No! Please not Provia!

[StoneNYC]

After reading this E6 "bashing", looking at my E6 pics now I think I've made a most horrifing mistake in my life, I should've switched to humble digital long time ago or de-saturate and de-contrast all of my pics ASAP! Why I even shot the E6 in the first place? It's just beyond me! Especially now when they're considered very poor, horrible, excessive and oversaturated films by so many well regarded pro photographers. Will I ever grow up?


Cheers,
Margus

For someone who doesn't like vivid color film, you sure make a lot of beautiful colorful images.

Ferrania claims to be making E-6 soon, perhaps there's will be more muted


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tsiklonaut]

Cheers guys,

It's my nature to be sarcastic about whining

Just shoot whatever fits your bill and keep the E6 film alive, or at least that little we have left

Margus

 

[destroya]

.....
Just shoot whatever fits your bill and keep the E6 film alive, or at least that little we have left

Margus

amen

 

[brianmquinn]

FYI I just got a big box of 35mm 400x from Unique Photo.
They had the best price I could find and the expiration date is Jan 2015.
They also sell Fuji Slide film Mailers that are processed by Dwayne's Photo.
I use a lot of them, I ordered 50 in early 2012 and they had an expiration date of 12-31-2013.
That was about a 2 year life span.
They were out of stock but Fuji just printed another batch with dates of 3-31-2014.
So it looks like Fuji will keep the contract with Dwayne's at least a little longer.
http://www.uniquephoto.com/product/...xposures-e-6-fujichrome-ektachrome-600006359/

 

[StoneNYC]

FYI I just got a big box of 35mm 400x from Unique Photo.
They had the best price I could find and the expiration date is Jan 2015.
They also sell Fuji Slide film Mailers that are processed by Dwayne's Photo.
I use a lot of them, I ordered 50 in early 2012 and they had an expiration date of 12-31-2013.
That was about a 2 year life span.
They were out of stock but Fuji just printed another batch with dates of 3-31-2014.
So it looks like Fuji will keep the contract with Dwayne's at least a little longer.
http://www.uniquephoto.com/product/...xposures-e-6-fujichrome-ektachrome-600006359/

Question (2 actually)

1. With those mailers can you send more than one roll of film in each mailer?

And two, how much are they?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brianmquinn]

Question (2 actually)

1. With those mailers can you send more than one roll of film in each mailer?

And two, how much are they?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

One roll per mailer. The mailer is proof you paid Fuji to develop one roll of E6 film developed and get it mailed back to you. But sometimes when I send several rolls off I put several mailers in a box to save me on the postage to get it to Dwayne's
For price just click on the link.

 

[lxdude]

I remember way back in the old days... that's the mid to late '70's... Fujichrome and Agfachrome came with the mailer included. The Agfachrome mailer was a white cloth pouch, not a paper envelope. Very classy looking.

 

[StoneNYC]

I remember way back in the old days... that's the mid to late '70's... Fujichrome and Agfachrome came with the mailer included. The Agfachrome mailer was a white cloth pouch, not a paper envelope. Very classy looking.

All the old agfa stuff always seemed classier to me, even their roll film canisters were nice metal with screw on caps and a rubber O ring seal...

 

[MattKing]

For most of its life, all Kodachrome sold in Canada included processing in its price. Kodak included a convenience envelope in the package, but it was the film cassette itself that confirmed that the processing was pre-paid.

In the US, Kodak was prohibited from selling the film including processing as a result of a consent decree issued in an anti-trust case initiated by the US government.

 

[StoneNYC]

For most of its life, all Kodachrome sold in Canada included processing in its price. Kodak included a convenience envelope in the package, but it was the film cassette itself that confirmed that the processing was pre-paid.

In the US, Kodak was prohibited from selling the film including processing as a result of a consent decree issued in an anti-trust case initiated by the US government.

Yea, the US government is dumb... at least with that... I would venture a guess that if process payed film were still allowed, film would have gone on a bit longer, and Kodachrome might have been around a few more years as well. The convenience of not leaving your house for things is not to be laughed at...

 

[Roger Cole]

I bought process paid film (Scotch/3M I think) marketed as Focal) at K-Mart at least in the late 70s. I don't know how broadly that decree applied.

 

[lxdude]

It applied only to Kodak. It was finally rescinded in the 90's, and the gummint fought that!

 

[brianmquinn]

Yea, the US government is dumb... at least with that...

Do a little research on the Kodak anti-trust case before you call it dumb.
Would you pay $100 for a roll of C41 film and developing? That is what it used to cost in today's dollars.
And Kodak was in a habit of buying it's competition then shutting them down or raising he price of the product after they owned the it all.
We only got some price adjustments when Fuji came on strong in the USA.

