Kodak Ektar 100 .... I think I'm in love again!

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 12, 2008

Sirius Glass said:
I used a wedding as an example of when UC 400 would be inappropriate. I quoted you because you did not like UC 400. My point was that, as stated, UC 400 is good for certain situations and not for others.

If I am asked to take photographs of a wedding, I respond that I can either attend the wedding or take photographs of the wedding but not both. If I do shoot a wedding, I use NC 400 or VC 400.

Steve

Just as 400UC is, gneeraly, inappropriiate for the type of subjects you'd encounter at a wedding, so too is 400NC, and even 400VC inappropriate for shooting a football game, a landscape, a candid.

100 Ektar is also inappropriate for most of these circumstances.

The only recourse we now have for a high-speed high-contrast film from Kodak are amateur films, or Fuji press films (which are somewhere in-between professional and amateur).

As for the comment that I can speak through my pocketbook, I am going to go even further than that.

jd callow · Dec 12, 2008

"tens of thousands of feet of their film"
I'd switch films if I were you and never look back.

Meanwhile, I hope they make the film in 120 and 4x5 as it looks to be a very nice offering. I prefer kodak's colour films to fuji's and I'm very glad that they are still in the hunt.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 13, 2008

jd callow said:
"tens of thousands of feet of their film"
I'd switch films if I were you and never look back.

Meanwhile, I hope they make the film in 120 and 4x5 as it looks to be a very nice offering. I prefer kodak's colour films to fuji's and I'm very glad that they are still in the hunt.

Hey, you can be sarcastic and condescending all you want, but the FACT of the matter is that they used a name change to cover up a line consolidation and you guys are thanking them for it!

You are also demonstrating the (to me) incredible human capacity of seeing only what one wants to see.

So, keeping in mind that I really *do* shoot that much film, and that I happen to consume huge amounts of Portra, what would you recommend for a replacement for all of my work that necessitates high-contrast results?

Or are you advocating my switching to all Portra and having to adjust the contrast on every single picture I take digitally?

I seem to recall a conversation a while back condemning my stance that having a separate forum for hybrid imaging discussions is ridiculous. . .

Yet now that the more useful of the two UC films is gone, how would you recommend, optically, getting a professional, consistent result with high contrast without a computer?

As someone who buys almost exclusively Kodak, and nows the proper situations in which to use low- and high-contrast films, I have every right to bitch about the current bunch of marketing B.S. at said company when they take very useful films and discontinue them.

I just cannot understand why everyone else isn't bitching like they normally do when Kodak does this. You are all just reinforcing Kodak's perception that they can get away with this shit by not seeing through this transparent tactic.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 13, 2008

jd callow said:
Meanwhile, I hope they make the film in 120 and 4x5 as it looks to be a very nice offering. I prefer kodak's colour films to fuji's and I'm very glad that they are still in the hunt.

Yeah, they're "still in the hunt". . .

That's why they discontinued the UC line in all but 35mm. And now got rid of 400 and renamed, err improved 100.

I'm SURE they'll be quick to release this film in 4x5.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 13, 2008

Commando303 said:
s. As for the demise of 400UC, Kodak says it has nothing to do with the introduction of Ektar 100, but is based on the "overwhelmingly positive response" to the newly re-formulated 400VC. I haven't tried this version of VC, but, that which I did use, didn't please me.

I've written to Kodak to express my discontent with their decision to discontinue their Ultra Color line, and they replied (predictably) that they're sorry, but they can't please everyone. Perhaps if a few more photographers disgruntled with the choice sent in e-mails...

You illustrate quite well classic Kodak marketing double-speak. I had the misfortunate of buying into some of the hype around 400VC a few years back and I shot some sports with it, thinking it'd have a higher-contrast look almost like Ultra.

Boy was I disappointed. The only thing I noticed with the VC was the terrible latitude. Instead of "VC" they should have named it "WC" for wonky colors.

Sure this film has allegedly been improved the most since its Portra-1 version, but I am pretty sure it is still just as much a studio film as the Portra NC line.

But Kodak turns around and says that UC was discontinued due to "overwhelmingly positive response" to the new VC. I am certain that the only "positive response" Kodak saw was saving money.

Kodak is lying to you too, about their inability to please everyone, because they try their hardest to please everyone. . . that owns their stock.

mtjade2007 · Dec 13, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
how would you recommend, optically, getting a professional, consistent result with high contrast without a computer?

