Kodak Professional Portra 400

MaximusM3 · Sep 14, 2010

B&Wpositive said:
However, I do believe that the darkroom will not die off as long as there is film and paper. I believe that teaching darkroom to kids is not something to forget about. In fact, a mentor of mine does just that: he teaches a photography course (albeit in black and white) which is totally darkroom based. He is teaching 6th graders in a private school, and they love it. They catch on, and they think it's just the coolest thing to be able to make photographs in this way. Remember, the less common a process becomes, the more intriguing it is to those who have never tried it. Digital photography is readily accessable at home, in schools, etc, for the average practitioner today. We're saturated in digital! The hybrid film/scanning method is more intriguing though, because it's less common. Luckily it's still pretty easy though. Buy film, develop it yourself, and then scan. And the traditional method (sans computer) is even more intriguing for those who haven't done it. They just need to be introduced to it by someone. And this is the process whereby photography is easily elevated to an artform. Once someone realizes this, nothing will keep them out of the darkroom.

Oh, I agree with you and I am all for it. I just don't think it will be enough to save film though and that is the problem. I just think that it stands a better chance with a compromise towards a hybrid workflow for the digi-oriented masses, which in turn translates to survival and a good base for the rest who want to see and use strictly traditional methods while teaching to to others who may be interested (and unfortunately will be the minority, as this is the world we live in, whether we like it or not). This way, both sides win and we can all be a happy family

B&Wpositive · Sep 14, 2010

Well, I'm hybrid all the way. Always been hybrid. So no argument from me.

My inkling is that there are a LOT more people doing the hybrid thing today (tradigital, anyone?) than the fully traditional/darkroom-only way. So I don't think that tradition will cause the demise of film. No, not ever. The divide between tradigital and mainstream these days is so narrow that it's not a worry. Us tradigitalists will branch the digital divide for those who are fully analog...no worry. We will keep it going. I promise you, that the divide that you mentioned between digital and fully analog methods won't be the cause of the death of analog photography. It will be something else all together, if anything ever does kill it for us. But it won't be the gap between digital and darkroom. It will probably be something else, like 3D or video orwhatever.

Did painting get killed by photography? Kind of. But not really. Too bad it's not really a great analogy though! Analog photography requires a lot more technology and skill to make the materials and design new ones than does paint. We've learned so much about the business and scientific end of photography from Mr. Mowrey and others. I think many here would agree that it's not the divide that might kill it. It's the popularity/sales of film versus digital's ease of use, period...and cine film more than anything at that!

I for one, would really want to be able to change my profile moniker from "35mm" to "multi format". I'd like to be able to do that this coming year. Expansion is good! Everything must expand...that is the way of the universe.

Ektagraphic · Sep 14, 2010

I don't want to totally deviate away from the original topic but if we educate young photographers on the power of film much like places like Pro8mm and Kodak have been doing for motion picture film, we may get somewhere. When shooting certain jobs, like portraits, to me, it makes a lot more sense to get it shot on film. You can drop the film off at the lab, there is no photoshop time needed and then one can pick up a set of high quality proofs and get them to the customer. There isn't much of the photographers time put into the editing of the images and they will be of higher quality this way. Color neg processing and film isn't too expensive to use yet. If the end result needs to be a digital file, copies of the scan can be had. Simple. I see no reason whatsoever to ever shoot a portrait on digital media....I am trying to resist the hybrid workflow but for my portrait work, it makes a lot more sense so that is that but my personal work, I try as hard as possible to keep it an all analog/optical workflow.

holmburgers · Sep 14, 2010

B&Wpositive said:
(tradigital, anyone?)

Niiice!

MaximusM3 · Sep 14, 2010

Ektagraphic said:
I don't want to totally deviate away from the original topic but if we educate young photographers on the power of film much like places like Pro8mm and Kodak have been doing for motion picture film, we may get somewhere. When shooting certain jobs, like portraits, to me, it makes a lot more sense to get it shot on film. You can drop the film off at the lab, there is no photoshop time needed and then one can pick up a set of high quality proofs and get them to the customer. There isn't much of the photographers time put into the editing of the images and they will be of higher quality this way. Color neg processing and film isn't too expensive to use yet. If the end result needs to be a digital file, copies of the scan can be had. Simple. I see no reason whatsoever to ever shoot a portrait on digital media....I am trying to resist the hybrid workflow but for my portrait work, it makes a lot more sense so that is that but my personal work, I try as hard as possible to keep it an all analog/optical workflow.

Patrick,

Frankly, I see no reason to shoot digital for anything, except weddings and sports.

Max

B&Wpositive · Sep 14, 2010

holmburgers said:
Niiice!

Hey, it sounds better than digilogue! That was the least I could do to my fellow apuggers ("apuddies"? lol, almost peed myself!!!)...coin a new word for you all.

