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

[wogster]

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.

I think Kodak might have had better luck if it would have been Ektar 200, in other words split the speed difference. Ektar 100 in medium format is always a possibility, one needs to write a nice email to Kodak, asking for it, if they get a lot of requests, you will probably see it.

 

[donbga]

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....

No I'm sorry you are stil wrong. Film isn't a growth product. Digital imaging is the direction Kodak has to take to continue to survive. They have made mistakes but they have also had some great sucesses with digital imaging.

 

[donbga]

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.

Medium format sales are essentially dead. We are lucky to have any MF film at all. As much as I would like to see Ektar 100 produced in MF, it just ain't gonna happen.

 

[2F/2F]

I want to see this film compared to 160VC, 160C, Reala, Superia 100, Superia 200, Gold 100, and Gold 200.

 

[sbelyaev]

I just received pictures from A&I. Ektar looks like 400UC but MUCH smoother and sharper.
Skin tones are beautiful.
I think this is the best Kodak film that I've used so far.
http://flickr.com/photos/90094587@N00/3105592973/sizes/l/

 

[wogster]

No I'm sorry you are stil wrong. Film isn't a growth product. Digital imaging is the direction Kodak has to take to continue to survive. They have made mistakes but they have also had some great sucesses with digital imaging.

With any technology where there has been a significant technological change, the same scenario plays out 99% of the market converts over a relatively short period, the absolute death of the old technology is forecast as a sure and guaranteed bet. For a small but significant part of the market of the market the honeymoon with the new technology ends, and these people return to the older technology. It's happened in photography before, the transition from black and white to colour. Lots of people transitioned then a bunch transitioned back, because they liked the results better.

There will never be the kind of growth there was in film, between 1900 and 1990, but there should be a reasonably sized sustainable market once things even out. I think we are in the backlash period now, heck I am one of them, got totally out of film a few years ago, couldn't get enough for the film cameras, so put them in a back closet, now digging them out and getting at least partly back in. Will I shoot as much film as I did back in the day, probably not, I still expect to shoot about half as d*****l, 80% of the remainder as black and white, and the remainder as colour, might even try E6 again. Been looking at old negatives and old slides, and the slides seem to have faired a lot better. I used to shoot about 20 rolls a year, which means about 10 rolls worth of d*****l, 8 rolls of black and white, and a couple of rolls of colour film.

 

[Martin Reed]

Medium format sales are essentially dead. We are lucky to have any MF film at all. As much as I would like to see Ektar 100 produced in MF, it just ain't gonna happen.

Strikes me that the best long term approach would be to get very interested in a Hasselblad and a set of 70mm backs for it. If there was enough user base established for 70mm it's straightforward for Kodak to offer all of their film range in this format.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Martin,

Is 70mm film a stock item for stills photography applications?

Tom.

 

[Martin Reed]

Martin,

Is 70mm film a stock item for stills photography applications?

Tom.

Tom,

It's stock in a small range of types, colour & mono at present, but the essential thing is it is cut from the same parent rolls as 35mm, instead of special makings on another base, as required for 120.

So to produce any film currently available in 35mm in 70mm is only a matter of coming up with the minimum cutting requirement. (Mind you, that could be HUGE).

Also, we'd have to get fully conversant with bulk roll loading into 70mm cassettes, I can't see manufacturers tooling up to do factory loads of 70mm at this stage of the game.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Is a load of 70mm film presented in a giant version of the 35mm cartridge?

Tom.

 

[Martin Reed]

Is a load of 70mm film presented in a giant version of the 35mm cartridge?

Tom.

Yes, here's one on ebay;

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Hasselblad-70...hash=item380076631343&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177

As you say, it's a 35mm cassette scaled up. I'd be prepared to bulk-load if a good range of emulsions was on tap. Using 120 is like waiting for the lights to be turned out.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Using 120 is like waiting for the lights to be turned out.

I presume you're referring to the "interesting" experience of loading and unloading 120 in less than dim conditions.

 

[Martin Reed]

Hasselblad 70mm backs no longer on their site, but there's a Mamiya 70mm currently offering;

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33827-REG/Mamiya_214_604_Film_Back_70mm_for.html

Opinions as to practicality of the format vary (to put it mildly);

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Mnow

I'll check out some material manufacturers tomorrow.

 

[wogster]

Medium format sales are essentially dead. We are lucky to have any MF film at all. As much as I would like to see Ektar 100 produced in MF, it just ain't gonna happen.

I sometimes wonder if either people here are very cynical, or don't really like film at all, and knock it at every opportunity. With the folks here as friends, film doesn't need enemies. :rolleyes:

I expect that along with a film renaissance over the next 5-10 years, there will be a renaissance of medium format shortly there after. Where the medium format manufacturers made their mistake, was to make digital backs for medium format cameras so far out of touch with reality in regards to cost. If a MF digital back was say $3,000 instead of $30,000 then a lot of pros using MF cameras who switched to smaller DSLRs, would have simply purchased a digital back, and continued on. Of course they would still keep their film backs and probably use some film as well.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Hasselblad 70mm backs no longer on their site, but there's a Mamiya 70mm currently offering;

Both need perforated film. Even less common then plain old 70mm. Cans aren't that common. Bulk loaders are even rarer. No you can't have mine. I haven't checked lately but 70mm Alden bulk loaders have sold for more then $200 on Ebay.

To comment on the thread. Half the threads seem to be people whining about no 25 ISO films. Half about 400 ISO films? 100/160 ISO films work pretty well outdoors for small format cameras. Inside use a flash

 

[sbelyaev]

These are an image and a fragment of it under about 60x magnification.
Not bad at all.

http://flickr.com/photos/90094587@N00/3107243265/sizes/l/

http://flickr.com/photos/90094587@N00/3106458974/sizes/l/

 

[Stock Dektol]

CVS processing is really the dumps. I haven't worked up the courage to try right aid yet. EVERY roll that I had processed at a drug store no matter the location has come back scratched or damaged in some way.

 

[Shelley-Ann]

I get my stuff developed at my local drug store, but I think I'll get my second roll of ektar developed at a 'proper' film developer this time. My first roll didn't turn out that well.

 

[donbga]

I sometimes wonder if either people here are very cynical, or don't really like film at all, and knock it at every opportunity. With the folks here as friends, film doesn't need enemies. :rolleyes:

What I said doesn't mean I'm an enemy of film. Why would I keep buying 120 cameras and film if that were true? I'm just cognizant of the fact that 120/220 film is on the wane. Intelectual honesty is better than denial, IMO.

Listen to what Ctein has to say about 120 film in his interview on Inside Analog Photo Radio:

Dead Link Removed

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What I said doesn't mean I'm an enemy of film. Why would I keep buying 120 cameras and film if that were true? I'm just cognizant of the fact that 120/220 film is on the wane. Intelectual honesty is better than denial, IMO.

Listen to what Ctein has to say about 120 film in his interview on Inside Analog Photo Radio:

Dead Link Removed

Film, especially 120/220, earnestly needs friends. But some film definitely is waning. I am able to buy 4x5 film picking it straight out of the 'frij', but need to ask for 120/220 and get a "...we can order it in for you...". There are heaps and heaps of photographers who love that format so I do wonder what happens when it is gone. Do they go to digital? (the stated $30,000 cost of a digital back is truly horrifying: how would you recoup that cost??). On the demise of all film, do we!?

 

[wogster]

What I said doesn't mean I'm an enemy of film. Why would I keep buying 120 cameras and film if that were true? I'm just cognizant of the fact that 120/220 film is on the wane. Intelectual honesty is better than denial, IMO.