If you insist in printing optically you are stuck. Now that most printing are done digitally it will take 5 seconds or less to give you the high contrast you want by Photoshop. Why not use a computer? A digital darkroom is 100 times more productive than an optical one. Capture your images on films. Print them with a digital darkroom. That's the way to go.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 13, 2008

jd callow said:
I don't care if its called Tide or Cheer, but I do care that they are developing new films. Thanx kodak and fuji.

It may be that people have finally realized that Kodak isn't Satan, that Kodak can't produce film unless people buy it and that maybe we share some of the blame for films being discontinued. I could be wrong.

So, is Ektar 100 really a "new" film? It's about as "new" a film as Portra-II and Portra-III are compared to Portra. So thanks Kodak for putting extra money into new designs for the boxes.

Yes, and the same people I chastised for being idiots and needlessly bashing Kodak as a company that betrayed it's film users are now praising Kodak for really betraying them but coming out with pretty new boxes and pouring a small amount of the money they got from axing 400UC and all of their medium format UC into new boxes and a snazzy PR campaign.

Maybe all film shooters aren't luddites stuck in the past, but the response to this Kodak-funded nostalgia trip that they've sent you all on has demonstrated that an uncomfortably large number of you *are* stuck in the past and desperate to get back the good old days through your usage of "classic Ektar" rather than using film for objective, logical reasons.

Lee L · Dec 13, 2008

Have you seen the new Ford 500? It's not at all like the '64 Galaxy 500 we had. And the new Chrysler 300, nothing at all like the "real" 300. And they think we'll actually believe that it's the same car just because it has the same name? Give me a break! That CVCC to Civic thing is also a pretty transparent attempt to hoodwink the public. Next thing you know we'll get a "real" BelAir . . . as if . . .

I feel so abused. I demand that you feel the same way. It's the only reasonable response you could possibly have.

Lee

jd callow · Dec 13, 2008

lee,
I feel your pain.

Lee L · Dec 13, 2008

jd callow said:
lee,
I feel your pain.

Well it's about time ... I thought you'd never "get" it. Thought I was going to have to post the same rant multiple times, or maybe bring in the Beetle.

Lee

jd callow · Dec 13, 2008

Lee L said:
Well it's about time ... I thought you'd never "get" it. Thought I was going to have to post the same rant multiple times, or maybe bring in the Beetle.

Lee

Hey, don't let me stop you.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 13, 2008

Lee L said:
Have you seen the new Ford 500? It's not at all like the '64 Galaxy 500 we had. And the new Chrysler 300, nothing at all like the "real" 300. And they think we'll actually believe that it's the same car just because it has the same name? Give me a break! That CVCC to Civic thing is also a pretty transparent attempt to hoodwink the public. Next thing you know we'll get a "real" BelAir . . . as if . . .

I feel so abused. I demand that you feel the same way. It's the only reasonable response you could possibly have.

Lee

What does that have anything to do with Ektar 100? People here *do* believe it is a new film from the old Ektar line, which it is not.

Cars have no similarities to this scenario whatsoever because it is obvious from the exterior and obvious from what is under the hood what you've got.

Keep up the good work in defending the right to live in ignorance.

I'm done "ranting" since you guys obviously want desperately to believe Kodak's spin-machine.

StorminMatt · Dec 13, 2008

mtjade2007 said:
If you insist in printing optically you are stuck. Now that most printing are done digitally it will take 5 seconds or less to give you the high contrast you want by Photoshop. Why not use a computer? A digital darkroom is 100 times more productive than an optical one. Capture your images on films. Print them with a digital darkroom. That's the way to go.

Then again, if you are going to edit and print digitally, what is the point of shooting film vs digital? The only way this is going to give you a BETTER image than a straight digital shot is if you scan from medium format.

Lee L said:
That CVCC to Civic thing is also a pretty transparent attempt to hoodwink the public.

Not really. The car itself was called a Civic from the day it was introduced back in 1972. 'CVCC' refers to the type of engine used in the Civic from 1975 until about the mid 1980s. The car was NEVER called a 'CVCC' in the first place.

Lee L · Dec 13, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
What does that have anything to do with Ektar 100? People here *do* believe it is a new film from the old Ektar line, which it is not.

