Kodak vs. Fuji - personal reflections (Fuji wins)

[tim_walls]

I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.

I think that this is a very very important point.

If someone bases his results on scans of slides or negatives, then the original may be fine while the scan is poor.

I've got many many scans of Kodak and Fuji slides and negatives. I find some are good and some are poor while the originals may all be fine. A digital tweak in scanning parameters usually brings the scan up to par.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.

I think that this is a very very important point.

If someone bases his results on scans of slides or negatives, then the original may be fine while the scan is poor.

I've got many many scans of Kodak and Fuji slides and negatives. I find some are good and some are poor while the originals may all be fine. A digital tweak in scanning parameters usually brings the scan up to par.

PE

If you guys are correct, and I suspect you are, then the entire premise of the OP is flawed - since he is comparing the capabilities of his scanner to how IT processes different films.

That simply speaks to the qualities and limitations of his scanner - and reveals nothing about the qualities and limitations of the films.

Not only that, but it means the entire thread really belongs over at Hybrid - doesn't it?

BTW, Ron, on the other point - sadly I think you're correct. There seems to be a cadre of folk here who will bash Kodak at any opportunity to do so - in part knowing it will keep anyone from the Company from every visiting here (much less becoming a sponsor). It's both sad and stupid.

 

[jd callow]

I fear the day that Kodak comes on publicly. I have seen how 'brave' people can be online -- no mater how impolite, ignorant or ill-advised.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is correct that many scanners cannot 'duplicate' otherwise good transparencies and negatives due to one limitation or another. We have seen how even recently Kodak improved the scannability of their films and advertized the fact.

This depends on a number of factors such as the support itself which can contain materials deleterious to scanning. One example is the gray carbon that Kodak uses in some supports as an antistat. It could cause problem. Other Kodak films have 'retouching' matte on the back which could cause a problem. IDK, but I can use up all of my fingers listing impediments to a good scan from a good original from either Kodak or Fuji.

I would say personally from analysis and talking to quite a few pros, that the best that I know use Kodak negative films and Fuji reversal films. Both companies are actively engaged in improving their deficient areas.

As for complaints or problems. How come no one ever 'rants' that Fuji is not posting here or advertizing here?? How come no one ever really speaks to the BIG difference in the quality of the Kodak and Fuji databases on their respective web sites. We have seen lately though that Fuji's database lacks certain information whereas Kodak's does not and includes much more than anyone elses.

Therefore, I would say (in spite of my EK bias) that Ilford wins B&W, Kodak wins negative color, Fuji wins reversal color, Kodak wins web site quality.
Kodak and Fuji lose representation on APUG and PN. Kodak and Fuji win advertizing on PN.

You see, from my POV, there is no clear winner and it is certainly divisive to keep this up! Everyone should use what works for them!

PE

 

[copake_ham]

It is correct that many scanners cannot 'duplicate' otherwise good transparencies and negatives due to one limitation or another. We have seen how even recently Kodak improved the scannability of their films and advertized the fact.

This depends on a number of factors such as the support itself which can contain materials deleterious to scanning. One example is the gray carbon that Kodak uses in some supports as an antistat. It could cause problem. Other Kodak films have 'retouching' matte on the back which could cause a problem. IDK, but I can use up all of my fingers listing impediments to a good scan from a good original from either Kodak or Fuji.

I would say personally from analysis and talking to quite a few pros, that the best that I know use Kodak negative films and Fuji reversal films. Both companies are actively engaged in improving their deficient areas.

As for complaints or problems. How come no one ever 'rants' that Fuji is not posting here or advertizing here?? How come no one ever really speaks to the BIG difference in the quality of the Kodak and Fuji databases on their respective web sites. We have seen lately though that Fuji's database lacks certain information whereas Kodak's does not and includes much more than anyone elses.

Therefore, I would say (in spite of my EK bias) that Ilford wins B&W, Kodak wins negative color, Fuji wins reversal color, Kodak wins web site quality.
Kodak and Fuji lose representation on APUG and PN. Kodak and Fuji win advertizing on PN.

You see, from my POV, there is no clear winner and it is certainly divisive to keep this up! Everyone should use what works for them!

PE

Ron,

You sum up many of my observations perfectly.

One of the reasons why I said I'm coming to love Portra as color neg film is its scannability.

I don't want to stray too far into "forbidden territory" but in one of my own threads here not too long ago I noted that I was pleasantly "surprised" that after scanning a roll of 135 Portra negs (I used my Nikon 5000D) and did a quick "Auto Adjust" in PS - there was not adjustment at all! [(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This is as opposed to using other films, both negs and chromes, where there is a definite "lightening" and, I suspect "color shift".

Having given up on Kodachrome (because there is a time when you just have to "move on") I haven't tried any of Kodak's newer 'chromes so cannot opine on them. But I do very much like Fuji Velvia (both the 50 and even the much maligned 100).

But even Velvia scans, as well as those of other color negs such as Superia or Kodak's equivalent will "shift" when you use the PS "Auto Adjust". Then, you have to decide if you "agree" with PS! [DISCLAIMER: I never post "adjusted" pics to The Gallery here!]

But the fact is, as Tim first noted, the color shift is not a function of the film - it's a function of the scanner. And this is why the OP would have had an interesting item of discussion on Hybrid but is advancing an irrelevant point here.

Oh, yes JD, I doubt we'd ever be able to host a Kodak rep here. Would more likely turn into a roast.

Although there is a way it could be done - via a "screened" Q&A - but that would really rankle some people.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.

PE

 

[keithwms]

I would hope that people who are partisan about one or another slide film should consider posting illustrative images, rather than reissuing the usual arguments in threads like this.

 

[copake_ham]

Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.

PE

Yes, indeed, but with a good scanner you can preserve "those nice, bright colors...".

Kodachrome shot taken in Toronto around 1980 - scanned a couple of years ago with my Nikon 5000D:

 

[Photo Engineer]

George;

Good scan, but you probably used the earlier Kodachrome which did not have the cyan dye 'problem' that the modern film has.

They changed coupler in the 80s when the newer film came out.

I'm not really sure of the date.

PE

 

[dmr]

Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.

Actually I've had fairly good luck scanning the current Kodachrome 64 on the K-M SD IV. Here are a couple I recently posted on a local board. They look very normal to me.

(I hope these show up properly, I'm just cutting-pasting the links as I posted there.)

 

[jd callow]

I would hope that people who are partisan about one or another slide film should consider posting illustrative images, rather than reissuing the usual arguments in threads like this.

Excellent point.

 

[pentaxuser]

Not strictly relevant to the OP but as at least a part answer to PE's good point about "why no rant about Fuji?", two things strike me.

1. Nobody in Fuji talked about film being dead unlike the alleged comment of the new Kodak CEO. It might have been the right thing to say to the audience he was addressing and it may have been taken out of context but clearly it naturally went down badly on APUG.
2. Fuji then started a site to "champion" film and launched competitions which required film shots only to be submitted.

So overall Fuji maybe "boxed a little cleverer" than Kodak. It's a pity because it has launched both another colour and B&W neg film which by all accounts are good.

Sometimes the image you portray has as much or more effect than the way you are.

pentaxuser

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, I agree that Kodak has overall said some odd thngs. They are trying very hard (too much IMHO) to push into digital and become known.

PE

 

[dmr]

Well, I agree that Kodak has overall said some odd thngs. They are trying very hard (too much IMHO) to push into digital and become known.

It's my impression that Kodak is currently searching for something, anything, that will give them the numbers they want. You know, management by whim, chaotic re-orgs, stuff like that ...

 

[kapro]

.....and Fuji is the winner.....
Placing velvia 50 into production on the base of photographers requirements made this company my favorite.
But: Long live Tri-X

 

[Photo Engineer]

It's my impression that Kodak is currently searching for something, anything, that will give them the numbers they want. You know, management by whim, chaotic re-orgs, stuff like that ...

Not really.

Mr. Perez' policies have paid off and have made conventional analog products more profitable. The plant is now running at or near capacity after the reductions in force and in shutting down obsolete equipment.

So, they are able to bring new products to the marketplace in analog photography.

PE

 

[fschifano]

Because of their business practices and attitude towards those of us who used to support them by buying products... I wouldn't buy Kodak ever again.
They used to be a good company and provided actual support and products we could use. Now they discontinue Azo when they were the only supplier worldwide of a contact printing paper... that NEVER lost money in sales for them. Always made a profit, just not a high enough profit recently for the stockholders. Piss on the B&W printer is the attitude at Kodak. Piss on them all, not just the Azo users.

So... piss on Kodak.

...and what do you call the documentation that Kodak has freely available on line for every product they market, chickenshit? IMO, they have the best documentation in the business, and they have documentation available for many discontinued products as well. I've never had the need to call them, but I hear that if you do call the help line, you get a real human. If that's not customer support, what is?

 

[copake_ham]

I dread and hope the day never comes when film really is "dead". But I am fairly confident that Kodak will be "the last to leave the building" if that day ever comes.

And I also think that we here at APUG have to get smart. We need to embrace Kodak, just as much as we already do with Ilford and should also do with Fuji. Simply put, we NEED them - but they also NEED us.

It's long past time that we got over the "digital abandonment disappointment" and started a positive dialouge with Kodak and Fuji.

 

[JanaM]

...

And I also think that we here at APUG have to get smart. We need to embrace Kodak, just as much as we already do with Ilford and should also do with Fuji. Simply put, we NEED them - but they also NEED us.

It's long past time that we got over the "digital abandonment disappointment" and started a positive dialouge with Kodak and Fuji.

Dear George,

exactly, that's it. Very well said.

Best regards,
Jana

 

[dmr]

Mr. Perez' policies have paid off and have made conventional analog products more profitable. The plant is now running at or near capacity after the reductions in force and in shutting down obsolete equipment.

So, they are able to bring new products to the marketplace in analog photography.

I'm really glad to hear that. I was afraid that Kodak was just going to milk the existing lines until they were no longer viable and then bail.

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

So, they are able to bring new products to the marketplace in analog photography. PE

Will Kodak catch up in the high-speed slide film-class (400 ASA) and bring an equivalent to Fuji's Provia 400X to the market?

 

[Photo Engineer]

If they apply 2 electron sensitization and do it profitably, they might! IDK.

PE

 

[Craig]

Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.

It does have unique colours, that I quite like. Skies on K64 are kind of weak (25 was much better), but it excels at red, and the rem-jet backing is a Good Thing.

I shoot lots of trains, and backing on Kodachrome takes care of the train headlights quite nicely. There is a phrase in railfan circles called "FHB" or “Fuji Headlight Blob" for the secondary image on the film of the headlights that Fuji slide films produce. It's never there on Kodachrome.

 

[Craig]

One of the reasons why I said I'm coming to love Portra as color neg film is its scannability.

I tried some recently based on the favourable comments here, and the results exceeded my expectations, it came out very nicely indeed.