EDIT: Oh wait, don't tell me that someone else already coined the term. Just my luck...always happens. Someone else does it first. Looks like we've been beaten to the punch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradigital_art

Pat and Maximus:

I agree (with Pat) that portraits are great for film. So are landscapes. So are beloved personal-time PJ/docu projects! I disagree with you, Maximus, in your reply to Patrick, that weddings need digital. I'd love more than anything to shoot weddings traditionally one day. Unfortunately though, having just done my first wedding recently, I have to say I only used three rolls of film!

Back to the topic at hand: This Portra 400 is going to rock!

imokruok · Sep 14, 2010

Anything that gets the Vision technology into photo films is a good thing in my book. I have seen what people are doing with motion picture film in still cameras, and it is amazing stuff. I only wish they would move a bit faster with it! Portra 800 revision? Ektar 400?

Darkroom317 · Sep 14, 2010

wblynch said:
Perhaps an increased investment in advertising would help boost Kodak's film sales?

A lot (as in a LOT) of people don't even think you can buy film anymore.

I remember the old days of Kodak product placement and advertisement on Disney.

Some product placement or kids with film cameras on a popular new sitcom or 'hip' TV show would help too.
around.

Exactly what I've been hearing. It's annoying how quickly this idea spread.

I like the advertisement idea.

mabman · Sep 15, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
You should read this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Of particular note there is Perez' comments and then relate this to post #32 above. There are specific declines. And, relate this to changes in the Fuji line up as well.
....

PE

My thinking in post #32 was actually more directed at the "Photofinishing" part of the business. In Q1 and Q2 2009 (and starting earlier) they wound down Qualex (this press release is dated May 14, 2009 and indicates "recent closure"). They then have been selling/leasing/deploying their dry-process automated kiosks for at least that long (a quick search shows a firmware update for them dating to March 2009). I'm making an assumption that these kiosks are part of the Photofinishing part of the division - I don't see where they fit in otherwise.

Without a breakout, we won't know how much these kiosks are responsible for those figures (positively or negatively). I certainly don't doubt that film sales are down, or that movie film is taking a hit, but these kiosks are an unknown quantity to that bottom line.

I'm suspicious, primarily because there is a kiosk in a local pharmacy - when I've been in there more often than not it's not working (usually has an "out-of-order" sign on it). On one occasion a manager told a frustrated customer that it was broken and would have to be sent back (where, I'm not sure), and this has happened numerous times since they've had one. I know that 1 flaky unit does not make it a money-losing venture, but if that is a common experience, it might.

imokruok · Sep 15, 2010

mabman said:
I know that 1 flaky unit does not make it a money-losing venture, but if that is a common experience, it might.

The one at my local Walgreens seems to work but I've never seen anyone use it. A high-end camera store near me has four kiosks in the store, and I see people using them but there's always a store staffer there helping someone. Not cost effective if they need a full-time minder.

hrst · Sep 15, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
Exactly where is the "Good News"??????

Well, I'm an optimist by nature and try to compare to other possible situations that could also be realistic. For example; they could have discontinued some sizes completely, and going from one format to another is a much bigger drawback than going from one contrast/saturation to another of a slight difference.

Considering the situation, I guess this is the best possible course Kodak can take. They also state clearly what has happened (which products are discontinued), and that a new product is introduced---and not any product, but a product that is designed to be as good trade-off as possible. They clearly state how the new product differs. I call this "good news". I would like to point out the difference to Fuji's latest goofs; we still don't know what has happened, what films are and will be available; and furthermore, the "new" 400NS is supposed to be only a rebranded old film.

That's the "good news", from an optimistic point of view, considering the even worse but well possible alternative situations. Of course I agree that there's nothing good for photographers to lose any products, but I didn't mention it as I find it almost a no-brainer .

Erik Petersson · Sep 15, 2010

jpberger said:
Ok this is getting off topic but quickly since you asked 400h at ~box speed-- very subdued colours
400h at - ~1/2-1 stop over box speed-- more intense colour
~1-1/2 to 2 stops over -- soft pastel colours

This is true of all colour neg to some extent, it's just that the fuji stuff tends to have more lattidude for over exposure before it falls apart. It will be interesting to see how the new porta behaves visa vis exposure

Thanks!

Matt5791 · Sep 15, 2010

I've weighed everything up in my mind and on balance I believe this to be good news.

On the down side there is slightly less choice, but on the plus side we have a re-formulated film which makes more sense for the modern market with fresh marketing - there are a lot of people coming to film for the first time right now, or coming back after a long departure and these people are predominantly scanning so they just don't need to slightly different contrast emulsions.

I'm most interested in getting more customers to use film and this helps, not least because Kodak's marketing is very good (infact the quality of their marketing is miles and miles and miles ahead of any other manufacturer in this industry) and the message this sends out is a positive one to these new users AND it helps production to make one emulsion, cuts cost and helps keep prices down.

