlled contrast. It is said Lomo 100 is either VR Plus Gen 2 or VR-G Gen 3, the first two iterations of Gold. There was very little difference between them back in the day. Both had greatly improved saturation over VR, so I believe it’s a fairly safe bet to say, even given scanner variations, that Kodacolor 100 / Lomo 100 are one and the same.

Photographers could use the data sheets if they exist, for these other emulsions, assuming 100 and 200 are the same as them.

 

[Prest_400]

It's sad how much in the documentation side has been lost. Find fascinating to delve into old Datasheets and Tech Pubs.

As of asking... do wish they'd come with a Kodacolor 800! The one just in single use cameras and supposedly manufactured as Lomo 800 and Flic Film aurora.

I guess that the faster the film, the more expensive to manufacture. A high speed film would tick the grain, vibes and extra usability in low light.

 

[brbo]

I guess that the faster the film, the more expensive to manufacture. A high speed film would tick the grain, vibes and extra usability in low light.

UltraMax 800 doesn't have the Kodacolor line vibe. It would be a great addition to Kodak's line of colour negative films, but naming it Kodacolor 800 would not do it any service. UltraMax is finer grained than Kodacolor/ColorPlus 200 and is not muddy. It's a modern 800 speed film.

 

[mshchem]

They don't necessarily choose to make changes.
Changes are thrust upon them, and before they are able to spend the resources to adapt, they have to convince management that doing so will result in a return on precious investment - otherwise the lines are diverted to other product lines.

Boy this is often the case. Believe me economics and supply chain disruptions drive these things. Hurricanes, plant shutdowns, tariffs etc.

Heck it might be identical. It's a competent consumer grade film. Use it if you choose.