 

[StoneNYC]

Do a little research on the Kodak anti-trust case before you call it dumb.
Would you pay $100 for a roll of C41 film and developing? That is what it used to cost in today's dollars.
And Kodak was in a habit of buying it's competition then shutting them down or raising he price of the product after they owned the it all.
We only got some price adjustments when Fuji came on strong in the USA.

Could you buy kodak film without the process payed?

 

[brianmquinn]

Yes you could. The point of the order was Kodak owned the majority of the film making and developing in the US. Preventing them from selling process paid mailers was an attempt to get some competition in the market.

From:
Dead Link Removed

"The markets for color film and color photofinishing in 1954 were indisputably controlled by Kodak" (J.A. 75). Kodak had over 90% of the amateur color negative film market in 1954 (J.A. 214). Kodak did the photofinishing on all of its own color film (J.A. 220-21), because it controlled the technology, and because its photofinishing was included in the cost of the film (J.A. 234).(9)

9. The customer or retail dealer mailed the exposed film to Kodak for processing, and the prints were returned by mail in two to three weeks (J.A. 219-20). Kodak did the photofinishing of color film in large laboratories, supervised by engineers, due to the sensitivity of the process (J.A. 217-19). It refused, however, to process film produced by any other company, because its equipment could be contaminated by different chemicals they used (J.A. 220-21).

 

[lxdude]

Yes you could. The point of the order was Kodak owned the majority of the film making and developing in the US. Preventing them from selling process paid mailers was an attempt to get some competition in the market.

From:
Dead Link Removed

"The markets for color film and color photofinishing in 1954 were indisputably controlled by Kodak" (J.A. 75). Kodak had over 90% of the amateur color negative film market in 1954 (J.A. 214). Kodak did the photofinishing on all of its own color film (J.A. 220-21), because it controlled the technology, and because its photofinishing was included in the cost of the film (J.A. 234).(9)

9. The customer or retail dealer mailed the exposed film to Kodak for processing, and the prints were returned by mail in two to three weeks (J.A. 219-20). Kodak did the photofinishing of color film in large laboratories, supervised by engineers, due to the sensitivity of the process (J.A. 217-19). It refused, however, to process film produced by any other company, because its equipment could be contaminated by different chemicals they used (J.A. 220-21).

Kodak could sell process-paid mailers, separately from film. They could not sell film in the U.S.with processing included in the purchase price.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes you could. The point of the order was Kodak owned the majority of the film making and developing in the US. Preventing them from selling process paid mailers was an attempt to get some competition in the market.

From:
Dead Link Removed

"The markets for color film and color photofinishing in 1954 were indisputably controlled by Kodak" (J.A. 75). Kodak had over 90% of the amateur color negative film market in 1954 (J.A. 214). Kodak did the photofinishing on all of its own color film (J.A. 220-21), because it controlled the technology, and because its photofinishing was included in the cost of the film (J.A. 234).(9)

9. The customer or retail dealer mailed the exposed film to Kodak for processing, and the prints were returned by mail in two to three weeks (J.A. 219-20). Kodak did the photofinishing of color film in large laboratories, supervised by engineers, due to the sensitivity of the process (J.A. 217-19). It refused, however, to process film produced by any other company, because its equipment could be contaminated by different chemicals they used (J.A. 220-21).

See, on the one hand, I don't like big business when you look at the little guy struggling, on the other hand, Kodak started as a small company and grew itself with (somehow) good practices, if it weren't a good company at the time, people wouldn't buy it. So the anti-trust stuff kinda annoys me, if they offered their product with both a process payed, and film without processing as options, I see no issue with that, they give you both options, if they are the only game in town that's because they are probably producing a better product than the other guys, which is good for consumers. Any lab can refuse to process other peoples products if it contaminates their labs, like how some labs won't cross process E-6 in C-41 chemistry because they fear it will throw things off. And it's a legit claim, they shouldn't be responsible for other film companies chemistry. On top of that, since the other film companies didn't have to worry about their product being developed by kodak, they could have their own labs do it, its' better for them, and in fact could offer their film and process payed at a lower rate than kodak prices and therefore get better sales. If they aren't capable of surviving under those conditions where they are actually getting customers to process their own film, then they shouldn't be in business, survival of the fittest. If on the other hand they were forcing labs that were non-kodak labs to refuse other film, that's a different story. Mom and pop should be able to develop whatever film they want at their local lab. But a warehouse lab owned by kodak, they can do what they want. Just like Dwayne's Photo can do what they want, they decided they were done with Kodachrome and shut their machine down (I was a cool machine I saw it in person [and shot pictures of it on Kodachrome64] heh) then that's their choice. However if they were doing things like "you can only sell Kodak film at your store or we wont sell to you" then that's NOT ok, but having free market choice on who to buy and have film developed with, that's the companies business.