So, after consideration, it's is a thumbs up from me.

Tom Kershaw · Sep 15, 2010

Matt5791 said:
I've weighed everything up in my mind and on balance I believe this to be good news.

On the down side there is slightly less choice, but on the plus side we have a re-formulated film which makes more sense for the modern market with fresh marketing - there are a lot of people coming to film for the first time right now, or coming back after a long departure and these people are predominantly scanning so they just don't need to slightly different contrast emulsions.

I'm most interested in getting more customers to use film and this helps, not least because Kodak's marketing is very good (infact the quality of their marketing is miles and miles and miles ahead of any other manufacturer in this industry) and the message this sends out is a positive one to these new users AND it helps production to make one emulsion, cuts cost and helps keep prices down.

So, after consideration, it's is a thumbs up from me.

Any news from Kodak about 8x10" colour film?

Tom

Ihmemies · Sep 15, 2010

Great news. NC/VC are an unneeded differentiation and financially hard to justify in these times. I'm very glad they decided to release an IMPROVED product instead of ditching the whole 400 category alltogether.

Finer grain, better sharpness, very nice dynamic range and reasonable color saturation... now I just need to get hold of this film myself

I hope they bring the same changes to 160 version as soon as possible.

berlog · Sep 15, 2010

Ihmemies said:
I hope they bring the same changes to 160 version as soon as possible.

I prefer to be more conservative. I love 160NC and I want to have it everytime)

Ihmemies · Sep 15, 2010

Fuji scrapped the "normal"/"vivid" alternatives.. and this is the first step for Kodak in the same route. I'm pretty sure they'll do the same to 160 sooner or later.. and hopefully give some Vision love to 800 too

naddis · Sep 15, 2010

I didn't know how to react to this at first. At the beginning of this year I made the choice to return to film for all of my major projects and assignments, other than the occasional deadline job that had to be digital. It has been a pleasure in so many ways.

The only two films I use are Portra 160nc and Portra 400nc, so I was dismayed at first. While in practice a slight change in saturation is more than made up for by better grain, the consolidation made me wonder if it was more a cost-cutting measure than a move forward.

The new film looks great, but fewer choices worry me as someone who has just started a very long-term project with film. I scan my negs and I'm sure I can match the new film to my old work.

I'm torn about the 160 films. On one hand I think choices are good, on the other hand I'd like a slower film that matches the new Portra Pro 400 in terms of contrast and saturation. Although I guess if the new film is as good as it sounds, maybe I can just use it for everything and forget about slower film.

I guess what it comes down to is that I worry about the long-term availability of film. Every time we lose options, it makes me worry more. I am glad the new films are available in 220. But I know a lot of fine-art shooters who use the 400nc in 8x10, and I feel sorry for them.

Ihmemies · Sep 15, 2010

Probably they dropped 8x10 because not enough people were buying them. You can still get it cut if you order enough of it (like with that E100VS 8x10 sale).

Tim Gray · Sep 15, 2010

naddis said:
While in practice a slight change in saturation is more than made up for by better grain, the consolidation made me wonder if it was more a cost-cutting measure than a move forward.

In this economy and the climate for film in photography in general, cost-cutting *is* a move forward.

If Kodak can trim the fat relatively speaking and release a new improved product at the same time, it means they still have room to move and adapt to a changing market. This is a good thing.

Like it or not, as PE and others have stated many times, the market *is* changing. I think the best case scenario for the future is a lean and mean Kodak who can make a profit on a small catalogue of excellent film products, but whose primary income is from other products.

On a different note, this new film might bring some attention back to Portra. A lot of people were intrigued enough by the releases of Ektar and TMY-2 to try them, and they really liked what they found. I've always been curious why Portra doesn't seem to get the love it should. I personally thing it's better than Ektar.

frotog · Sep 15, 2010

Good news? Really? Try to tell that to 8x10 and 5x7 photographers.

Ihmemies · Sep 15, 2010

Try to tell 8x10 and 5x7 photographers to reproduce and shoot more ;-)

Of course they may be some kind of hope left, since Kodak released sheet sizes later in Ektar line too...

Photo Engineer · Sep 15, 2010

Erik Petersson said:
Thanks!

Erik;

Please note that the post you are responding to is in error. He states different results for the same exposure changes in that sentence. I'll let you guys work it out!

PE

Photo Engineer · Sep 15, 2010

frotog said:
Good news? Really? Try to tell that to 8x10 and 5x7 photographers.

There is such a thing as a special order. This was done several times for B&W films in the past.

PE

Erik Petersson · Sep 15, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Erik;

Please note that the post you are responding to is in error. He states different results for the same exposure changes in that sentence. I'll let you guys work it out!

PE

Thanks PE, I noted that, but his answer did give me enough info to guess the rest, and I did not want the thread to wander to far into off-topic!

Kodak Professional Portra 400

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency