Kodak Professional Portra 400

GraemeMitchell · Sep 15, 2010

I was lucky enough to do some testing of this film for Kodak. It is definitely an improvement as far as emulsion tech - just as Ektar was - and I'm very pleased w/ it. Great speed, grain, and also scans easily (important these days). All imo.

I also hope they decide to support 8x10 in it. Even though I don't shoot that format much, I think it's important to support it by producing supplies.

I've no comments on the business end of things, not really my area of expertise, but I think the new film tech is a good thing and I'm not loosing sleep over the subtle difference in palette btwn it and NC or VC. It's silly to.

jglass · Sep 15, 2010

Thanks guys, you've made me feel better anyway. I always have a sinking feeling when any film is dropped. But there is a way to see this as good even for those of us who love NC.

@GraemeMitchell: It's esp. good to get the perspective of working photogs and I definitely agree that it's not worth worrying over the very subtle differences in the two emulsions when the new one is improved. (By the way, your work is awesome. Everyone ought to check it out. I really liked Unreal City this am).

As a famous Prince once said, "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who . . . "

I am, however, going to stock up on NC for now . . .

waynecrider · Sep 15, 2010

Well I'm definitely going to be ordering some of the new film in 35 & 220 as I turn to shooting more color work and a return to more film shooting. But I'm just going to get the film processed and will be scanning only the frames I need. From there they'll go back to the lab for prints, so I'm definitely in the hybrid camp.
Personally I started this year shooting alot of digital work, and wound up doing three portrait sessions in the medium about 2 months back. I gotta say that even with the live screen preview I did no better then if I had shot film, and I would not have had 1/2 the computer work or have to keep up with the disk copies if I want to keep the images, and on what new media? I personally see the rapid ability of digital as a hindrance to a more thoughtful slower approach to recording images. I was finding that I was shooting faster but gaining less keepers.
So, as far as I see it for me, digital is good for proofing lighting setups like Polaroid was and close deadlines.

nickrapak · Sep 15, 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.

One comment...While both Kodak and Pro8mm are increasing awareness of Super 8 film for production, both of them are wholeheartedly on the hybrid side of the coin,as making halide intermediates has long (in digital terms) been recognized as cost-prohibitive and quality-inhibitive.

Please note that I am talking neg film here, which is the vast majority of the in-camera MP film sold.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

holmburgers · Sep 15, 2010

The real question is.... what the hell is "antenna dye stabilisation"? Or Vision technology for that matter.

holmburgers · Sep 15, 2010

PE?

Robert Budding · Sep 15, 2010

waynecrider said:
Not that I will go looking for it, but I wonder what the income after expenses was for their digital division.

On another note, at 29M for the quarter with a loss of about 44% over the year ago quarter, I'd be happy there is even one Kodak color film that you can count on of being very high quality. This especially so in light of the thread by PhotoEngineer. I believe it's coming down to to the point of doing something beyond trying to shoot enough film to help keep any color film in production. What seems to be needed is a campaign on various fronts towards the goal of getting shooters back in the fold on a partial basis to start and then trying to cultivate new shooters thru various means. Paths that can be explored are newspaper/magazine submission articles by some here with more knowledge then most, TV media coverage and/or famous personality support, planned group introduction workshops (LF comes to mind) and an increase by film users in contest with the goal of obviously showing great images and winning. I would also put forth the idea of a documentary on film and it's adherents as well as the famous photographers of yesteryear. We need to generate buzz. The first path of getting attention is talk, talk, talk and not just here in this forum. My feeling is that if you snooze you lose.

From Kodak's July 28, 2010 press release:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a80d2ade8

* Consumer Digital Imaging Group second-quarter sales were $447 million, compared with $503 million in the prior-year quarter. Second-quarter loss from operations for the segment was $110 million, compared with a loss of $99 million in the year-ago quarter. This decrease in earnings was largely driven by the expiration of a significant Retail Systems Solutions customer contract and increased advertising investment, partially offset by improved profitability in Consumer Inkjet Systems and Digital Cameras and Devices.

* Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group second-quarter sales were $466 million, a 21% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related declines. Second-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $29 million, compared with earnings of $51 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by industry-related declines in volumes and increased raw material costs, partially offset by cost reductions across the segment.

Yes, film is earning less, but at least it's producing a profit!

Sirius Glass · Sep 15, 2010

B&Wpositive said:
"tradigital

michaelbsc · Sep 15, 2010

MaximusM3 said:
... I still 100% confident that the only way for film to be stable and survive, a marriage and understanding of digital workflow has to be promoted and encouraged. ...

I concur that this goes without saying. Relating it to the amateur radio crowd, I was one of the big proponents of digital in the day. In that hobby, I was very interested in the bleeding edge, and the old fuddy-duddies simply stood in the way. You can see the shambles that hobby is in now.