Cars have no similarities to this scenario whatsoever because it is obvious from the exterior and obvious from what is under the hood what you've got.

Keep up the good work in defending the right to live in ignorance.

I'm done "ranting" since you guys obviously want desperately to believe Kodak's spin-machine.

You missed the point entirely. Everyone knows these aren't the same films, just as everyone knows the car models aren't the same, even though the names are re-used. Most people just don't go ballistic over it. Anyone who's been doing photography seriously for over 5 years has seen favorite materials and supplies lost or modified beyond their original useful characteristics for some purposes. (I won't bother posting my list.) It happens, and will continue to happen. Life and photography go on. What others are trying to do is find out how the new materials are different and useful.

If you believe that Kodak is naming products just to mess with you, that's something you'll have to learn to deal with. My kids actually never believed advertizing spin, even at age 5 or 6 when they started seeing commercial TV. I haven't seen anyone here indicate that they really think that Ektar 100 is a duplicate of any of the old Ektar films (already modified, dropped, and consolidated at least once and renamed Royal Gold a long time ago). I also don't see Kodak's re-use of the Ektar name as an indicator that this is the same product as before. Kodak just thinks the new film "fits" in that family of products. Try going on a tear about Ektachromes over the last 40 years. You're yelling at us for being gullible patsies when in fact, we know before we see it that Ektar 100 will not be Ektar 25.

Lee

wogster · Dec 13, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
You illustrate quite well classic Kodak marketing double-speak. I had the misfortunate of buying into some of the hype around 400VC a few years back and I shot some sports with it, thinking it'd have a higher-contrast look almost like Ultra.

Boy was I disappointed. The only thing I noticed with the VC was the terrible latitude. Instead of "VC" they should have named it "WC" for wonky colors.

Sure this film has allegedly been improved the most since its Portra-1 version, but I am pretty sure it is still just as much a studio film as the Portra NC line.

But Kodak turns around and says that UC was discontinued due to "overwhelmingly positive response" to the new VC. I am certain that the only "positive response" Kodak saw was saving money.

Kodak is lying to you too, about their inability to please everyone, because they try their hardest to please everyone. . . that owns their stock.

Kodak is a company with a problem, they virtually owned the film market, 10 years ago, then they got on the digital bandwagon, thinking that it would be a walk in the park. The problem is that meant you were going up against, the big 4 computer printer builders, Canon, Epson, Hewlett Packard, Lexmark (in alphabetical not market size order). These companies make printers, ink and paper, if I am looking for standard photo paper for my Canon printer, I am most likely to buy Canon paper, since it's made for my printer.

Once Kodak realized that the digital market was going to be much tougher then they thought, they had frittered away so much of the film market, they had lost most of it, permanently.

So now they are in a downward spiral, of needing to cut costs because they don't have the sales, so they merge product lines, which leads to less sales, which leads to more cost cutting, ad nauseum. Eventually they get small enough that someone will buy them out, move production to China or India, research to somewhere in Europe, and a very large hunk of real estate in Rochester NY will be for sale cheap, and laid off people will wonder what happened. Hopefully for our own Photo Engineer he has enbough years in, that he can take an early retirement package, and move on.

In many ways Ilford had a much better approach, by keeping it's analogue and digital divisions as separate entities, the company was able to sell off the digital division and reorganize the analogue division and both survived.

The only way to save Kodak at this point, is to spin off the digital stuff, get back to it's core film market, and bring out products that nobody else has. Even if some of those products are ones that Kodak has killed off over the last 10 years. Get the engineers to work on making those products better, like a B&W paper that works with colour negatives, but gets souped as RA-4 (black dyes). A definitive reversal printing methodology that works with any RA-4 process Kodak paper (including the new black & white one). Smaller developer kits, like 1L and 2L for the lower volume processor. Maybe low temperature (20℃) C41, E6 and RA-4 processes, there is a lot left for Kodak to do, rather then shrivel up and die.

Tom Kershaw · Dec 13, 2008

Smaller developer kits, like 1L and 2L for the lower volume processor.

The Ektacolor chemistry is available in 20 litre packages (4 x 5 litre) so oxidization is minimized, and Fujihunt (at least in Europe) do a small reasonably priced kit that includes both developer and blix to make 5 litres working solution.

