Kodak Portra 800 and ColorPlus 200 now on polyester base

[Kino]

No matter the base, it has been my experience that the emulsion goes bad and takes the base with it.

Here is a sample of 1946 Dupont Nitrate Original Camera Negative film that was inter-cut with Eastman Dupe Negative stock of the same vintage (for opticals). I was able to pry it apart and wash the decaying emulsion off of the base in spots to stabilize the sections for copying. The image was gone on those spots anyway, so it mattered not that I took the emulsion off, but the base below it was usually in good enough shape to repair and run on a scanner or printer.

Nitrate rot has the lovely smell of chlorine bleach and rotting flesh, so imagine the fun seen here!

 

[AgX]

No matter the base, it is usually the emulsion that goes bad and takes the base with it.

There are basically 2 deteriorations of film.
-) base
-) emulsion

The typical deterioration starting at the emulsion is caused by wetness, chemicals in the air, small animals and microorganisms. Such deterioration does not affect the base.

The typical deterioration starting at the base are molecular disintegration of NC and TAC base. Such disintegration can affect te emulsion, aside of when the base is gone the emulsion has typically disintegrated too (though in early stages the emulsion may be safed.

 

[Kino]

There are basically 2 deteriorations of film.
-) base
-) emulsion

The typical deterioration starting at the emulsion is caused by wetness, chemicals in the air, small animals and microorganisms. Such deterioration does not affect the base.

The typical deterioration starting at the base are molecular disintegration of NC and TAC base. Such disintegration can affect te emulsion, aside of when the base is gone the emulsion has typically disintegrated too (though in early stages the emulsion may be safed.

There; I edited it to be more precise.

Sorry, your quote is different now.

 

[George Mann]

I like ColorPlus. But if there is a danger of the current product damaging cameras such as my Nikon F90x, or my Pentax Espio P&S, I will have to stick with Fujicolor 200.

 

[Prest_400]

I wondered why still films made by the big players were still in TAC. I get the disadvantages for motor cameras in 35mm, but that does not happen in 120.
Interesting that they converted these two films, let's see if the rest of Portras, Ektar and the BW line follows suit.
At least archive wise, I think Estar is great for BW. The smaller mfgs (Adox, Foma, Agfa-Maco) have this base.

 

[brbo]

Lomography Color Negative 800 (Kodak Max 800) is now obviously also on Estar base. Lomography CN 100 bought at the same time is still on acetate base.

 

[braxus]

I heard a rumour that Color Plus 200 was being discontinued, for reasons anyone could guess. Any truth to this?

 

[Agulliver]

I heard a rumour that Color Plus 200 was being discontinued, for reasons anyone could guess. Any truth to this?

All I know is that in another thread on Photrio someone stated that Kodak had announced that Color Plus would be discontinued, but after several posters asked for more info none was forthcoming and a couple of highly respected posters said it wasn't true.

It would seem a strange product to discontinue as it's the most popular C41 film there is. Unless they cannot make it any cheaper than Gold 200, in which case they might rationalise the range to only offer the latter. Which would disappoint me greatly but I'm just one person.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It would seem a strange product to discontinue as it's the most popular C41 film there is.

It may be more to do with where it's coated (China) & getting some components there & product out in the current situation.

 

[brbo]

Kodak film being coated in China?!

 

[MattKing]

Kodak film being coated in China?!

It isn't happening.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kodak film being coated in China?!

At one time, some specific older generation amateur products were (and may still be for Lomography 100/400) from emulsions shipped from Rochester - absolutely none of the current top line professional or amateur products. What the situation with ColorPlus is, I'm not sure. It seems to be Kodacolor 200 (not Gold) and from recall the box doesn't have a lot to say - albeit there are older boxes from 2007-ish with different design that seem to state they were Chinese coated. Shanebrook says that 2008 was the end-point of Kodak using the Chinese plant to coat Kodacolor emulsions, yet it appears that Lomography had colour materials coated in China more recently using what seem to be old pre-Gold Kodacolor emulsions.

 

[Agulliver]

Kodak film hasn't been coated in China for years. Color Plus/Kodacolor boxes used to say "Made in China" some years ago but has said "Made in USA" for the last decade or thereabouts.

Another poster in another thread did say that Kodak announced the end of Color Plus but no such press release can be found and the most respected posters in that thread said it wasn't true.

There *are* serious supply problems with Color Plus, in part because Kodak priorities Portra, Ektar and Ektachrome to keep the professionals happy. Supplies of Gold and Color Plus are more sporadic. Lengthy periods with no Color Plus around leads to rumours, I guess. Until I hear something from Kodak or someone like Henning I won't jump to the conclusion that Color Plus is gone.

The Lomography 100, 400 and 800 are curious. I don't think anyone has fully tested them but they are very like older Kodacolor films in how they look. They're available in 35mm and 120 which is also interesting. The 800 is probably Kodak Max 800, but the 100 and 400 really are like 90s Kodacolor - and for that I like them. As usual, Lomography aren't very forthcoming about where they're coated, or who by. Could be Kodak in NY, could be China...I must examine the box of Lomography 400 I bought last month for any info.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kodak film hasn't been coated in China for years. Color Plus/Kodacolor boxes used to say "Made in China" some years ago but has said "Made in USA" for the last decade or thereabouts.

Another poster in another thread did say that Kodak announced the end of Color Plus but no such press release can be found and the most respected posters in that thread said it wasn't true.

