Photokina News: Kodak Prof. Ektar 100 Film

[athos]

Braxus...

They did not say much, but at least they did not tell me to stuff it! Here is the quote and question:

Thanks for the feedback, Tom. Enjoy the film!

Kodak Professional


--Original Message--
From: athos@montanasky.net
Date: 9/12/2008 3:54:37 PM
To: kprotraditional@kodak.com
Subject: Ektar 100



Sir:

Thank you for the quick response. Your recent Ektar claims and announcement have become the subject of a lot of interest on the internet. See sites like

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00QnG8

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00QpN5

APUG (Analog Photography Users Group) shows your announcement to have 70 comments and over 3000 "hits" already, the most in the list of recent topics.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If your new Ektar meets your claims and is not just a cleaver re-naming marketing scheme, you may have a product hit and want to consider it for other sizes also.

Tom

 

[braxus]

My thoughts are this. If the film can be as good as using a medium format camera, what is stopping us (of those of us who have medium format gear) to shooting a different film in 120 to get the same grain qualities? Thing is if they offered Ektar in 120, it would shift us from using different films. I would want the finest grained film in my camera no matter what format I shoot in. So it would be a tossup to chose Ektar in 35mm or say 160VC in 120 to get the same sharpness or grain size. I'd rather have Ektar in both formats if possible.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Film4Ever,

Have you used the film yet? The only difference I see about the new film is the saturation with bolder colors. The rest should be similar to the old film.

Tom,

Let us know what Kodak says if they respond to your second email.

I haven't used the film. Just pointing out that after, what, ten, fifteen years, there's no way in hell that they'd be able to bring back the exact same line, even deriving it from the same chemical formulae.

Coating film is like semi-controlled chaos. You can get it to the point where the chaos is good, but never get the same chaos twice.

Kodak is a company that makes masterful use of marketing spin and name changes, or using the same name with different products.

It's like saying the old VNF 5240 and E100G line of reversal films were the same because they were both called "Ektachrome". The only thing the same about these two films is that they produce reversal images.

So they can call it Portra, Ultracolor, Ektar, Kodacolor, whatever they want. I am sure it is a good film, but it's not as if they magically went back to their old Ektar formulae and are using those now.

They are using the name change to cover up the axing of UC 400. Ektar 100, I am 99% sure, is just a reformulated UC100, that they've lowered the saturation on, as higher saturation is more difficult, in general, to incorporate fine grainedness.

So in reality they decided to reformulate the UC line, to save money from having to use a different emulsion batch altogether, and make it more compatible with the Portra and Vision lines, and saved further money by eliminating 400 altogether unless the 100 really performs well and generates increased sales over UC 100.

Also, they've continued the unfortunate trend of not investing extra money into doing a 1- and 220 coating of the film. Forget 4x5. That will never happen with Kodak.

So they have succeeded in generating all of this hype in the wake of what they have actually done: consolidate the UC line into one film, more compatible with other color neg stocks, and only make it in 35mm, so they only have to coat it onto one base instead of two.

I am concerned they're shooting themselves in the asses because 35mm is *not* where the future lies with C-41. Most people that aren't students and who are going to continue using film are the people using medium format film, the professionals, wedding and art photographers. This is the market that has been slowest to move to digital, although even here, I am getting more and more funny looks for showing up at weddings with an RB.

 

[amuderick]

It is my understanding from previous posts that Kodak is willing to make any size of a film if a special pre-order is put together. Since 120 is on similar base as 35mm, someone just needs to arrange for the bulk up-front purchase of 35,000 rolls. Create the demand and the film will follow.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

It is my understanding from previous posts that Kodak is willing to make any size of a film if a special pre-order is put together. Since 120 is on similar base as 35mm, someone just needs to arrange for the bulk up-front purchase of 35,000 rolls. Create the demand and the film will follow.

Unfortunately, no, 220 is on a difference base than 35mm. Forget exact details. But I think 35mm is 5-mil acetate, 220 is 4-mil acetate or 4-mil estar with 70mm, and 4x5 and up is 7-mil estar.

So you'd need to buy a whole master roll from them, probably several million dollars worth of film.

 

[Chazzy]

Unfortunately, no, 220 is on a difference base than 35mm. Forget exact details. But I think 35mm is 5-mil acetate, 220 is 4-mil acetate or 4-mil estar with 70mm, and 4x5 and up is 7-mil estar.

So you'd need to buy a whole master roll from them, probably several million dollars worth of film.

It's my impression that 120 and 220 are exactly the same, except for the length of the strip of film and the arrangement of the paper tails.

 

[Tim Gray]

I haven't used the film. Just pointing out that after, what, ten, fifteen years, there's no way in hell that they'd be able to bring back the exact same line, even deriving it from the same chemical formulae.

Of course its a different film. The old one was ISO 25 and this is 100. However, maybe Kodak feels like this new film is similar enough in feel to deserve the same name? I'm looking forward to trying it...