Listen to what Ctein has to say about 120 film in his interview on Inside Analog Photo Radio:

Dead Link Removed

Okay, Ctein is talking in the background, Gotta love Firefox on Linux, can do 57 things at once, without getting stuck.

I agree with him on a few points, one is that for a lot of photographers there is the "new toy" factor on digital. Lots of photographers have that new digital toy, in a few years they will go back to the old Mamiya, Bronica or Hassy and start taking "real" photographs again.

I also agree with him, that film will still be around in 20 years, they may be different films from today, made from different companies. I expect that Eastern Europe will save 120/220, because there are people in places like Bucharest, Warsaw and Budapest who could afford a used Hassy 20 years ago, but can't afford an equivalent digital camera now, when it's 5 years worth of gross income.

 

[keithwms]

I want to see this film compared to 160VC, 160C, Reala, Superia 100, Superia 200, Gold 100, and Gold 200.

Me too. And pro S and maybe astia.

This thread is about a new ektar film, isn't it? :rolleyes:

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My quick take based on one roll is that the new Ektar 100 is finer grained than Portra 160NC and more saturated than Portra 160VC. Personally, I prefer the palette of 160NC and VC to Ektar 100, based on what I've seen so far in my own tests and the examples posted elsewhere, though the grain of Ektar is impressive.

 

[Jacko1729]

After reading through this thread, I almost feel bad for praising this 'new' Ektar film. Well, maybe I really do feel bad because I'm a dolt and I've been hoodwinked by Kodak. Anyway, it's new to *me* and it's far superior to any film I've shot thus far, as it regards grain and such (speaking from a 35mm perspective). Just comparing it to the films I used 20 and 30 years ago, well, I guess that was the amazing part, I was pretty much stunned at the difference. With that said, the difference in quality from 30 year old Ektachrome vs todays Ektachrome is just about as stunning. Sorry to sound so gushy, maybe it's just due to my own film 'renaissance' and I'm a bit excited

 

[pelerin]

With any technology where there has been a significant technological change, the same scenario plays out 99% of the market converts over a relatively short period, the absolute death of the old technology is forecast as a sure and guaranteed bet. For a small but significant part of the market of the market the honeymoon with the new technology ends, and these people return to the older technology.

That's an interesting thesis. I would be interested to see what examples you might give to show that this is normative.

It's happened in photography before, the transition from black and white to colour. Lots of people transitioned then a bunch transitioned back, because they liked the results better.

I certainly don't have market numbers at my finger tips and I think it would take a significant wager to make digging them up worthwhile... but exactly what period in time are you conjecturing about? Given that B+W once represented 100% of the market, what "significant part of the market" returned to B+W film (and when)?

There will never be the kind of growth there was in film, between 1900 and 1990, but there should be a reasonably sized sustainable market once things even out. I think we are in the backlash period now, heck I am one of them, got totally out of film a few years ago, couldn't get enough for the film cameras, so put them in a back closet, now digging them out and getting at least partly back in. Will I shoot as much film as I did back in the day, probably not, I still expect to shoot about half as d*****l, 80% of the remainder as black and white, and the remainder as colour, might even try E6 again. Been looking at old negatives and old slides, and the slides seem to have faired a lot better. I used to shoot about 20 rolls a year, which means about 10 rolls worth of d*****l, 8 rolls of black and white, and a couple of rolls of colour film.

Welcome back to the wet side. In my line of work it is not uncommon for several people to mention to me in a a day that they miss the darkroom. I always tell them that we will welcome them back, no questions asked. This always elicits the same kind of circular hem-haw that your get from folks when you mention to them the perils of eating fatty snacks. I hope your guess about a "a reasonably sized sustainable market" proves true (my livelyhood depends on it). I do wonder though, having witnessed the slide, what size and shape that market will take. I can think of many examples of artists / artisans keeping crafts alive that are sustainable at the DIY and cottage industry level. I would like to see some concrete evidence of the market reviving outmoded technologies that depended on industrialized manufacture for their existence.
Celac