New Kodak Film in 2022?

[flavio81]

this was something discussed in the aforementioned conversation. Digitally acquired images, even from semi-pro cameras and put through full on Photoshop....don't look much like B&W film....even on a computer monitor. There is something artificial or "plasticy" about it.

Monitors often can only display 24 bit depth of color (8 bits for each primary color, R, G, B). Thus when displaying greyscale they can only achieve 256 luminance values, which is very very restrictive.

Same happens with cheap printers. I'm not aware of what is needed for truly good b&w prints using digital technology, but to me it's obvious that you need the whole chain to be able to do grayscale with more than 8 bits of information.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's not for lack of trying by the way. Adding digital grain doesn't seem to work.

Some of the best alcohol comes from grain.

 

[Cholentpot]

Some of the best alcohol comes from grain.

The wood stuff though...

 

[Sirius Glass]

The wood stuff though...

Only for you.

 

[Cholentpot]

Only for you.

Don't see the point.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't see the point.

I guess I need to draw a picture. <<sigh>> Wood alcohol is poisonous and can be used as antifreeze. Grain alcohol is for drinking, antiseptic, and as a solvent.

 

[Cholentpot]

I guess I need to draw a picture. <<sigh>> Wood alcohol is poisonous and can be used as antifreeze. Grain alcohol is for drinking, antiseptic, and as a solvent.

it also causes blindness hence the pun of 'I don't see the point'

 

[Sirius Glass]

it also causes blindness hence the pun of 'I don't see the point'

 

[cmacd123]

In any case, the revival of Gold 200 in 120 is the second new film this year. so Kodak is up to date on their promises. Lets buy the heck out of what we are given, and hope they will look for another product to "re-continue"

 

[brbo]

In any case, the revival of Gold 200 in 120 is the second new film this year. so Kodak is up to date on their promises.

Which was the first new film from Kodak this year?

 

[Agulliver]

Which was the first new film from Kodak this year?

Fuji 200

 

[Snowfire]

Not that I seriously expect it, but I wonder, with current technology, if an Ektachrome or Portra 3200 would be doable. Now that would be a bit of a game-changer.

 

[cmacd123]

I wonder, with current technology, if an Ektachrome or Portra 3200 would be doable. Now that would be a bit of a game-changer.

Sakura-Konica did make some very fast Colour films, and Fuji did make a Superia 1600. which means it is possible, but both those had fairly poor sales because of the expense, and the short Dating required for such a fast film. I forget what the fastest EKTAPRESS colour film was but it was 1000, or slightly faster. A couple of the camera stores sold it as individual rolls at the time. Kodak being true to their target market only sold it in 50 roll pro-packs.

 

[flavio81]

Not that I seriously expect it, but I wonder, with current technology, if an Ektachrome or Portra 3200 would be doable. Now that would be a bit of a game-changer.

In the past, Kodak Supra 800 had very good (imo) skin tones, and it was pushable as far as I remember.

I also used Superia 1600 and it had acceptable skin tones.

 

[Agulliver]

Konica had a C41 3200ISO film. I only used it a couple of times, both times in medium format. Sure, it had grain but in 120 it wasn't obtrusive and it allowed me to do things I couldn't otherwise do. I was a guest at a celebrity wedding, and had free hand to take whatever photos I liked provided I did not use a flash. Same rules for all guests but I was the only one who actually got any decent photos....by shooting on film. This was in 2005, I'd frozen the Konica 3200 since about 1997.

Fuji Super-G 1600 and later Superia 1600 were pretty good in 35mm, I used to shoot gigs on that. The Fuji Superia/Press 800 was so good at regular photo sizes that you could use it as an every day film. Only when you started enlarging over 10" was any grain at all noticed. And even then it was "nice" grain. Superia was a big improvement over Super-G in terms of grain. I would agree that skin tones weren't great with either, but I was using it to shoot gigs under spotlights and with spectacular coloured lighting effects, or places like Las Vegas at night....so that wasn't an issue.

No doubt a 3200ISO C41 film is possible. But the market must be very small. Only one manufacturer ever made it and I think even they axed it circa 2000 when film was still king.

There might be a market for a faster Ektachrome, say 400. I still mourn the loss of Fuji 800 and pick up the Lomography branded 800 film when I can. Which is widely believed to be Kodak Max 800.

Kodak used to do Royal Gold 1000 which was a bit too red for my liking, but probably handled skin tones well in natural but dull light like cloudy days.

 

[foc]

The Fuji Superia/Press 800 was so good at regular photo sizes that you could use it as an every day film

I shot press work for a local paper in the 1990s and the Fuji 800 propack was what we used in 95% of all shots. It had great exposure latitude. At the time I think Fuji was way ahead of the game with their range of C41 films.

 

[Agulliver]

I agree with @foc the Fuji C41 films had the edge over Kodak and Agfa and were definitely better than Ferrania and Konica. None of them were bad, but Fuji seemed to put more into R&D in those days and had products nobody else did. Sure, Kodak had a 800 ISO C41 film but it wasn't a patch on the Fuji. Even today's Kodak Max 800 (probably AKA Lomogrpahy 800), while it's good, I'd rather have Superia/Press 800 from 20 years ago.

 

[flavio81]

The Fuji Superia/Press 800 was so good at regular photo sizes that you could use it as an every day film. Only when you started enlarging over 10" was any grain at all noticed. And even then it was "nice" grain.

I agree. I used to shoot concerts. Superia 800 was superb film. I never used Superia 400 since 800 was so good and if I wanted better image quality i should be using Reala 100.

Grain was really fine, 8x10" enlargements looked great. Even Superia 1600, enlarged optically to 8x10" had nice grain that wasn't obtrusive. But if you enlarged it using the digital Frontier system, the scanner aliased the grain and then it looked very grainy.

 

[Minolta93]

I shot press work for a local paper in the 1990s and the Fuji 800 propack was what we used in 95% of all shots. It had great exposure latitude. At the time I think Fuji was way ahead of the game with their range of C41 films.

What's the highest speed that you think you could have shot that film and still gotten acceptable results? I'm sure one stop faster would work, but what about 3200?
Did you have the lab push film often?

 

[foc]

What's the highest speed that you think you could have shot that film and still gotten acceptable results? I'm sure one stop faster would work, but what about 3200?
Did you have the lab push film often?

One stop was no problem but at 2 stops you might get away with it, depending on the lighting.
There was no push processing on the C41 as they were minilab leader card processed.
We were basically producting a colour print for the newspaper to make a B&W halftone. Only the odd time did the paper product a colour image.

 

[Minolta93]

One stop was no problem but at 2 stops you might get away with it, depending on the lighting.
There was no push processing on the C41 as they were minilab leader card processed.
We were basically producting a colour print for the newspaper to make a B&W halftone. Only the odd time did the paper product a colour image.

Thanks, that's neat to know.

 

[pentaxuser]

We were basically producting a colour print for the newspaper to make a B&W halftone. Only the odd time did the paper product a colour image.

Just out of curiosity, why was a C41 colour film your "stock in trade" film when it was turned mainly into b&w images?

C41 cheaper then than b&w? More convenient to develop, easier to stick with colour when occasionally a colour shot was required or a mixture of all 3 ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

Just out of curiosity, why was a C41 colour film your "stock in trade" film when it was turned mainly into b&w images?

C41 cheaper then than b&w? More convenient to develop, easier to stick with colour when occasionally a colour shot was required or a mixture of all 3 ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The reason I used C41 colour negative was that I could develop it quickly in my minilab. The newspaper office was across the road from our minilab/photoshop-studio. So it was a case of take the photos, process and print the film and hand them into the office and get paid.

So it was speed that made me use C41 film.

There was another paper that would sometimes use our prints but it would complain that our prints had colour casts etc and didn't make good halftones. All untrue. They were very vocal in telling advertisers and clients about this. (of course they wanted their own staff photographer to be booked/used).

To put a stop to these rumors, I asked to see how they were making the halftones. Turned out the operator was lazy and would put a whole bunch of prints together and make the one large halftone and then cut to suit. And he set the exposure for his own photographer's prints (they were B&W).

To cut a long story short, I had a word with the paper owner, showed him the same photo we took that was in his paper and the other paper and how his version was poor and it highlighted his shoddy workmanship and I would make it known to all clients and advertisers.

Problem solved.

 

[Munky]

I'd really like to have Portra NC back

 

[braxus]

I'd really like to have Portra NC back

What are you talking about? The current versions of Portra are the NC version. Its the VC version that is no longer with us. Just look how flat the current Portra is in saturation, especially the 160 version.