I am concerned they're shooting themselves in the asses because 35mm is
*not* where the future lies with C-41. Most people that aren't students and who are going to continue using film are the people using medium format film, the professionals, wedding and art photographers. This is the market that has been slowest to move to digital, although even here, I am getting more and more funny looks for showing up at weddings with an RB.

I'm also guessing Kodak looked into projected sales and knows they sell and will sell more 35mm than they do 120. But what do I know, I don't work at Kodak.

 

[Photo Engineer]

To answer a few questions raised here and elsewhere....

Films in 35mm, 120 and 220 are coated on just about the same support. Very minor changes IIRC, but when you go to any sheet film size, the film must be thick enough to meet the film plane and strong enough to prevent buckle and therefore ALL sheet films are coated on a thicker support.

Next, this film uses 2 electron sensitization. During exposure, a number of photons hit a grain and form latent image sites. These may or may not regress and they may take from 3 - many photons, which release electrons. The 2 electron sensitization reduces the exposure needed down to the production of 2 electrons and therefore when applied to any emulsion can just about double the speed at the same grain size. Therefore, an ISO 25 emulsion can now be 50 and etc. Other improvements in efficiency can double this again, such as the use of a supersensitizer.

Thus, Kodak (which holds most of these patents) can take an ISO 25 emulsion and squeeze ISO 100 out of it. This makes for a fine-grain sharp film and it can be done using other tricks learned from Portra and the original Ektar.

Somewhere, soneone claimed that this would reduce stability. Well, that is untrue. In fact, the engineers responsible told me that it took this long for the Ektar (and as long as it did for the new Portras) for all keeping issues to be totally solved. This is not a Vision type film.

Now to the last item. The original Ektar sometimes suffered from crystals forming in the emulsion when deeply frozen for a long period. This had one effect. It increased the grain. Otherwise, the film was just fine, but when you buy a fine grain film, and get grain it kinda makes you unhappy. So, this and low sales were main reasons why Kodak took this film off the shelves those many years ago. They wanted to fix the problems.

The current film should be quite good.

PE

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

To answer a few questions raised here and elsewhere....

Films in 35mm, 120 and 220 are coated on just about the same support. Very minor changes IIRC, but when you go to any sheet film size, the film must be thick enough to meet the film plane and strong enough to prevent buckle and therefore ALL sheet films are coated on a thicker support.

PE

Ron, not to be a smart-ass, but Kodak's reasoning for discontinuing the UC line in 220 and 120 was that, currently, all roll film is coated on 4/1000" (0.10mm) acetate. 35mm is coated on 5/1000" (0.13mm) acetate.

Sheet film is coated on 7/1000" (0.19mm) estar.

While Kodak could resort to cutting roll film using 5/1000" acetate, as this is what it does in 70mm, they are apparently unwilling to do so, and have said as much.

For reference:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4040/e4040.pdf

pp. 2.

And I never said it was a Vision Film (unless you're referring to another thread I've missed?), rather that it utilizes common technology with Portra-II and Vision2, thus making it a cost-saving move too.

Or are you suggesting that Vision films aren't as stable? I've been assured that this is not the case anyway. That's an old wive's tale from the Seattle Film Works days, when *all* color films weren't as stable as they are now.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Karl;

I'm not suggesting or hinting anything. I have had some PMs that I decided to answer all together on this thread.

I have posted elsewhere that the nominal 35mm film thickness is about 5 mil. The 120 and 220 is nearly 5 mil as well and as close to identical as being meaningless. The sheet films are about 7 mil. Therefore coating machine settings for 120, 220 and 35mm are very close, but sheet film settings are "different". The reenginering would make sheet films more difficult, and the 120 and 220 are unlikely due to sales factors and the spools and papers.

I was also notified by a reader that some suggest that Vision and Ektar films might be less stable. I have not seen such a post, but merely tried to answer the basic question which is that they are all stable.

Go here for a review:

Dead Link Removed

PE

 

[nickandre]

The reenginering would make sheet films more difficult, and the 120 and 220 are unlikely due to sales factors and the spools and papers.

So you're saying I should still be hunting ebay for my 120 ektar 25?
Is there any limitation which prevents Kodak from slitting the master roll they're using for the 35mm in 70mm width and taping it to backing paper and spooling it besides sales factors? Why is it that 120/220 films are on a "slightly" different base?

Also, I've been turned off of 35mm because after shooting fuji reala (the slowest film I could find, haven't tried UC 100) because I was still disappointed with the grain when enlarged to 8x10. Kodak uses some other system than RMS in their documentation but is this grain significantly finer than the 100 speed films today?

 

[epraus]

My lab was used in the development of this film and I can confirm that the grain structure is truly impressive!

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Karl;

I'm not suggesting or hinting anything. I have had some PMs that I decided to answer all together on this thread.
PE

Neither am I. . .


Let me state facts again. I am not going to argue:


35mm - 5 thou's Roll film - 4 thou's Sheet film 7 thou's. It's in the tech pub.

4 thou's is a 20% difference, so it's meaningful enough that Kodak doesn't offer the new film in 1- and 2-20. 70mm is offered in 5 thou acetate and 4 thou estar though. [I suspect the thinner film is necessitated by the paper backing.]