For this hobby, the reason I'm on APUG is because I'm interested in the old stuff. But I don't begrudge the kids the new stuff. So let them have at it.

I think the sales approach is to point out just how many megapixles are stored in film, and explain that the desktop scanner by far outstrips the camera body sensor in resolving ability.

In fact, one of the strategies I banged the gong about for poor old Kodachrome was to put it in Grandma's P&S, and tell her to check the box that she wanted back scans. The average consumer couldn't care less whether the stuff in the envelope is negative or positive; they're looking for the CD.

So, tell the kids that they can shoot the film, get the CD from the lab, and anything that REALLY grabs their attention they can rescan at OMG pixels.

MB

CD55 · Sep 15, 2010

I guess I'll have to get some 400NC and VC to try out before they disappear. I've got some Portra 160NC so it should be interesting to see the differences between all the films once the new one is out.

On a side note, it might be time for Scott Sheppard to have an interview again with Scott DiSabato of Kodak regarding this film. Maybe it's in the works already for all I know.

holmburgers · Sep 15, 2010

You make a great point about HAM radio. APUG needs to embrace a digital workflow, or at least be willing to discuss it w/o putting asterisks in the word or saying things like "that unmentionable camera". It's a fine line, but we need to become tight-rope walkers.

Pedants only harm the subjects they wish to keep sacred.

Q.G. · Sep 15, 2010

APUG is only a small part of the, our, world.
And it is a part devoted to the old, analog process.

That doesn't mean, does it?, that APUGers only inhabit that small part of the world called APUG, in denial of anything outside APUG.

I don't see how one of us can think that APUG needs to embrace a digital workflow, unless our particular world does begin and end in APUG. In which case, we need to open up our minds to the fact that APUG is just a small part of [etc.]

holmburgers · Sep 15, 2010

Q.G. said:
APUG is only a small part of the, our, world.
And it is a part devoted to the old, analog process.

That doesn't mean, does it?, that APUGers only inhabit that small part of the world called APUG, in denial of anything outside APUG.

I don't see how one of us can think that APUG needs to embrace a digital workflow, unless our particular world does begin and end in APUG. In which case, we need to open up our minds to the fact that APUG is just a small part of [etc.]

Q.G.... you raise a good point. It's true that I would prefer (selfishly) if everything was just easily accessible in one user group, like APUG. You're of course right that there are many other places to discuss such things.

But what about "growth", is this not a hope of APUG? I feel like APUG is the torch bearer of analog, and in that respect has somewhat of a responsiblity to be stewards of what analog is, and in the 21st century it involves things like scanners, and computers.

That's why I said we have to be tight rope walkers.

But, I do agree with what you're saying and will look elsewhere to fulfill my selfish desires. (that sounds weird)

michaelbsc · Sep 15, 2010

holmburgers said:
But what about "growth", is this not a hope of APUG? I feel like APUG is the torch bearer of analog, and in that respect has somewhat of a responsiblity to be stewards of what analog is, and in the 21st century it involves things like scanners, and computers.

APUG can grow just fine I think.

The trick is for *US* not to be defensive about digital's growth. Like it or not, that's where the kids are, and when we're dead they take over. Period, end of game.

As I said, how many megapixels are in a single-use camera frame? Get them thinking in terms of when you want snapshots, use the digital in your phone. When you're serious, load up some film, then rescan the keepers on the flatbed.

MB

Photo Engineer · Sep 15, 2010

I use a hybrid work flow. I take shots using film, process it myself, make proof prints either analog or digital and then make digital prints of the best for display or as presents for family. I manipulate some images for the effect. The flowers photos in my gallery are 3 from a much larger set of prints, both hybrid and analog which were used to display some of my work using cross processing.

As for Vision technology, it includes 2 electron sensitization, mixed T-Grain/cubic emulsions and dye layering among other technology. As for the dye stability item, IDK about it but there were publications in 2002 and 2006 by Kodak about new image stabilization. IDK if that is what they were referring to.

PE

lxdude · Sep 15, 2010

Robert Budding said:
From Kodak's July 28, 2010 press release:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a80d2ade8

* Consumer Digital Imaging Group second-quarter sales were $447 million, compared with $503 million in the prior-year quarter. Second-quarter loss from operations for the segment was $110 million, compared with a loss of $99 million in the year-ago quarter. This decrease in earnings was largely driven by the expiration of a significant Retail Systems Solutions customer contract and increased advertising investment, partially offset by improved profitability in Consumer Inkjet Systems and Digital Cameras and Devices.

* Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group second-quarter sales were $466 million, a 21% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related declines. Second-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $29 million, compared with earnings of $51 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by industry-related declines in volumes and increased raw material costs, partially offset by cost reductions across the segment.

