Kodak price increase, and reduction, for 2025

[Film-Niko]

That would be a nice development, but personally I see Fuji as an extremely reluctant participant in film production and wouldn't be surprised if they totally drop out of the market at any time, with short notice. I would hate to see this, but would not be surprised...

It is just the opposite: Fuji is currently updating and modernising their film production (mainly instax) with an investment of another 30 million Dollars (official statement by Fujifilm from end of 2023; the technology implementation of that huge investment is planned to be finished in summer this year).
Fujifilm is the biggest producer of photographic still film worldwide: They are alone selling about double the amount of instax film compared to Kodak selling photo film.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Solid points @koraks - I could just focus on what I like and what works for me instead of providing material for endless fights and hair splitting

I guess it's nice being validated and often some valuable knowledge is gained from some testing - regardless the result, so I don't shy away from tests. But you convinced me that such a test would just waste my time, patience, resources and at the end of it all - be of no use. Because people who haven't touched/projected slides for decades or haven't projected any good Aviphot slide with any decent projection lens will still find something to complain about!

 

[brbo]

Frankly, I don't get this whole discussion about which film is (supposedly) technically superior, given the fact that the differences in objective quality are marginal at best...

But, the premise is that E100 is totally inadequate for some purposes (like for people that project their slides).

 

[Ivo Stunga]

But, the premise is that E100 is totally inadequate for some purposes (like for people that project their slides).

That's my finding, yes. Consuming a healthy amount of Fomapan R 100 (10x 135/36 rolls and 2 bulk rolls), I've come to conclusion to avoid R100 as there are more potent films out there and cheaper.
Having spent money and shot 2x E100 135/36 cassettes and 7x respooled E100D cassettes - I've come to similar conclusion. So I currently avoid both films. Why pay Kodak prices for a mush?

Backstory: couple of years ago I decided to systematically shoot and to compare (eyeballing projection and scans - nothing more) most if not all films under the sun - inspired by The Naked Photographer film comparisons in studio and Attic Darkroom film abuse shenanigans.
So I have a decent amount of films under my belt - reversed. C-41 as BW slide too! And having run the course multiple times - I feel confident in my unscientific relative comparisons.

And thinking that sharing my results could provide some insights about how these films are projected or scanned reversed - I upload some examples on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/ivo_stunga/
Just press "Read more" and you'll have links to respective films reversed in PQ Universal, Ilford Reversal. And scanned with the same scanner - Plustek 7600i with Silverfast Ai.

Should work for relative comparisons/insights.

 

[Kino]

They are alone selling about double the amount of instax film compared to Kodak selling photo film.

I am speaking of traditional film products; not Instax .

Fuji may invest heavily in Instax production, but it doesn't seem interested in traditional film products.

 

[AnselMortensen]

In my perfect dream world, Fuji would give/sell the recipe for Velvia 50 in SHEET SIZES to EK (or whomever) to produce....since they don't seem interested in doing it themselves.
A properly exposed 8x10 Velvia chrome on a light table is a thing of absolute beauty.

 

[Agulliver]

I am speaking of traditional film products; not Instax .

Fuji may invest heavily in Instax production, but it doesn't seem interested in traditional film products.

While it looks that way, we don't know for sure. Fuji didn't successfully adapt for the smaller traditional film market in the way Kodak did. Of course Kodak has had to increase production somewhat. We don't know exactly what Fuji is doing, and while most of it seems aimed at Instax it could be that they're also investing in being capable of producing C41 film again, and in having a better supply of their E6 material.

There must be some reason why they've kept a market presence by having Kodak toll coat C41 films for them. If they wanted to exit that market, they could simply do so. One school of thought is that they intend to resume production of actual Fuji Film in the near-ish future.

But Fuji being Fuji....they won't tell us. And we simply have to accept that.

 

[Chuck_P]

It is not greed and never was greed. It is called paying ones bills to stay in business. The stress and aggravation inflicted on you is not personal.......................

