New Kodak Film in 2022?

[Cholentpot]

I'm aware of that. They mostly shoot medium speed colour film.



I'm obviously not talking about the people who have started using digital cameras or phones but the people who have continued to use film, because they've been able to. Kodak Gold -- I can buy that at Walmart today.

I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing.

The point I'm debating is that it's not us leftover film users that are driving the market. It's the kids with the Contax T2s and mom's AE1P or Grandpa's Rolliecord or Great Uncle Bill's Yashica who's driving the market. They in turn post their work on the socials and then their peers go out and try to find an MJU or Brownie and get hooked on film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's interesting that in the earlier threads of speculation about what new films were going to be introduced this year, NOBODY predicted Kodak Gold in 120. And now after the fact we all realize that it was the glaringly obvious product the market needed.

Perhaps that shows that we do not know what we are talking about.

 

[Don_ih]

it's not us leftover film users that are driving the market

And I was saying that, also. But you must realize that it is exactly "leftover film users" that have enabled a film like Kodak Gold to be kept in production continuously. It was always a snapshot film. The people who picked up shooting Portra over the past 5 years aren't the people who have kept Kodak Gold selling in stores. (Although lots of the tagged "Portra" shots on Instagram could be Kodak Gold - who would even know?)

 

[Cholentpot]

And I was saying that, also. But you must realize that it is exactly "leftover film users" that have enabled a film like Kodak Gold to be kept in production continuously. It was always a snapshot film. The people who picked up shooting Portra over the past 5 years aren't the people who have kept Kodak Gold selling in stores. (Although lots of the tagged "Portra" shots on Instagram could be Kodak Gold - who would even know?)

I agree, until a few years ago it was us luddites that kept film going. But now the market has changed, more and more newcomers are hopping on board. Kodak is responding to that, this is traditionally Kodaks core user group. They are excellent at exploiting this market. I think they'll find new life selling the 2022 version of 110 film or whatever fad they come up with.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

If only Ilford would make a good color slide film at a more affordable price than Ektachrome.

Why would they do that, they have basically hardly any knowledge about that, if they already would be technically capable of coating such a film.
Also, you have Provia, a wonderful film that is like 25% cheaper than E100. Velvia is a bit more expensive but still cheaper.

 

[George Mann]

Also, you have Provia, a wonderful film that is like 25% cheaper than E100. Velvia is a bit more expensive but still cheaper.

I don't know where you live, but in the US, these films are neither cheaper nor even available currently.

 

[NB23]

No one really knows how spectacular portra can be, it’s all Scanned. Most of portra or ektar is lost on the new generation. Gold is now out for this very reason.

 

[Cholentpot]

No one really knows how spectacular portra can be, it’s all Scanned. Most of portra or ektar is lost on the new generation. Gold is now out for this very reason.

Hasn't all this stuff been scanned since the late 90's? That's almost 30 years ago.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I don't know where you live, but in the US, these films are neither cheaper nor even available currently.

Europe, the Netherlands. Even if I count in Kodak Gold, Provia is the only colour film in 120 that you can get under €10.

 

[McDiesel]

No one really knows how spectacular portra can be, it’s all Scanned.

My interpretation of your thought is that Portra looks spectacular when wet-printed with an enlarger, which is something that hasn't been available to most people for very, very long time. The prints I was getting from local mini-labs in the late 90s and early 00s were complete shit compared to what I'm getting today from digitally printed Portra scans. Come to think of it, I have never seen a Portra wet print and I am pushing 50.

 

[NB23]

Hasn't all this stuff been scanned since the late 90's? That's almost 30 years ago.

yes it has and about 95% of the images shot with color negative film used to look horrendous. Ektar with cyan or magenta casts and so on.
It started with the very low quality job that the 1H labs used to offer, which killed the color negative films reputation, and then the scans that labs offered were substandard. Any search on flickr about color films used to return images with extra ugly color casts, but somehow those ugly images (no other way to describe them) were somehow accepted as standard... even pro Labs never really satisfied me, truth be told.
A quick #kodakektar search on instagram will show you: colors casts all over the place. The fuji hashtags are the worst; sick green casts all over... Makes me wonder how color negative film even survived.

 

[Cholentpot]

yes it has and about 95% of the images shot with color negative film used to look horrendous. Ektar with cyan or magenta casts and so on.
It started with the very low quality job that the 1H labs used to offer, which killed the color negative films reputation, and then the scans that labs offered were substandard. Any search on flickr about color films used to return images with extra ugly color casts, but somehow those ugly images (no other way to describe them) were somehow accepted as standard... even pro Labs never really satisfied me, truth be told.
A quick #kodakektar search on instagram will show you: colors casts all over the place. The fuji hashtags are the worst; sick green casts all over... Makes me wonder how color negative film even survived.

'Everything looks worse in black and white' - Paul Simon

That's your answer. Unless it's Kodachrome. Then it give you the nice colors, makes the leaves green and every day a sunny day. Oh yeah.

 

[Photomultiplier]

That is something that also bugs me sometimes. Altough i looked up some of the hashtags and did not find that many bad examples, i know what you mean. Especially Ektar seems to be prone to the typical cyan cast. Since i started scanning myself,
i experienced my share of problems to overcome. Looks like it takes no small amount of knowledge and experience to get the performance of this films out in the scanning process.
This is one reason why i shoot slide film 99% of the time. You geht the colors directly on the film the way they should look.

Wet printing C41 is a thing that's floating around in my head for quite some time now. I loved Cibachrome, but nowadays i drum-scan and print with inkjet. But i would like to experience the fun of doing color wet prints in the darkroom again, so even tough
i seldom use negative, i think i will try Ektar and Portra wet printed. Even if just for the fun and to have a kind of "reference" of how it is supposed to look like. That could come in handy for post processing.

 

[Cholentpot]

That is something that also bugs me sometimes. Altough i looked up some of the hashtags and did not find that many bad examples, i know what you mean. Especially Ektar seems to be prone to the typical cyan cast. Since i started scanning myself,
i experienced my share of problems to overcome. Looks like it takes no small amount of knowledge and experience to get the performance of this films out in the scanning process.
This is one reason why i shoot slide film 99% of the time. You geht the colors directly on the film the way they should look.

Wet printing C41 is a thing that's floating around in my head for quite some time now. I loved Cibachrome, but nowadays i drum-scan and print with inkjet. But i would like to experience the fun of doing color wet prints in the darkroom again, so even tough
i seldom use negative, i think i will try Ektar and Portra wet printed. Even if just for the fun and to have a kind of "reference" of how it is supposed to look like. That could come in handy for post processing.

I'd like to see a scan of a C-41 wet print and see how it stands side by side with my scans.

 

[MattKing]

I'd like to see a scan of a C-41 wet print and see how it stands side by side with my scans.

I'm not sure how serious you are here, but in case you are, I'm afraid you would likely be disappointed.
The presentation mode makes a real difference to results. If your intention is to view prints as prints, then in my opinion, high quality optical prints from film have strengths and qualities that are difficult to match with prints from digital files. Part of the difference can be met by using colour photographic paper for both.
But if you are going to view something on a screen, it is difficult to get a digital file from an optical print that is going to match the strengths and qualities of a displayed digital file - whether from a digital source, or a high quality scan.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm not sure how serious you are here, but in case you are, I'm afraid you would likely be disappointed.
The presentation mode makes a real difference to results. If your intention is to view prints as prints, then in my opinion, high quality optical prints from film have strengths and qualities that are difficult to match with prints from digital files. Part of the difference can be met by using colour photographic paper for both.
But if you are going to view something on a screen, it is difficult to get a digital file from an optical print that is going to match the strengths and qualities of a displayed digital file - whether from a digital source, or a high quality scan.

So, a negative native scan is better than an optical print scan?

I'm just concerned if the colors of my scan are true. An optical print should be truer to the tones of the film theoretically?

 

[Sirius Glass]

So, a negative native scan is better than an optical print scan?

No, optical scanning or any intermediary process will always bring in unwanted artifacts that may or may not be removable without further damage.

I'm just concerned if the colors of my scan are true. An optical print should be truer to the tones of the film theoretically?

To the best ability of optical printing, the optical print should be truer to the film tones, than any alternative method. The film, developer, paper and paper developer were optimized together, whenever introducing new techniques, there always the possibility of inducing perturbations and unwanted side effects that may or may not be removable without further deviation.

 

[Cholentpot]

No, optical scanning or any intermediary process will always bring in unwanted artifacts that may or may not be removable without further damage.



To the best ability of optical printing, the optical print should be truer to the film tones, than any alternative method. The film, developer, paper and paper developer were optimized together, whenever introducing new techniques, there always the possibility of inducing perturbations and unwanted side effects that may or may not be removable without further deviation.

In other words, there's really no true tones and color other than what you yourself are satisfied with.

 

[AgX]

Perhaps that shows that we do not know what we are talking about.

We should make this statement a sticker above above all forums.

 

[MattKing]

So, a negative native scan is better than an optical print scan?

I'm just concerned if the colors of my scan are true. An optical print should be truer to the tones of the film theoretically?

Negative film doesn't have a particular set of tones.
One of the things that drives me a bit nuts about all these type of discussions is how people attribute so much to film that actually should be almost entirely attributed to intermediate steps and final presentation methods and media.
One should never evaluate a film by itself - it should be evaluated in connection with the intermediate steps and final presentation methods and media.

 

[Cholentpot]

Negative film doesn't have a particular set of tones.
One of the things that drives me a bit nuts about all these type of discussions is how people attribute so much to film that actually should be almost entirely attributed to intermediate steps and final presentation methods and media.
One should never evaluate a film by itself - it should be evaluated in connection with the intermediate steps and final presentation methods and media.

Right. My scans are perfect then. Any dispute of that is blasphemy.

Joke aside, at this point if my scans look off I'll look elsewhere for the issue. Either the film itself, the camera or my processing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Right. My scans are perfect then. Any dispute of that is blasphemy.

Joke aside, at this point if my scans look off I'll look elsewhere for the issue. Either the film itself, the camera or my processing.

No you are just off. Did you stop taking your medicines?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perhaps that shows that we do not know what we are talking about.

We should make this statement a sticker above above all forums.

That would be a good start.

 

[George Mann]

That's your answer. Unless it's Kodachrome. Then it give you the nice colors, makes the leaves green and every day a sunny day. Oh yeah.

Yes, absolutely, and as long as it isn't ruined by scanning it of course!

 

[NB23]

I don’t know for you guys but color 120 film still being produced is a total Mystery to me ever since the year 2002.

Everything from it, its whole edge over 35mm film is lost, when scanned. The whole magnification thing is useful for wet prints, where grain and tightness of grain is the name of the game. But in the digital age, shooting 120 color doesn’t make any sense unless you print from your darkroom, a thing that nobody does anymore, or at least in unsignificant numbers for an industry to follow.

Same for 4x5: darkroom Large format has its place, but scanning large format, you must be a nutcase. Absolutely everything that separated LF from 35mm film gets lost when scanned.

I’m a heavy 120 BW film user and printer, but that’s the point of it, the darkroom work. But color 120 is just not worth it. Can’t understand why it even exists. Who actually sees a benefit of scanning a 120 film over 35mm? And is the hassle of the handling, low exposure count and extra cost worth it?