There *are* serious supply problems with Color Plus, in part because Kodak priorities Portra, Ektar and Ektachrome to keep the professionals happy. Supplies of Gold and Color Plus are more sporadic. Lengthy periods with no Color Plus around leads to rumours, I guess. Until I hear something from Kodak or someone like Henning I won't jump to the conclusion that Color Plus is gone.

The Lomography 100, 400 and 800 are curious. I don't think anyone has fully tested them but they are very like older Kodacolor films in how they look. They're available in 35mm and 120 which is also interesting. The 800 is probably Kodak Max 800, but the 100 and 400 really are like 90s Kodacolor - and for that I like them. As usual, Lomography aren't very forthcoming about where they're coated, or who by. Could be Kodak in NY, could be China...I must examine the box of Lomography 400 I bought last month for any info.

One other market segmentation aspect that may be playing a part is the substrate quality - i.e. the professional materials need the highest grades of triacetate & Estar, but the cheaper materials seem to have used less stringently controlled materials - and that the price-point differential between 'cheap' and 'premium' may be creeping closer to premium for everything right now. Things like ProImage are (from what I can tell from Shanebrook) essentially more tightly selected/ controlled amateur emulsions coated on professional substrates. Going by the listing of emulsions in 'Making Kodak Film', Lomo 100, ColorPlus 200 (in 2009 there was also apparently a ColourPlus 100) and Lomo 400 might be the same late-90s VR-G (different to the earlier VR-G Kodacolors) family - essentially the non-Gold product line - the Gold line seems to be ProImage 100 (likely Gold 100 on professional substrate etc), Gold 200 and UltraMax 400 & 800. Spooling capacity is probably still the limiting factor overall - which is probably in the order of 6-10,000 rolls/ day of 135.

 

[tbeaman]

I wondered why still films made by the big players were still in TAC. I get the disadvantages for motor cameras in 35mm, but that does not happen in 120.
Interesting that they converted these two films, let's see if the rest of Portras, Ektar and the BW line follows suit.
At least archive wise, I think Estar is great for BW. The smaller mfgs (Adox, Foma, Agfa-Maco) have this base.

I always wondered that too. My guess is that acetate was cheaper or at least more economical with regards to production/scale.

 

[MattKing]

The acetate base is far more forgiving if used in cameras that aren't completely in alignment - such as film point-and-shoot and box cameras. And it is not a trivial matter to re-design film for an Estar base.
I don't know if the same sprocket cutting machines can be used for acetate and Estar base. That too may be part of the confectioning bottleneck.

 

[Arcadia4]

Maco had deliveries of colorplus In the last month. So its still recent manufacture. The issue is supply has yet to catch-up with demand and restocking after any shortage / stock out always takes longer as people tend to initially over purchase.

Proimage is stated as an ei 100 film in the small print. So the ‘100’ is a bit of a false friend. However its Gold v6 1997 era rather than current v7, 2007. Personally its a favourite but stock seemed to run out around feb/march and its unobtainable at the moment.

 

[AgX]

One other market segmentation aspect that may be playing a part is the substrate quality - i.e. the professional materials need the highest grades of triacetate & Estar, but the cheaper materials seem to have used less stringently controlled materials -

What do mean by "seem"? Hearsay, own experience?

 

[AgX]

I always wondered that too. My guess is that acetate was cheaper or at least more economical with regards to production/scale.

Many decades ago PET was more expensive than TAC, but by now it is a ubiquous material.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What do mean by "seem"? Hearsay, own experience?

I was qualifying my answer in case I had read Bob Shanebrook's comments in his book wrongly. He notes that professional Ektachrome was the most demanding product in terms of TAC base.

The likely differences will be in terms of transparency, texture, lack of colour - or accuracy if dyed. The other key comment from 'Making Kodak Film' is that the professional TAC C-41 base allowed for better enlargeability than the amateur one - hence certain materials like ProImage 100 using selected amateur emulsions on professional substrates.

 

[AgX]

Thank you. I overread your hint at Shanebrook. I have no hint whatsoever at such policy applied in Europe.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have no hint whatsoever at such policy applied in Europe.

It almost certainly will have done & likely continues to do so. It's something so arcane (and likely confidential) that it's highly unlikely to have been mentioned in publications aimed at the general reader outside of industry R&D/ manufacturing.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Proimage is stated as an ei 100 film in the small print. So the ‘100’ is a bit of a false friend. However its Gold v6 1997 era rather than current v7, 2007.

Overall both are perhaps a little faster than 100 - which would not be a surprise, given what the original design aims probably were. Do you have access to independent Status M densitometry that confirms things haven't changed with Pro Image 100 since the copy of E-4L that floats around the web was released in 1997, or are you basing your assumptions off that document?

 

[AgX]

It almost certainly will have done & likely continues to do so. It's something so arcane (and likely confidential) that it's highly unlikely to have been mentioned in publications aimed at the general reader outside of industry R&D/ manufacturing.

Well, I am not the general reader.

 

[braxus]

I really dont think ProImage 100 is Gold 100 version 6. It has the same PGI number as such, but the color saturation is less on Pro Image film then Gold. Not only that, but both films were made at the same time at one point, and Kodak doesn't double label one film as two different stocks. Gold 100's color is way stronger, while Pro Image is in the middle for saturation. But I have stock of both of these films, so I could test this if I wanted to.

Lomo 100 and 400 were Kodak VR Plus film, based off the VR film from the 80s. Its is not a Gold variant, as the color saturation is way stronger on Gold.