Kodak Portra 800 and ColorPlus 200 now on polyester base

[Brad Deputy]

My local photography shop just received a shipment of ColorPlus 200. Picked up a roll; expiration 06/2024.
The film is soooo thin! The rolls have that 80s/90's look in style, and labeled as Kodacolor 200 (no Colorplus wording anywhere).
Being my first use of Colorplus, I can't make any comparisons but I'm sure it'll look good.

Speaking of this estar base strength and camera mechanicals, I'm unsure if a still photo camera even has the motor strength to harm itself. I figure, if the film jams, the motor just hangs up. Like when it gets to the end of roll and it can't advance. With manual advance, just take it easy as usual, and shoudn't notice a thing. I wish more still frame films used polyester base.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I'm unsure if a still photo camera even has the motor strength to harm itself. I figure, if the film jams, the motor just hangs up.

That's what it's supposed to do.

I have from time to time mis-loaded 35mm film and shredded the sprocket holes with a manual wind camera. If I were ham fisted enough with polyester film I would have stripped the gears, thus saving the holes. A motor driven camera should not have enough torque in the motor to strip gears.

 

[AgX]

If I were ham fisted enough with polyester film I would have stripped the gears, thus saving the holes.

But did such ever happen?

-) PET based type 135 films have been widely on the market for over 15 years by Maco (aside of 72exposure thin-base film from Ilford from much earlier) and I do not remember a single report here of a camera having been broken to such films.
However Ilford say so:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...dwaynes-refusal-to-process.67884/#post-958097

 

[halfaman]

Kodak uses PET also in all Lomography Color films.

 

[brbo]

Kodak uses PET also in all Lomography Color films.

Does it now? I bought Lomo CN 100 and 800 at the same time (with roughly the same exp. date) and only 800 was on Estar.

 

[halfaman]

Does it now? I bought Lomo CN 100 and 800 at the same time (with roughly the same exp. date) and only 800 was on Estar.

It was an assumption, Lomo 100 is the only I haven't try yet even I have a 3-roll pack. I would check. By the way, I din't metion that I was referring to 120 roll format.

 

[foc]

I remember when I had my minilab, we always removed the polyester based film from their 35mm cassette and load them into a dark cassette.
In the dark box, we cut the film from the spool with a scissors. Ordinary film could just be torn off the spool.
If the film was not removed it had the potential to not be cut by the auto cut blades and because the film is so strong it could tear leader card sprocket holes and damage the drive belts.

 

[AgX]

A interesting point I had not heard of yet*, even when PET CN in 135 was offered in the past.

But Kodak Alaris, Lomography are now just offering PET based film to a clientele that typically takes/sends it out for processing, which of course includes minilab-machines too.



*aside of the Labbox

 

[Agulliver]

Hasn't Color Plus always had "Kodacolor" printed on the cassette? The box says Color Plus but the cassette still says Kodacolor.

My local mini-lab operator as had some of the new films in and she was a bit concerned, but all have been processed successfully.

 

[Arcadia4]

Hasn't Color Plus always had "Kodacolor" printed on the cassette? The box says Color Plus but the cassette still says Kodacolor.

My local mini-lab operator as had some of the new films in and she was a bit concerned, but all have been processed successfully.

Yes it has, explains the origins.

Kodak Camera Film

Kodak

www.photomemorabilia.co.uk

 

[DREW WILEY]

Kodak makes their own polyester base, whereas they appear to buy acetate base from someone else. So there might also be a financial incentive involved, along with the greater production efficiency of broader standardization. Someone should simply ask them.

Light piping has nothing to do with the choice of base per se, which can be appropriately colored or coated in either case. Piping was more a problem with cheaper Eastern European roll films when those were around. But none of these should be loaded in direct bright light. That's just common sense.

 

[AgX]

Light piping has nothing to do with the choice of base per se, which can be appropriately colored or coated in either case. Piping was more a problem with cheaper Eastern European roll films when those were around. But none of these should be loaded in direct bright light. That's just common sense.

I repeatedly referred to the former. And also repetedly explained that the latter was/is done by purpose as for the intended use a undyed base is benefitial, moreover a dyed one not even needed.

Dyed PET based film was manufactured in great amount too.

 

[sillo]

Colorplus is now more expensive than Portra @ $17/roll...

 

[Brad Deputy]

Kodak ColorPlus 200 (35mm) 36 Exp.

Kodak ColorPlus 200 is a versatile medium-speed daylight-balanced color negative film, characterized by its fine grain structure, high sharpness, and rich color saturation. It has a nominal sensitivity of ISO 200/24° along with a wide exposure latitude for exposing up to two stops under or three...

kamerastore.com

$10 each, with the euro conversion of almost 1:1. Buy enough to make the shipping worth it (and it's not terrible)
Alas, they are sold out now...

There's another camera store in FInland that has it for $7.50 each, but the web page is not english and I couldn't get far enough klutzing around with the google translator to find out if they even shipped to the US.

$15 each at my local camera store.