Kodak has named it Ektar to market the fact that is has fine grain, as earlier, unrelated films named "Ektar" did. Kodak doesn't "feel" the film is worthy of the name. They own the name, and have used it with the hopes of selling as much of this film as possible.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, first off I personally would not use any old Ektar 25 as the storage is important. No freezing and it goes bad, freezing and it keeps but MAY - <-note MAY go up in grain!

Do what you want. IDC.

Karl, a difference of actually less than 1 mil is less important in the drying and coating than 2 mil or more! Think about it. BTDT. There is a world of difference. Also, 120 support is not in big supply due to the market!

PE

 

[nickandre]

[I suspect the thinner film is necessitated by the paper backing.]

Hmm. A 20% difference on 1/4 of the width means a 1/20 difference in end diameter of the roll which doesn't seem like a big difference. Looking at the structure of my TLR it definitely shouldn't as the pressure plate has a ridiculous amount of give so the "perfect calibration" shouldn't be offset by a 10% increase in film width including backing since the film plane is set by the front instead of the rear as in sheet film. (a few assumptions in there)
And given that I will be processing it myself I don't care...

So your answer is not really?

 

[Vonder]

I'm a bit curious about the film's stated saturation... the workings of C-41 labs and processing and such are a mystery to me. When I scan my negatives I can increase or decrease the saturation quite easilly. I expect the typical film processing machine can do likewise - or is that an incorrect assumption?

I ask because I enjoy making very sharp portraits, and wonder if this film could be used for that, with just a minor tweak of the output.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm a bit curious about the film's stated saturation... the workings of C-41 labs and processing and such are a mystery to me. When I scan my negatives I can increase or decrease the saturation quite easilly. I expect the typical film processing machine can do likewise - or is that an incorrect assumption?

I ask because I enjoy making very sharp portraits, and wonder if this film could be used for that, with just a minor tweak of the output.

Incorrect assumption.

Correctly run processing machines produce a "standard" output. This is optimal for the product.

PE

 

[braxus]

Well all I can say is I look forward to using this film. The PGI of less then 25 tells me it is very similar in grain to the old 25 film. And based on the 2 electron technology raising it to 100, that makes total sense to me. The only difference then is saturation.

Ron- Could Kodak not cut 120 rolls from the same master roll as 35mm? Since the master roll is made already, it doesn't sound too trivial to trim a little bit off to sell a small amount of 120 rolls. Im sure the backing paper could be made easy enough. It would be a real shame to limit this film to 35mm only. Medium format could really do some damage in terms of resolution for enlargements.

And my other question is this. Im aware there was an Ektar 125 film, but others have stated there has also been an Ektar 100 that replaced it. So being we have a new Ektar 100- what edge code will it have? Ektar 100-3?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have no idea what edge code it would have.

As for making 120, the amount would have to justify the costs even if it took exactly the same support. IDK what the current setup is, but the machines scanning master rolls would have to be reprogrammed to give mixed patterns of 35mm and 120 for defects and for slitting and chopping.

As I said earlier, maybe a 10% chance of making any.

PE

 

[kodachrome64]

I understand this, as I'm sure Kodak knows that the market won't support this currently. And if wedding and portrait photographers are using 120, they surely wouldn't want to use this film, would they?

Maybe if sales are exceptional they will put together a run for a 120 preorder. But we really can't expect them to put out a product that they know has such a high chance of not selling. This isn't charity, no matter how much we would like it to be.

 

[Tim Gray]

Warning - I've never shot Ektar, new or old, medium format, weddings, professional portraits, etc.

BUT, from what I understand, Portra films are probably more suited for people pictures due to the way Portra handles skin tones compared to how Kodak says Ektar handles colors. 160NC is already pretty fine grained, and I can't imagine medium format 160NC is going to have objectionable grain... and if it does, buy it in 4x5 instead.

 

[Goldfellow]

Member" kodachrome64" has the story right. Kodak is introducing this film first as a 35mm because that is where the most sales potential is. If it goes very well, consideration would be given to doing a small run of 120.

 

[kodachrome64]

Warning - I've never shot Ektar, new or old, medium format, weddings, professional portraits, etc.

BUT, from what I understand, Portra films are probably more suited for people pictures due to the way Portra handles skin tones compared to how Kodak says Ektar handles colors. 160NC is already pretty fine grained, and I can't imagine medium format 160NC is going to have objectionable grain... and if it does, buy it in 4x5 instead.

Exactly. That's why there's really no market for it in 120. If that market were to surface, I'm sure that Kodak, in their devious attempt to make money, will meet the demand.

 

[Tim Gray]

Haha, I totally misread your comment as "wedding and portrait photographers *would* want to use this film."

I think we are on the same page.

 

[langedp]

New Kodak Ektar 100 negative film

I see on Kodak's web site, they are launching a new negative film called Ektar 100. Looks like it replaces Ultra Color for those that liked that film. High color saturation and extremely fine grained. Supposed to launch in October. Anyone get any pre-launch samples?