Kodacolor 100. New

[Prest_400]

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.

Let's see what the EK-Alaris evolve (or not). I agree about the branding and it'd be a parallel to selling ProImage as Kodacolor assuming ProImage is superior to a plain Kodacolor 100.

However, do most of the consumers care? Or rather, simplifying these as Kodacolor makes it easier for most?
There is a whole lot of workflow variation by the way of scanning and it's mostly us knowing the film legacy. Still, I found very amusing to browse contemporary late 90s-00s reviews of ColorPlus and the words were not that much positive "a cheap, grainy, dull consumer film". Whereas now I perceive people love ColorPlus!

As I write, I am thinking it might be not so simple as a newcomer to understand film options; most films have a name but it can be confusing.

 

[Agulliver]

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.

If you are referring to the film sold as Lomography 800, it is a high quality product indeed. Though I don't find Color Plus to be muddy myself, I'd apply that quality to Gold. The Lomography 800 was always reckoned to be the same Max 800 that Kodak puts into single use cameras, I believe?

 

[braxus]

Gold version 7 gave less muddy, more clean brighter colors. Portra around that time got that quality too. In around 2007.

 

[loccdor]

Still, I found very amusing to browse contemporary late 90s-00s reviews of ColorPlus and the words were not that much positive "a cheap, grainy, dull consumer film". Whereas now I perceive people love ColorPlus!

Well, they don't have Fuji's excellent budget films to compare it with anymore.

 

[flavio81]

There is a whole lot of workflow variation by the way of scanning and it's mostly us knowing the film legacy. Still, I found very amusing to browse contemporary late 90s-00s reviews of ColorPlus and the words were not that much positive "a cheap, grainy, dull consumer film". Whereas now I perceive people love ColorPlus!

We, the old timers who know how great film can look, are the ones that were/are not so satisfied with Colorplus.

Now, I can bet the greatest amount of film sales is for the people 22 years of age and younger, who are into the "lo-fi" look, who scan their films using (ugh) Epson flatbeds or even (yuck) smartphone camera adapters, the guys who like to shoot expired film and enjoy light leaks... those guys are OK with getting any kind of image and it's normal that they would be just fine with Colorplus.

I still think Colorplus is a dull film. I wish Kodak Gold 100 (GA 100-6) would be available again! It was grainy, but OH what colors would you get!

 

[Agulliver]

We, the old timers who know how great film can look, are the ones that were/are not so satisfied with Colorplus.

Now, I can bet the greatest amount of film sales is for the people 22 years of age and younger, who are into the "lo-fi" look, who scan their films using (ugh) Epson flatbeds or even (yuck) smartphone camera adapters, the guys who like to shoot expired film and enjoy light leaks... those guys are OK with getting any kind of image and it's normal that they would be just fine with Colorplus.

I still think Colorplus is a dull film. I wish Kodak Gold 100 (GA 100-6) would be available again! It was grainy, but OH what colors would you get!

Hmm....this "old timer" prefers Color Plus over Gold.

The rest of your post seems rather....condescending....

 

[Cholentpot]

Hmm....this "old timer" prefers Color Plus over Gold.

The rest of your post seems rather....condescending....

I used to be a young'n shooting film and I'm not anymore. What I can say is the colors are what you make of them these days. I scan my own stuff and adjust how I feel regardless of the stock. Less grain on slower film and more on fast is more important than socalled baked in color.

 

[Prest_400]

I find quite interesting to browse threads from the late 90s and early 2000s. Usually photo.net. The contemporary sentiments and market war of Kodak vs Fuji, threads like "Kodak vs Fuji films" which may or may not also mention Agfa, Konica and others.
I was too young to really participate, but if I had picked film instead of a digital P&S as a kid in 2004 I might have tried some of the late manufacturers' film.

Fujicolor C200 (made in Japan) has had quite some accolades and back then appeared to be preferred to Color Plus. Sadly what is left of that is just Fujicolor 100 limited to Japan.

Again yes, I am in the camp of make the color as you want or can. Actually there was a point where I prefered slide due to it's directness and lack of interpretation in the intermediate workflow.

Ad of "Kodacolor" standing out, I keep seeing a reasonable exposure of the Kodak brand. Their partnership with clothing is working out in some ways that I see it relatively often, and also film cameras.

What will be interesting is the EK and Alaris coexistence in the still film market. And/if it will be in some regions. Well, if ProImage and Color Plus vanishes then we have an answer.
So at the moment it is a part of the consumer film range and the "Named" films are Alaris so far.

 

[gbroadbridge]

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.

Isn't that effectively what IT8 reflective and transparency targets are for.

 

[gbroadbridge]

scan their films using (ugh) Epson flatbeds

There are plenty of professionals who scan Medium and Large format film on (ugh) Epson Pro scanners

For digital output of course which may well be RA4.

 

[MattKing]

Isn't that effectively what IT8 reflective and transparency targets are for.

Those are the physical targets themselves.
I'm talking about the digital file.

 

[koraks]

Those are the physical targets themselves.
I'm talking about the digital file.

With the ID8 target there needs to be a file describing the actual densities. This forms the calibration package. The IT8 target without measured densities is incomplete.

 

[brbo]

Those are the physical targets themselves.
I'm talking about the digital file.

Every IT8 target comes with a digital (text) file since it's useless without one. So there are tons of digital files. You can use that text file to create an image file if you want.

Not sure what that should accomplish when we are talking about scanning...

 

[braxus]

I shot my last two rolls. I now think Kodacolor 100 is most likely VR Plus 100 (aka Lomo 100). Here are some samples of it in Xpan, though the lab scanner exposed these too light for my taste.

 

[albireo]

I shot my last two rolls. I now think Kodacolor 100 is most likely VR Plus 100 (aka Lomo 100). Here are some samples of it in Xpan, though the lab scanner exposed these too light for my taste.

Braxus, the simplest way to get an idea on what this film is, what it is not, and whether it the same as Lomo 100 or something else, and whether it makes sense for you to use it or not in stead of something else, is to defeat as many variables as you can in your process (some would say 'adjust for covariates').

Try the following for a start.

• Same lens, same camera, tripod. Pick a scene at e.g. midday - make sure light conditions are not changing throughout your test. E.g. a few flower pots in the conservatory, etc. Shoot two rolls in rapid succession: Kodakcolor 100 and (e.g.) Lomo 100. Make sure aperture, shutter etc is the same if the scene portrayed is the same across the two. Place a cheap colour chart off amazon on a chair and make sure it's present in at least 2/3 scenes.
• Have the two rolls processed together. Same lab, same batch of chemistry. Possibly a lab you trust, known to use fresh chemistry and to process using correct temperatures. Even better, process yourself in your standard workflow using chemicals you have settled on for most of your work. Drop them in the same tank and process together.
• Once dry, cut into 6 frame strips. Place two corresponding strips, 1 from Kodacolor 100 and 1 from Lomo 100, side by side on your flatbed scanner's glass.
• Fire up Vuescan/Silverfast/Epson scan. Use your preferred scanner settings, e.g. the ones you tend to use by default. Notice here you don't need to defeat all scanner software's preprocessing (although that is completely doable and probably a good idea in other settings) because we're making a RELATIVE comparison (not trying to make ABSOLUTE statements on the colour grading of each of these films, as people have been discussing above).
• Examine the the corresponding images across the two strips. Observe any differences or similarities. Draw your conclusions.

You will have 'wasted' two entire rolls, but saved in the long run if you find (e.g.) the two products are identical as you can safely settle on whichever is cheaper to you locally.