Kodacolor 100. New

[gbroadbridge]

Medium format, at least up to 6x7, is still very affected by the aberrations and lack of true resolution of those Epson flatbeds. Depending on the final image size, the lack of clarity and artifacts will even sometimes still be visible despite resizing to a smaller size.

No disputing that technically there are differences, but realistically any normal viewer at normal viewing distance is unable to see any difference even in a 4 foot long print.

Of course there is always a cohort who get out microscopes looking for differences and who wave their hands in the air. Analog pixel peepers.

 

[Cholentpot]

@Cholentpot Probably, but I think Kodak can appeal to younger users without bothering the ones who remember their classic products. I'd like to see some corporations be bold and come out with new releases instead of rehashing old IP in continuously more watered down and historically-uprooted forms.

Rehashing old IP is where its at. Paul Simon didn't write a song about ColorPlus. The Beatles are as popular as ever. Callbacks and nostalgia is what sells these days. Film is 'old' so might as well embrace that. It'll never be new and hip but it can be old and cool.

 

[bfilm]

Kodak would really harm their credibility if they released a film stock and called it Kodachrome and it wasn't really Kodachrome. There has to be some authenticity and honesty that remains, especially because Kodak is also still making motion picture and photography films that are supposed to be professional grade.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Kodak would really harm their credibility if they released a film stock and called it Kodachrome and it wasn't really Kodachrome. There has to be some authenticity and honesty that remains, especially because Kodak is also still making motion picture and photography films that are supposed to be professional grade.

Kodachrome 'New and Improved'.
Marketing folks would figure it out legally.

 

[bfilm]

Kodachrome 'New and Improved'.
Marketing folks would figure it out legally.

I don't necessarily mean legally, though. I mean that Kodak doesn't want to come to be seen as a joke. Unless it used the same type of materials and processes as Kodachrome, the most that would be acceptable would be to describe it as having Kodachrome-like colors. But it would still need a different name.

 

[MattKing]

Just call it Kodachrome 2025 negative film, and write a description akin to the current descriptions for the Portra films, melded with language referencing the colour palette of the "iconic" Kodachrome films of the 20th century and early 21st century.
It certainly would make no sense to bring to market another slide film, unless it was a greatly improved version of Ektachrome 200.

 

[bfilm]

Just call it Kodachrome 2025 negative film

But that's an oxymoron and a misnomer.

 

[Prest_400]

Folks, I don't think the younger cohort has that fascination about Kodachrome. Although quoting Flavio might be slightly out of context, in some ways it is not. Heck, I would extend that Slide films are not given so much attribution to have "the film look" (I disagree)

If you are very present in Instagram and you see what's the aesthetic that most film users of age <25 years look for. You'll see it is what I describe: lo-fi.

Saying that as a 30 year old that was able to shoot it, thanks to APUG, but even then (2009-2010) it was forums like here and, oh bless, the Kodachrome project. That should have come out as a photobook, and I think Dan just could not push that project further when I last asked him 2013-14. He had been a member here but I forgot his handle and think is not currently active. Honestly, it saddens me because that was a few years before the boom of zines and ample publication. I think photographers like him in an individual level had done quite a bit to promote Kodachrome during its last years.
Maybe it would be different with the years that have passed and how the legacy is viewed nowadays. But if some photography project of that scale, revolving around Kodachrome, didn't come to fruition then the film itself won't.

I disgressed here of course, as we have been discussing an E6-C41 film bearing some characteristics and the name, but still, it's overly romanticised.

IMO it's important to have a sustainable E6 market. I think it has its challenges because it just does not have the same perception bearing the desired "film characteristics" nor convenience (exposure latitude).

 

[thinkbrown]

It certainly would make no sense to bring to market another slide film, unless it was a greatly improved version of Ektachrome 200.

One counterargument: I'd love to see them bring a cheaper slide film to market.

I had my first experience shooting slides recently and I really like the results, but with E100 at $22 a roll and Fuji options virtually unavailable, it's just not something I'm willing to spend the money on.

 

[bfilm]

Folks, I don't think the younger cohort has that fascination about Kodachrome. Although quoting Flavio might be slightly out of context, in some ways it is not. Heck, I would extend that Slide films are not given so much attribution to have "the film look" (I disagree)

IMO it's important to have a sustainable E6 market. I think it has its challenges because it just does not have the same perception bearing the desired "film characteristics" nor convenience (exposure latitude).

Yes, slide film certainly does have a film look. In fact, I think it is some of the most beautiful. After all, almost every color picture published in the 20th century was photographed on slide film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't necessarily mean legally, though. I mean that Kodak doesn't want to come to be seen as a joke. Unless it used the same type of materials and processes as Kodachrome, the most that would be acceptable would be to describe it as having Kodachrome-like colors. But it would still need a different name.