Yes, film is earning less, but at least it's producing a profit!

And so it continues...the prevalence of digital hasn't stopped Kodak from making money on film. For all the damage it's done to the film business, digital's greater damage to Kodak is because they keep losing money on it!

wblynch · Sep 15, 2010

I see photography as having two parts. The capture side and the presentation side.

The vast majority of us are engaged in the capture side. To use all our wonderful traditional cameras and lenses, we use and embrace film.

But most film camera users never had a darkroom for printing and developing.

Here we are allowed to talk never ending about the joys of using our 'analog' cameras and organic film but we are forbidden from talking about alternative presentation of those images except for traditional methods which most of us never knew. Slide projection is as close as most of us will ever get.

So we pretend to not talk about the scanning side for fear of chastisement.

The 'sister' site for hybrid activities is, unfortunately, not as well visited or updated as APUG.

Isn't this all rather silly?

CGW · Sep 15, 2010

wblynch said:
I see photography as having two parts. The capture side and the presentation side.

The vast majority of us are engaged in the capture side. To use all our wonderful traditional cameras and lenses, we use and embrace film.

But most film camera users never had a darkroom for printing and developing.

Here we are allowed to talk never ending about the joys of using our 'analog' cameras and organic film but we are forbidden from talking about alternative presentation of those images except for traditional methods which most of us never knew. Slide projection is as close as most of us will ever get.

So we pretend to not talk about the scanning side for fear of chastisement.

The 'sister' site for hybrid activities is, unfortunately, not as well visited or updated as APUG.

Isn't this all rather silly?

Amen. It's the survivalist tone that occasionally gets over-amped here that's indeed silly. I love film for capture but downstream? It's whatever works to fulfill your vision for the image. Looking forward to Portra 400.

GraemeMitchell · Sep 15, 2010

jglass said:
@GraemeMitchell: It's esp. good to get the perspective of working photogs and I definitely agree that it's not worth worrying over the very subtle differences in the two emulsions when the new one is improved. (By the way, your work is awesome. Everyone ought to check it out. I really liked Unreal City this am).

Thanks for those words. Always means the most coming from another photographer.

lxdude · Sep 15, 2010

Q.G. said:
APUG is only a small part of the, our, world.
And it is a part devoted to the old, analog process.

That doesn't mean, does it?, that APUGers only inhabit that small part of the world called APUG, in denial of anything outside APUG.

I don't see how one of us can think that APUG needs to embrace a digital workflow, unless our particular world does begin and end in APUG. In which case, we need to open up our minds to the fact that APUG is just a small part of [etc.]

I agree. Talk about digital is unavoidable (like right now) but I find APUG to be a haven from that. I come here in part to escape the world of overdone manipulation where there are so many who fancy themselves artistes because they can make a picture look unnatural. And the unending technology worship just gets old, too.

For a while I couldn't see the reason for Hybridphoto being separate. It wouldn't bother me personally to have it as a section here, but I understand and support the reason it's not.
People still come on and ask about scanning, etc. Maybe there could be a section heading for hybrid workflow that would redirect to Hybridphoto.

lxdude · Sep 15, 2010

holmburgers said:
The real question is.... what the hell is "antenna dye stabilisation"?

Yeah...do they send or receive?

AgX · Sep 15, 2010

JLP said:
I see a big problem here, it appears that the 400NC in 8x10 will be gone, the new Portra 400 is only introduced up to 4x5
This mean no 400 ISO color negative film in 8x10 this is really sad news.

You still can cut down 10" aerial rolls.
You even got ISO 800 then.

(You have to cope with thinner base though.)

andrewkirkby · Sep 15, 2010

I could see this coming.

I have a feeling 160 NC/VC will be kept the same. Sales of those films are still in very high volumes when compared to the 400 speed films.

I've got a box coming - will upload some tests soon.

AK

waynecrider · Sep 15, 2010

"Consumer Digital Imaging Group second-quarter sales were $447 million, compared with $503 million in the prior-year quarter. Second-quarter loss from operations for the segment was $110 million, compared with a loss of $99 million in the year-ago quarter. This decrease in earnings was largely driven by the expiration of a significant Retail Systems Solutions customer contract..."

I wonder who dropped them?

AgX · Sep 15, 2010

holmburgers said:
The real question is.... what the hell is "antenna dye stabilisation"? Or Vision technology for that matter.

"Vision Technology" refers to the emulsion technology Kodak employs at their latest cine camera-films called Vision-3.

"Antenna Dye" is a term typically referring to the structure and orientation of spectral sensitizers in the most general meaning. So one can wonder now whether this refers to image- or sensitizer-dyes.

Who gave names to all those animals...?

Kodak Professional Portra 400

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency