Kodak films direct from Eastman Kodak (was: Kodacolor 100. New)

[Alan Edward Klein]

My theory...

Alaris wanted to get rid of Pro Image 100 and ColorPlus 200 and that opened the door for EK.

Alaris never was too keen on those two films. ColorPlus was the film that probably had the longest supply issues back when EK was generally struggling to meet demand for film. Pro Image 100 was never made available in single boxes (5-packs only). I think that Alaris established that there is not enough market/price differentiation between ColorPlus 200 and Gold 200 and decided to streamline their film range with Gold and Ultramax as their only consumer films (with probably slightly higher price since they wouldn't be cannibalised by Pro Image and ColorPlus anymore).

I can't shake the feeling that the introduction of Kodacolor 100/200 is a result of tension between KA and EK. The former chasing the highest margins and the latter also needs to look at growing the volume (especially after upgrades to their film production lines).

Lets hope EK can capitalise on this and that someday they can also market their pro line directly again. Sadly, I won't contribute much since I really don't like ColorPlus 200 and Pro Image 100 and Kodakcolor 100 will probably be something very similar if not the same.

I believe that tension resulted in better cooperation. The new owners of Alaris, an American firm located in California, no longer have to deal with British retirees from Alaris concerned about their pensions.. They can focus on expanding profits and work directly with Eastman, another American firm located in New York. I believe Alaris has offices feet from Eastman in Rochester, New York, Eastman's original facilities. They can make it a win-win relationship making themselves more competitive in the market.

Color Plus had the biggest backlog because it was one of the most popular films. I think Gold and Color Plus are 1st and 2nd best sellers, I seem to recall reading. I don't think that Alaris would have chosen Color Plus as one to drop, especially if EK were going to distribute a similar or identical film themselves at a similar price. Joe Public in Wal-Mart or wherever won't even be aware of Kodak-Alaris and will just see the familiar Kodak logo on a cheap 200ISO colour film and think "cool, that's what I want."

Exactly. The $9 price is terrific for Joe Public. It puts a dent in other manufacturers' plans to compete with Kodak color film with lower prices. Meanwhile the rest of us "experts" can buy their pro film at higher prices.

 

[mshchem]

They are all just trying to survive. Good to see a familiar brand. Looks to be good product.

If I had a wish it would be bring back the pre-paid processing mailer with the film. Labs in LA, Chicago and Rochester, maybe Toronto and Vancouver.

For $24.95 USD, experience the complete retro 70's experience, get back negatives, 2x3 glossy prints and scans (online)

Kids don't know what they are missing.

 

[MattKing]

Gone?! Were they ever listed? On which page?

I don't remember ColorPlus 200 or Pro Image 100 having a place on Kodak Alaris web pages, ever. Do you have a link to such page (on https://web.archive.org)?

FWIW, if the Kodak Alaris websites resemble the Eastman Kodak websites, the content one sees will or will have varied depending on the geographic market one views it from. So it may have been the case that ColorPlus 200 or Pro Image 100 will have been seen by some, and not by others.
The Kodak Alaris site referencing film has changed its name for me. So revamps have apparently been happening.

 

[BrianShaw]

They are all just trying to survive. Good to see a familiar brand. Looks to be good product.

If I had a wish it would be bring back the pre-paid processing mailer with the film. Labs in LA, Chicago and Rochester, maybe Toronto and Vancouver.

For $24.95 USD, experience the complete retro 70's experience, get back negatives, 2x3 glossy prints and scans (online)

Kids don't know what they are missing.

One can still get that experience at The Darkroom in San Clemente, CA. Although prepaid is via credit card or PayPal separate from the film purchase. Very minor difference.

 

[xtol121]

@MattKing i can confirm that the new kodacolor is on the same thin estar base as kodak gold and others.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks.

 

[RafLopes]

Here is the contact sheet I generated for both Kodacolor 100 and 200, side by side. I shot these under the same light condition, with the same camera and lens, and same shutter speed (mostly 1/250 sec. for everything), I just changed the f-stop. I developed them together in the same paterson tank, with fresh CineStill C41 chemicals, scanned with the same equipment, and used the same Negative Lab Pro preset for all the photos (with very minor exposure correction for some shots).

My conclusion is that the 100 seems more tungsten based than the 200. The entire third row (and half of the 4th) of the Kodacolor 200 was entirely shot inside a restaurant (tungsten), and it got very warm/hot/orange colors. The blue sky on the Kodacolor 100 is for sure has less saturation than the Kodacolor 200. The gray color on the sidewalk is also for sure less orange in the Kodacolor 100. I kinda like the 100 better, it looks less saturated.

 

[RafLopes]

Can you advise @RafLopes whether the film is on acetate substrate or Estar substrate?

And welcome as well.

I don't know. I will research on how to discover this and reply any soon!

 

[braxus]

My rolls of Kodacolor 100 are coming either tomorrow or Tuesday. I have a roll of ProImage 100 waiting to compare to, as I will shoot both rolls side by side. I also have some 2010 version 7 of Gold 100 to also shoot with the other two, so when I can afford it, I'll later get it developed and compare against the other two. I plan to scan them at home at 10000 dpi on my Primefilm XAs scanner, so I can compare them. I will hopefully have a video up late this week or next with my results. Gold 100 was my most favorite C41 film, but I dont think Kodacolor 100 is it.

 

[mshchem]

One can still get that experience at The Darkroom in San Clemente, CA. Although prepaid is via credit card or PayPal separate from the film purchase. Very minor difference.

So what's the postage? Used to be 2 1st class stamps to mail a Kodak mailer. Of course there's no postboxs anymore because of all the psychos.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know. I will research on how to discover this and reply any soon!

Thanks @RafLopes , but @xtol121 answered the question a few posts higher in the thread.
FYI, the acetate base is relatively easy to tear just using your fingers, whereas the polyester/Estar base is very difficult to tear.

 

[koraks]

My conclusion is that the 100 seems more tungsten based than the 200.

W.r.t. comparing color balance, there's a simple test you could do that will tell a more accurate story. Place a strip of both films side by side on a flatbed scanner or photograph them together with a digital camera (whatever you did to make those 'contact sheets'). Then invert and color balance them manually in Photoshop/GIMP etc. It's important to keep both strips within the same file/image so that all color adjustments are applied in exactly the same way to both strips. Tools like NLP do some 'automagic' in a black-box fashion, and you can't really rely on color balance adjustments to be done in exactly the same way even if you use the exact same settings.

I would also appreciate it greatly if you could post that un-inverted, 'raw' negative scan of both film strips here on the forum or on your blog, so people can play with it at home. I know I'm asking a lot here, but me and many others would greatly appreciate it!

For the comparison I'd pick two strips that are shot really under the exact same conditions if possible and feature the same subject matter. IDK if you've got something like that.

Btw, is it correct that you shot the Kodacolor 200 roll at a later time of day than the Kodacolor 100? This can also account for significant color balance differences.

To cut a long story short, I'm still undecided/unconvinced about the real color balance differences between these films. Sorry to be so skeptical/critical!

 

[RafLopes]

W.r.t. comparing color balance, there's a simple test you could do that will tell a more accurate story. Place a strip of both films side by side on a flatbed scanner or photograph them together with a digital camera (whatever you did to make those 'contact sheets'). Then invert and color balance them manually in Photoshop/GIMP etc. It's important to keep both strips within the same file/image so that all color adjustments are applied in exactly the same way to both strips. Tools like NLP do some 'automagic' in a black-box fashion, and you can't really rely on color balance adjustments to be done in exactly the same way even if you use the exact same settings.

I would also appreciate it greatly if you could post that un-inverted, 'raw' negative scan of both film strips here on the forum or on your blog, so people can play with it at home. I know I'm asking a lot here, but me and many others would greatly appreciate it!

For the comparison I'd pick two strips that are shot really under the exact same conditions if possible and feature the same subject matter. IDK if you've got something like that.

Btw, is it correct that you shot the Kodacolor 200 roll at a later time of day than the Kodacolor 100? This can also account for significant color balance differences.

To cut a long story short, I'm still undecided/unconvinced about the real color balance differences between these films. Sorry to be so skeptical/critical!

Yeah, that test make sense! I'll try it when I have some time. Work meetings are heavy this week

 

[koraks]

"Work is the curse of the drinking classes", LOL! No worries; if you have some time to spare at some point, it'd be cool to see a comparison. If not, don't lose any sleep over it!

 

[Daniël - Tech&Music]

I do believe ColorPlus specifically is marked as "KODAK 200-8" on the edge markings.
That could probably confirm Kodacolor 200's "real" identity, though I guess ColorPlus in reality was the "fake" identity, given neither Kodak ever bothered changing the cassettes' labeling, having them still carry the Kodacolor 200 branding.

Now, 100-8, that's interesting.
ProImage 100 is marked as "KODAK PRO 100", and I still get the sense it's an actually different, newer product/emulsion than ColorPlus, which always just was the old Kodacolor 200 sold as a budget film option.

 

[flavio81]

Whatever film is in, Kodacolor (VR) is reportedly the product contracted to Lomo and Color Plus 200 which also is rebranded as Kodacolor 200.

ColorPlus 200 has had "Kodacolor 200" branding on the 35mm cassette (though not the box) for a while now so it's likely the same as that.

Exactly, Colorplus 200 has said "Kodacolor 200" on the cassette for years and years...

The big news that is slipping past is Eastman Kodak is selling stills directly to distributors and consumers for the first time in over a decade.

THIS! This is the most important news!!

And I think it's more than over a decade...

 

[flavio81]

Now, 100-8, that's interesting.
ProImage 100 is marked as "KODAK PRO 100", and I still get the sense it's an actually different, newer product/emulsion than ColorPlus, which always just was the old Kodacolor 200 sold as a budget film option.

And, additionally, IMO you can readily identify PRO 100, it has a distinctive look, for example on the skin tones.

 

[flavio81]

Proimage looks grainer to my eyes though. Not much of a fan of the stuff to be honest. I've heard it needs more exposure. I'll give it a go at ISO50 next time.

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.

They already can - they have never been restrained from doing so.

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.

 

[flavio81]

My conclusion is that the 100 seems more tungsten based than the 200. The entire third row (and half of the 4th) of the Kodacolor 200 was entirely shot inside a restaurant (tungsten), and it got very warm/hot/orange colors. The blue sky on the Kodacolor 100 is for sure has less saturation than the Kodacolor 200.

View attachment 408859

"The blue sky on the Kodacolor 100 is for sure has less saturation than the Kodacolor 200."

I will place a bet here.

Kodacolor 100 = PRO IMAGE 100 or "Son of Pro Image 100"

The key is the lower saturation. You get better response in tungsten lighting simply because of the lower saturation. And yes, it looks slightly cooler too.

Never before a 100 speed film of the same family is less saturated than the 200 film of the same family, as far as I know. To my eyes, the 100 looks exactly like I remember Kodak's "Poor man's pro film" Pro Image 100.

I think the mystery is solved: Kodacolor 200 says "200-8" = Colorplus 200.

Kodacolor 100 says "100-8", yet looks like Pro Image 100.

 

[braxus]

I got my 3 rolls of Kodacolor 100 tonight. Too late and dark out to shoot it today, so Ill do so after work tomorrow. Its forecast to be sunny tomorrow, so I'll get good light. Fall leaves are starting to turn here too. I have my 3 rolls out to shoot tomorrow. 1 roll Of Gold 100 version 7 dated 2010, 1 roll of ProImage 100 bought this year, and one roll of the new Kodacolor 100. I tear tested all 3 rolls. Gold 100 is acetate and tore easily. The other two rolls would not tear, which tells me estar base. I should be able to get my first of two videos up this Sunday. First video I'll compare ProImage with Kodacolor 100. Second video I'll compare with Gold 100. Cant afford to do all 3 in one video, as Im still on a budget here. I will be using my Canon gear with three cameras and all 50mm primes.

 

[BrianShaw]

So what's the postage? Used to be 2 1st class stamps to mail a Kodak mailer. Of course there's no postboxs anymore because of all the psychos.

Free to send it in and about 6 bucks to get it back.

And I abhor the locked postboxes and the locked post office lobbies. Very inconvenient.

 

[foc]

I had a crazy thought while reading the Kodak 100 vs Pro image 100 speculation.

What if Kodak coated Kodacolor 200 with a neutral density layer and there by reducing exposure by one stop. (I remember PE mentioning something similar, on a different Kodak film, years ago)

Could that be the cause of the slightly less colour saturation in K100 compared to K200?

Idle misinformed speculation or what?

 

[brbo]

I had a crazy thought while reading the Kodak 100 vs Pro image 100 speculation.

What if Kodak coated Kodacolor 200 with a neutral density layer and there by reducing exposure by one stop. (I remember PE mentioning something similar, on a different Kodak film, years ago)

Could that be the cause of the slightly less colour saturation in K100 compared to K200?

Idle misinformed speculation or what?

So it's been determined that Kodacolor 100 and 200 have the same grain, but different speed?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Free to send it in and about 6 bucks to get it back.

And I abhor the locked postboxes and the locked post office lobbies. Very inconvenient.

My Post Office here in mid New Jersey keeps their doors open to the anteroom 24 hours a day so you can mail stuff. I think they do that because the room has the public mailboxes that people rent, so the doors are open for their access all the time.

 

[MattKing]

So it's been determined that Kodacolor 100 and 200 have the same grain, but different speed?

As I understand it, that was how the previous iteration of Kodacolor 100 and 200, ca. 2010, behaved.

I had a crazy thought while reading the Kodak 100 vs Pro image 100 speculation.

What if Kodak coated Kodacolor 200 with a neutral density layer and there by reducing exposure by one stop. (I remember PE mentioning something similar, on a different Kodak film, years ago)

Could that be the cause of the slightly less colour saturation in K100 compared to K200?

Idle misinformed speculation or what?

Probably not a neutral density layer, but rather a component adjustment that cut the speed of the 200 emulsion so as to end up with a 100 ISO emulsion.