Yes, it's simply the way the of the world in which we live. I've certainly experienced over the years the stress and aggravation that you mention. I say this after just having received the delivery of the single largest order of materials that I've ever made in my life totaling $2,200. The bulk being film and paper at 60% of it. I'm taking advantage of a present ability to try and get ahead of the curve, so to speak, primarily with my film supply. So it is concerning that one day, after purchasing a box at a time, I'll look up and the film I've come to know over the last 20 years is either so far out of reach or worse, no more. So I'm a bit better off, at the moment, to begin a bit of film hording, not as easy for me to horde paper. When I come down to maybe half or 1\4 left of that first box, I will purchase another box and stick it in line in the freezer, and then so on.....at least that's my plan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In my perfect dream world, Fuji would give/sell the recipe for Velvia 50 in SHEET SIZES to EK (or whomever) to produce....since they don't seem interested in doing it themselves.
A properly exposed 8x10 Velvia chrome on a light table is a thing of absolute beauty.

Yeah just after I started shooting 4x5, they discontinue Velvia 50 in that size. I got two boxes of it squirreled away in my freezer watching it;s value appreciate faster than gold.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah just after I started shooting 4x5, they discontinue Velvia 50 in that size. I got two boxes of it squirreled away in my freezer watching it;s value appreciate faster than gold.

Good to see that you are keeping the boxes of film from the hoarders.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, the days of a wide selection of chrome films to choose from is just plain gone; and it's likely to dwindle down more, especially in any size larger than 35mm. Fuji's ongoing commitment to sheet film is highly questionable, and 120 might go next. What I'm getting at is that it might be wise to learn how to optimize Kodak E100 for you own needs. It has very high predictable quality control, is PLENTY sharp and detail worthy, and decently saturated. It's easier to expose correctly than Velvia, more on a par with Provia in that respect.

Slightly different looks, color palette wise. E100 obviously has a bit cooler rendition than either Provia or Velvia (Kodak's "Daylight" standard is 5500K, whereas Fuji's seems to be around 5200). Slight color temp balancing tweaks using mild filters were once routine for serious chrome shooting; now it seems everyone has forgotten the implications of that.

E100 is actually better neutral balanced than extant Fuji chromes, so more of a mid-point to work with. Only the now discontinued Fuji Astia lineup had better neutral balance (plus their related CDU duplicating film line, which was basically tungsten-balanced Astia).

Subtle hue distinctions might be evident in a slide show. But in terms of printmaking, you're far more constrained by the limitations and idiosyncrasies of any given print medium itself than by the minor differences in these currently available chrome films themselves.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

What I'm getting at is that it might be wise to learn how to optimize Kodak E100 for you own needs.

And how exactly do you imagine to achieve that?
Feed it better lenses and put Leica branding on my Olympus? Say nice and warm things to it whilst it's getting shot with the same capturing equipment, goes through the same lab and same projection equipment that is constantly producing nice Fuji slides and excellent BW slides? No, really - how?

#humornotreally, because these are the limitations of said film at my use case. So I agree to the concept: use what's best for you and that's all. If it has to die, it has to die.

 

[DREW WILEY]

How? Damn easy if the lab is competent at all. If you don't like the cooler color balance, simply add a slight warming filter. If you're complaining about an alleged lack of sharpness during projection, I can only conclude that it has nothing to do with the film itself. I have far too much experience with both Fuji and Kodak chrome films to suspect otherwise.

I'm not trying to convert you to Ektachrome. If you prefer Fuji, stick with it. But how long it sticks around itself, well, that is anyone's guess at this point. Fuji rarely shows their hand.

 

[koraks]

I guess it's nice being validated and often some valuable knowledge is gained from some testing

Yeah, I can relate, don't get me wrong! Sometimes, letting go is a both harder and more productive in the end than biting into it. I now try to limit my testing to things I think will actually move me to where I want to go. Sounds obvious...

 

[Ivo Stunga]

How? Damn easy if the lab is competent at all. If you don't like the cooler color balance, simply add a slight warming filter.