 

[ArthurDodger]

I know this may have been asked before, but I can't find the answer. Ilford stated that 135 Polyester Base would damage cameras in 2009 ish. BUT I have not seen any evidence of Breakage, actual or anecdotal on forums I have searched. I know the hypothesis of Ilford's case... I Just don't know if it actually happens in the real world. With Kodak (Portra 800 135 and ColorPlus 200) now on Estar, maybe even a year or longer... Does anyone have any data or examples of broken cameras?

 

[Brad Deputy]

I fail to see how a motorized camera could possibly damage itself. A mechanical camera would be extremely difficult to damage unless you are being intentional. I think Ilford was erring on the conservative side. Whatever's cheapest, they should just use it, especially if it can keep prices down.

 

[sillo]

Can't say I have. I've shot a good amount of portra 800, lomo 800 and colorplus in manual and automatic cameras (M4-P, L35AF, F100, FE2) and haven't experienced any issues.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know this may have been asked before, but I can't find the answer. Ilford stated that 135 Polyester Base would damage cameras in 2009 ish. BUT I have not seen any evidence of Breakage, actual or anecdotal on forums I have searched. I know the hypothesis of Ilford's case... I Just don't know if it actually happens in the real world. With Kodak (Portra 800 135 and ColorPlus 200) now on Estar, maybe even a year or longer... Does anyone have any data or examples of broken cameras?

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[MattKing]

The camera manufacturers and camera repairers the film manufacturers used to communicate a lot about issues of common interest. If Ilford has said that the PET films increased the likelihood of damage to cameras, it is through those discussions that they would have become aware of the problems.
Kodak would have also participated in similar discussions, but they also would have had direct experience, due to their movie camera line.
It worked the other way with acetate films. Cameras with film transport problems caused damage to film. So if a customer's film came back to them with tears, it was usually due to a transport or loading problem.

 

[ArthurDodger]

The camera manufacturers and camera repairers the film manufacturers used to communicate a lot about issues of common interest. If Ilford has said that the PET films increased the likelihood of damage to cameras, it is through those discussions that they would have become aware of the problems.
Kodak would have also participated in similar discussions, but they also would have had direct experience, due to their movie camera line.
It worked the other way with acetate films. Cameras with film transport problems caused damage to film. So if a customer's film came back to them with tears, it was usually due to a transport or loading problem.

Agree and the Ilford PET Statements are over 10 years old now. I don't think Kodak would have two major platforms out there on ESTAR if there were problems... But it is nice to have data if it exists. I would say PET is better for film long term because it is cheaper and also greener. (You don't need to dissolve ground up animal bones in Acid! LOL)

 

[Henning Serger]

I know this may have been asked before, but I can't find the answer. Ilford stated that 135 Polyester Base would damage cameras in 2009 ish. BUT I have not seen any evidence of Breakage, actual or anecdotal on forums I have searched. I know the hypothesis of Ilford's case... I Just don't know if it actually happens in the real world. With Kodak (Portra 800 135 and ColorPlus 200) now on Estar, maybe even a year or longer... Does anyone have any data or examples of broken cameras?

Arthur, on our Ilford factory tour in Mobberley Simon Galley explained Ilford's policy to stay with triacetate for 135 film:
Some decades ago they introduced Ilford HP5 "Autowinder" film with 72 exposures. To get this length into a standard 135 cassette 100 micron thick PET base was used (instead of 135 micron triacetate).
It was a film mainly intended for the professional newspaper / photojournalist and sports photographer market. And at that time the first motorwinders become also more popular.
But in some cases problems with these "first generation" motor winders occur, as they did not stop when the resistance might be too big. And that lead to damaged winders.
That was then the reason why Ilford discontinued that film quite shortly after its introduction.

Later generation winders have been significantly improved: The "resistance" of film advance is controlled, and when it surpasses a certain (critical) level, the motor stops. And no damage can occur.
I've used PET base films in the following motorized cameras: Nikon F90X, F80, F100, F5 and F6. I've never had a film transport problem with PET base film.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[cmacd123]

I would say PET is better for film long term because it is cheaper and also greener. (You don't need to dissolve ground up animal bones in Acid! LOL)

actually Acetate film uses Cellulose (Wood Sugar) derived from Wood Pulp or other plant material.

Polyester is derived from Petroleum.

BOTH types of base take a photographic emulsion, which contains Gelatin derived from Bones or Hides.

as per the "more modern Equipment", Many of the Cameras I use are older than the 72 exposure HP5 Rolls. On the movie side, Celulose based films are Normally the standard for use in a camera, while polyester is often used for "Lab Films" (sound - intermediate and so on) which are used under controlled conditions.

 

[JParker]

In my Nikon F100 with its integrated motor winder I have so far used more than 100 films with PET base, films from Agfa (Aviphot Pan), Adox and meanwhile these two Kodak - ColorPlus 200 and Portra 800.
Absolutely no problems.

 

[brbo]

Kodak Gold 200 in 135 format is now on Estar too.

 

[real_liiva]

I would be worried about light piping and slightly increased halation