I'm sure some of what I mentioned that I believe is NOT ok was part of that anti-trust from the sound of it, but the process payed bit I don't agree is an issue.

Thanks for learnin' me

 

[MattKing]

Dwayne's didn't shut down Kodachrome - Kodak did, by shutting down supply of the processing chemistry. They coordinated the shut-down together.

When Dwaynes stopped processing Kodachrome, they were the last ones left, because the other labs, both Kodak and independent, had shut down theirs, due to the economics. Many of those labs could have been re-started (prior to 2010) because the equipment was available, but the economics stopped it.

And as part of the anti-trust decree, Kodak was forced to put a lot of resources into assisting their competitors in setting up and maintaining their Kodachrome lines.

 

[StoneNYC]

Dwayne's didn't shut down Kodachrome - Kodak did, by shutting down supply of the processing chemistry. They coordinated the shut-down together.

When Dwaynes stopped processing Kodachrome, they were the last ones left, because the other labs, both Kodak and independent, had shut down theirs, due to the economics. Many of those labs could have been re-started (prior to 2010) because the equipment was available, but the economics stopped it.

And as part of the anti-trust decree, Kodak was forced to put a lot of resources into assisting their competitors in setting up and maintaining their Kodachrome lines.

Thanks for the correction. It was simply an example, obviously poor one, of companies choosing to do what they want, though again, a poor example. Though it certainly put Dwayne's on the map more than it had been so lucky them!

 

[brianmquinn]

However if they were doing things like "you can only sell Kodak film at your store or we wont sell to you" then that's NOT ok, but having free market choice on who to buy and have film developed with, that's the companies business.

I worked a major nation drugstore chain in the 1980s. We were only allowed to sell Kodak film. If we wanted to sell any other brand, even a store brand Kodak would have sued us. Our chain had a contract with Kodak to get the "reduced prices on their film" This is the truth. So you see it was legal and common to do the thing you said was NOT OK.

Also the break up of the Bell company allow you to wireless tap type where you want today.

 

[rolleiman]

Is this the beginning of the end for tranny film altogether? When you think about it, the media generally doesn't want it, (they demand digital) slide projectors are disappearing, as it becomes ever easier to view your efforts on the TV screen. There is probably a higher demand for colour neg., people still like prints to handle, and black & white is probably the primary area where film based results are preferred by many.
Another factor in the demise of tranny could be less and less labs around to process the film.
I see black & white as the main future for film based photography.

 

[StoneNYC]

Is this the beginning of the end for tranny film altogether? When you think about it, the media generally doesn't want it, (they demand digital) slide projectors are disappearing, as it becomes ever easier to view your efforts on the TV screen. There is probably a higher demand for colour neg., people still like prints to handle, and black & white is probably the primary area where film based results are preferred by many.
Another factor in the demise of tranny could be less and less labs around to process the film.
I see black & white as the main future for film based photography.

Cost is key, it's almost double for transparency when you look at the total cost and you can't wet print only scan so many who wet print can't use it period.

It comes down to that really, C-41 isn't really that less in quality than transparency that its worth the extra cost of E-6 and you can't even process it at home anymore in the US, at least not with a proper 6 bath kit.

*side note* whenever I read "tranny" I don't think of transparency film....


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brianmquinn]

Why do I keep reading that 3 bath E-6 kits are poor quality? What evidence do you have to support this claim that all 3 bath E-6 kits are bad? The Tetenal Colortec E-6 Kit is available from Freestyle for amyone in the USA to buy and use at home. APUG members with huge amounts of experience and knowledge have said how good this kits is.

Show me one well done test that shows it is inferior to a 6 bath kit.

 

[StoneNYC]

Why do I keep reading that 3 bath E-6 kits are poor quality? What evidence do you have to support this claim that all 3 bath E-6 kits are bad? The Tetenal Colortec E-6 Kit is available from Freestyle for amyone in the USA to buy and use at home. APUG members with huge amounts of experience and knowledge have said how good this kits is.

Show me one well done test that shows it is inferior to a 6 bath kit.

PE has stated many times that the blix does not fully eliminate all the silver and that over time the image can degrade, also the Arista kits don't contain stabilizer which they don't tell you you need in order to avoid color fading... I can't speak for the tentenal kits on the stabilizer but blix is still blix. It also doesn't last very long, were a separate fixer and bleach will last much longer once mixed so you can space out your use of the chemistry instead of worrying about it oxidizing too soon.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tnabbott]

Btw it appears Ferrania will be making a 100 speed E-6 film soon... Good news....


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Internet cite please.