How about Kodakrome?

 

[MattKing]

But that's an oxymoron and a misnomer.

What would you call Verichrome negative film?

 

[bfilm]

One counterargument: I'd love to see them bring a cheaper slide film to market.

I had my first experience shooting slides recently and I really like the results, but with E100 at $22 a roll and Fuji options virtually unavailable, it's just not something I'm willing to spend the money on.

I also really like slide film. At least in the US we can get Ektachrome at that price. From what I have seen, that might be the most affordable slide film is anywhere nowadays. Even in Japan, where Fujichrome Velvia and Provia are generally available, it is expensive.

Although, partly it is that we are comparing to the days of very affordable film. I think slide film is still less expensive nowadays than it was in the 1930s-50s.

 

[thinkbrown]

How about Kodakrome?

Ooh, how about KodachromE6

 

[MattKing]

Don't get me wrong, I really like slide film as well.
But the problem with slide film is that ever-recurring affordability problem - volume leads to affordability.

 

[MattKing]

I just hope that they don't bring back Ektachrome-X - yech!

 

[mshchem]

I love the idea of a Kodachrome negative film. Holy smokes I could sell that. Retro on steroids! Use the same box design. Yellow and Red!

 

[mshchem]

BEAUTIFUL

 

[mshchem]

Heck get Cinestill involved and they'd be selling Daylight and Tungsten balanced negative film.

 

[dcy]

Kodak would really harm their credibility if they released a film stock and called it Kodachrome and it wasn't really Kodachrome. There has to be some authenticity and honesty that remains, especially because Kodak is also still making motion picture and photography films that are supposed to be professional grade.

On the topic of credibility and authenticity, I was bemused and a bit frustrated at the online and YouTube discussions arguing about whether Kodacolor 100 & 200 are "really" new emulsions or re-brands of existing films and trying to uncover the mystery or whatnot.

Didn't these people read the announcement? Kodak was not deceptive or subtle about it. They said in plain English that these are re-brands or existing films. Kodak was pretty clear about what they feel is exciting about the news: That they are now selling directly to distributors, more stable film prices, investments that have increased manufacturing capacity. This is literally what they said.

Oh, and then there's the fact that ColorPlus canisters literally say "Kodacolor" on them.

I felt that some people (esp some YouTubers) just wanted to fabricate controversy.

 

[MattKing]

They said in plain English that these are re-brands or existing films.

Actually, they say "sub-brands of existing films".
Whatever "sub-brands" may mean.
And they only say that on Instagram, so I can't read much else.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Actually, they say "sub-brands of existing films".
Whatever "sub-brands" may mean.
And they only say that on Instagram, so I can't read much else.

Pretty obvious to me, it's just another 'trade' name for an existing film.

The Nissan Rogue is called the Nissan X-Trail in Oceania.
Kodak doing the same thing.
Badge engineering.

 

[Cholentpot]

I don't necessarily mean legally, though. I mean that Kodak doesn't want to come to be seen as a joke. Unless it used the same type of materials and processes as Kodachrome, the most that would be acceptable would be to describe it as having Kodachrome-like colors. But it would still need a different name.

Uh...where've you been the past decade and a half? Kodak's name was slapped on everything from cheap AA batteries to radios to flip-flops. Kodaks brand is as cheap as it can get. I've seen Kodak printed on everything you can imagine. There's no salvaging a destroyed name. Outside of this very small film world most people don't even know Kodak still exists.

 

[bfilm]

Uh...where've you been the past decade and a half? Kodak's name was slapped on everything from cheap AA batteries to radios to flip-flops. Kodaks brand is as cheap as it can get. I've seen Kodak printed on everything you can imagine. There's no salvaging a destroyed name. Outside of this very small film world most people don't even know Kodak still exists.

Yes, I think it is distasteful. But at least it hasn't extended to the film names yet. That is why I said that there has to be some authenticity and honesty that remains. At least Kodak could draw the line at abusing historic film names.

 

[mshchem]

Pretty obvious to me, it's just another 'trade' name for an existing film.

The Nissan Rogue is called the Nissan X-Trail in Oceania.
Kodak doing the same thing.
Badge engineering.

I worked in the home appliance industry for 20+ years. When I started at the Amana Iowa plant it was owned by a division of the defense giant Raytheon, we made refrigerators for our own brands plus units for GE, Whirlpool etc. We were bought and sold several times. I worked for Raytheon, Maytag and Whirlpool, never had to relocate, my office changed, a bit .
The plant is still there, no engineering now, but still making Amana, Maytag, Whirlpool, Kitchenaid etc, etc. They make good product, but important to understand most of the brand difference is features and decoration.
Kinda like color negative film