Tom.

donbga · Dec 13, 2008

wogster said:
Kodak is a company with a problem, they virtually owned the film market, 10 years ago, then they got on the digital bandwagon, thinking that it would be a walk in the park. The problem is that meant you were going up against, the big 4 computer printer builders, Canon, Epson, Hewlett Packard, Lexmark (in alphabetical not market size order). These companies make printers, ink and paper, if I am looking for standard photo paper for my Canon printer, I am most likely to buy Canon paper, since it's made for my printer.

Once Kodak realized that the digital market was going to be much tougher then they thought, they had frittered away so much of the film market, they had lost most of it, permanently.

So now they are in a downward spiral, of needing to cut costs because they don't have the sales, so they merge product lines, which leads to less sales, which leads to more cost cutting, ad nauseum. Eventually they get small enough that someone will buy them out, move production to China or India, research to somewhere in Europe, and a very large hunk of real estate in Rochester NY will be for sale cheap, and laid off people will wonder what happened. Hopefully for our own Photo Engineer he has enbough years in, that he can take an early retirement package, and move on.

In many ways Ilford had a much better approach, by keeping it's analogue and digital divisions as separate entities, the company was able to sell off the digital division and reorganize the analogue division and both survived.

The only way to save Kodak at this point, is to spin off the digital stuff, get back to it's core film market, and bring out products that nobody else has. Even if some of those products are ones that Kodak has killed off over the last 10 years. Get the engineers to work on making those products better, like a B&W paper that works with colour negatives, but gets souped as RA-4 (black dyes). A definitive reversal printing methodology that works with any RA-4 process Kodak paper (including the new black & white one). Smaller developer kits, like 1L and 2L for the lower volume processor. Maybe low temperature (20℃) C41, E6 and RA-4 processes, there is a lot left for Kodak to do, rather then shrivel up and die.

I'm sorry but I disagree with your analysis. For some reason a lot of people think that the managment at Kodak are a group of bumbling idiots. They're not.

Fuji and Ilford are in just as deep hot water as Kodak. If you think that the glory days of film consumption are going to return, well I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell to you.

mtjade2007 · Dec 13, 2008

StorminMatt said:
Then again, if you are going to edit and print digitally, what is the point of shooting film vs digital? The only way this is going to give you a BETTER image than a straight digital shot is if you scan from medium format.

There is a huge difference in image capturing by films and by digital sensors. There are significant differences in the digital darkroom work for images captured by films and captured digitally too. These differences are tremendous when you capture images in medium/large format films.

Shooting films and shooting digital are never the same from the very beginning of capturing the images to the end of digitally printing them. If you shoot films you should try to get a decent film scanner and set up a digital darkroom (for films) to print your images. You will love films more than ever.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 13, 2008

Lee L said:
Kodak just thinks the new film "fits" in that family of products.
Lee

No, they want you to think it fits.

I'm not angry at Kodak, I'm angry at everyone praising them for what amounts to discontinuing UC in medium format and discontinuing 400UC.

wogster · Dec 13, 2008

donbga said:
I'm sorry but I disagree with your analysis. For some reason a lot of people think that the managment at Kodak are a group of bumbling idiots. They're not.

Fuji and Ilford are in just as deep hot water as Kodak. If you think that the glory days of film consumption are going to return, well I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell to you.

The "glory" days of film consumption are over, but that can be taken two ways, you can change to new markets, or you can redefine yourself in your remaining market. The management at Kodak made a critical error, they picked digital imaging as the new market, which meant that they were going up against large players who were already well established in that market. This means you either need something new that people can't get from anyone else or you need a massively huge marketing budget. For Kodak, they went from a largely consumables market to a largely capital asset market, and that's even tougher to deal with. The ideal would have been to redefine itself into a smaller film market, finding ways to make films in smaller quantities without massively increasing costs, less on hand inventory, and more unique or flexible products.

If you wanted to produce only ONE film, ONE paper and one chemistry, then you would need to develop this one:

This film can be processed as B&W, colour or reversal, simply by changing chemistries, can be shot at anywhere from 25 - 3200 EI, and give acceptable results, simply by changing the processing time. Can be processed at anything from 15℃ to 30℃, again by changing processing time. This would give film shooters the same flexibility as digital. Ideally chemistries are designed for low or moderate volume use, in that film shooters are much more likely to soup their own film, especially if it's easy to do.

You either need more products or make the ones you have more flexible. Naturally if they had a do all film, that is all they would need to make, since they don't....