Tried the filter, didn't like the effect on blues and greens - so a useless purchase of a rather nice filter...
Lab is competent enough to produce what's stated above and my slides from ~2009 haven't deteriorated a bit. So the lab must be OK after all! With E-6 they accumulate some films and soup only then in dip-dunk machine. Fuji slides come out better, we can agree to disagree - nothing will change in my workflow because of this.

Your observations Vs mine won't get us far, so I just keep shooting Fuji when I want me some color. That's all I have to say - happy shooting!

If I do said test in summer, I'll share my results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What SPECIFIC filter did you try? There are all kinds of them, and what proves ideal in one situation might not be in another. High altitude or high latitude UV performance can be tricky to precisely diagnose without specific testing; and E100 vs Fujichrome differ somewhat in that respect. Quality of the filters also factors, especially if you have critical sharpness in mind.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Tiffen 812

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How? Damn easy if the lab is competent at all. If you don't like the cooler color balance, simply add a slight warming filter. If you're complaining about an alleged lack of sharpness during projection, I can only conclude that it has nothing to do with the film itself. I have far too much experience with both Fuji and Kodak chrome films to suspect otherwise.

I'm not trying to convert you to Ektachrome. If you prefer Fuji, stick with it. But how long it sticks around itself, well, that is anyone's guess at this point. Fuji rarely shows their hand.

Velvia 50 has a distinct color palette that can;t be duplicated with Ektachrome and filters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nevertheless, Alan, it takes a degree of expertise to render that distinction in any print fashion. These day, saturation and contrast are easily tweaked, but the output medium itself can be rather numb to subtle differences in brilliant green or magenta, for instance, where Velvia excels but inkjet certainly does not. ... My own route, via 8x10 masked internegatives directly onto RA4 paper optically, is both expensive and tedious, but does a far better job in terms of preserving these hues.

And many times before, I've related why Velvia isn't an ideal candidate for printmaking purposes due to its extreme contrast; though I do know how to tame it as much as possible, which is about the same as having a "tame" leopard or mountain lion napping on your living room sofa (good luck!). Slide shows are a slightly different topic.

 

[brbo]

I'm surprised people see difference in resolution/sharpness between E100 and 100F with 3600dpi scanners. I can't.

Which one is noticeably softer than the other (same lens, but not on tripod)?

Scanned on Noritsu (4000dpi): #1, #2

Scanned on Minolta (5400dpi): #1, #2

(Minolta will seem softer than Noritsu, but scanning resolution chart confirms that Minolta is higher resolution, but need a bit of sharpening, nobody knows what zero sharpening is on Noritsu (I have mine set to -3))

 

[koraks]

I can't.

Me neither.
If I'm to make a wild guess, the lady in the white shirt is 100F though, isn't it?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Examples given - I can't too. But projection is an entirely different beast than scans - it doesn't feature sample rates and ppi.

But what's jumping at me - #2 shows more chromatic abberation.

 

[brbo]

Me neither.
If I'm to make a wild guess...

You are right.

Examples given - I can't too. But projection is an entirely different beast than scans - it doesn't feature sample rates and ppi

Maybe Provia is scannofobic and E100 has its own untreated conditions and I won't go there... I'm just saying that scanners won't show the difference up to probably at least 6000dpi.

 

[koraks]

You are right.

Cool; well, the odds were 50%, so let's put it down to luck. BTW, the thing that 'gave it away' was not the detail/resolution/resolving power, but an entirely unrelated type of artefact I'm familiar with on 100F specifically.

 

[dokko]

Any additional ideas to improve said test?

sounds like a good setup to me.
the Zuiko 50mm 1.4 will not quite reach the resolution of the best lenses out there, but if this is the sharpest lens you have, center performance at F5.6 to F8 should be very good.

if you manage to get this done, let me know and I'll scan the frames at 11'000 or 14'000ppi, which will also allow to evaluate the grain texture (your Plustek will do 3000ppi at best)