Lee L · Dec 13, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
No, they want you to think it fits.

I'm not angry at Kodak, I'm angry at everyone praising them for what amounts to discontinuing UC in medium format and discontinuing 400UC.

That's obviously your take on the issue. I don't agree with your perspective at all. Being angry with others for having a different point of view and disallowing the validity of others' views isn't my area of expertise. I don't care what Kodak wants me to think. I do that for myself. It's been about 40 years since I bothered getting angry with someone for what I perceived as trying to force me to think a certain way. That includes your wanting to force others to adopt your perspective in this thread.

As I said earlier, most of us have found over the decades that it's more productive to find a new "best fit" from available products. BTW, last time I checked, UC was still available at B&H. You could do what Ernst Haas did with Kodachrome and buy a couple of refrigerators full. I tried 400UC just as it was being discontinued and discounted. I liked it a lot and bought out the discounted stock from several locations of the only store in which I could find it. I have no doubt that it's different from Portra 400 VC in significant ways. Have you tried the Fuji Pro160S, Pro160C, or Pro400H? UC isn't coming back. Slamming others for liking Ektar 100 won't bring UC back. Move on. Or not.

Lee

Chazzy · Dec 13, 2008

I'm still scratching my head at how an Ektar 100 thread got turned into a 400 UC thread. I probably won't do much with Ektar 100 unless it becomes available in 120 and sheet film sizes, but I do have a roll for evaluation.

FilmIs4Ever · Dec 13, 2008

Chazzy said:
I'm still scratching my head at how an Ektar 100 thread got turned into a 400 UC thread. I probably won't do much with Ektar 100 unless it becomes available in 120 and sheet film sizes, but I do have a roll for evaluation.

I'm just pointing out that there were never 5-page threads singing the praises of 100UC, or HD 400, or Supra 200.

I'm also pointing out that a lot of people on this thread are victims of what I perceive to be pretty hollow marketing hype.

As for your saying, Lee, that it is "my opinion" of what Kodak has done, you are absolutely right.

However, my take on this situation is backed up by decades of Kodak business practices that follow the same classic pattern; this is just much more blatant.

I'm not trying to say that I'm right and that you are wrong, I am just trying to show you, objectively what has happened.

Do you think I enjoy having to constantly criticize a company that I own stock in???

Or do you think I get kicks out of belittling others? You can have any opinion you want, but that doesn't change the fact that some opinions are not grounded in facts and empirical evidence.

benjiboy · Dec 13, 2008

I use very little 35mm colour neg film, I use it mainly in 120 to shoot portraits with because of the quality, usually with Fuji Professional 160 S, from what I've seen of Ektar it looks very sharp, contrasty, and high in colour saturation which is great for general photography especially on dull days, but 160 S is more suitablefor my type of work because of It's ability to handle contrast, and the superb skin tones it can reproduce.
If I do Shoot 35mm Colour neg I've been using Fuji Reala which is also a very good general purpose film that I like a lot, I have a couple of free samples of Ektar I'm going to compare with Reala in the spring if the weather ever gets better and see which I prefer, it must be about twenty years since I used a Kodak film, I think it was Vericolour S.

mtjade2007 · Dec 13, 2008

FilmIs4Ever said:
I'm not angry at Kodak, I'm angry at everyone praising them for what amounts to discontinuing UC in medium format and discontinuing 400UC.

Frankly from reading what you have posted I hardly can believe you were not angry at Kodak. But you have a good point. I am not too happy with Kodak for not offering this Ektar 100 for medium format. It is understandable why so many have praised this new Ektar 100. It is much cheaper than 400UC. Even it is a same film with a faster speed and new cloth it is at least as good and much cheaper.

Kodak Ektar 100 .... I think I'm in love again!

FilmIs4Ever

jd callow

Moderator

FilmIs4Ever

FilmIs4Ever

FilmIs4Ever

mtjade2007

FilmIs4Ever

Lee L

jd callow

Moderator

Lee L

jd callow

Moderator

FilmIs4Ever

StorminMatt

Lee L

wogster

Tom Kershaw

donbga

mtjade2007

FilmIs4Ever

wogster

Lee L

Chazzy

FilmIs4Ever

benjiboy

mtjade2007

Kodak Ektar 100 .... I think I'm in love again!

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency