Slide sharpness

[Photo Engineer]

Ben;

Your point is very valid. Fuji has concentrated on slide films and Kodak has concentrated on negative films. This is why one will probably go to Fuji or Kodak if they prefer slide or negative.

PE

 

[benjiboy]

Ben;

Your point is very valid. Fuji has concentrated on slide films and Kodak has concentrated on negative films. This is why one will probably go to Fuji or Kodak if they prefer slide or negative.

PE

Thanks Ron, I agree with you Kodak Neg films are indeed excellent, but Fuji 160S and 400H and Reala are no slouch either

 

[bishy]

I can't see what the O.P's problem is, none of the current range of Fuji Professional slide films 50, 100,400 or 800 ISO are lacking in resolving power, contrast or apparent sharpness, indeed are probably the the best range of colour transparency film currently manufactured, if he likes the propertys of Velvia 50 and would like a 100 ISO film with the same propertys, Use Velvia 100F.

No problem at all. There has been some great advice given on this thread,and i have learn't a little more.

I was well aware of the propeties of Velvia 100F. I did shoot through a large batch last year with mixed results.

 

[brianmquinn]

The numbers do not tell it all. Film has many factors and even if a film is sharper it may not LOOK better.

I did a simple test during the 18 months I had after Kodak announced Kodachrome was going away. I would have my camera loaded with Kodachrome 64 and when I shot slide #36 I would reload with the new film to be tested and shoot the same shot on slide #1. When I took shot #36 of the test roll I would load a new roll of Kodachrome and shoot the same shot on slide #1. I kept up this alternation for a year and a half. I kept shooting the stuff I usually do and so had a good samples of lighting, color, etc. Still it was not a complete test as I only shot about 60 rolls during that peroid. In the end I still feel that Kodachrome was the sharpest film but others films did very well in other aspects. It takes a while to get know a film and one test number or even one test roll will not do it. Shoot a few rolls over a period of time and see what happens.

 

[brianmquinn]

Also one note to add to my last post. Several of the films (Fuji and Kodak) I tested were also cut from the production line in the last 2.5 years. In the future the sharpest slide film may be the only slide film. Kodak only has one slide film left E100G. There is E100VS and it seems sharper but I don't like it's colors for what I shoot. So for me there is only one left.

PS I know they also market Elite Chrome 100 but is is really the same film as E100G.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is illegal in the US to sell the same product under different names AFAIK. I do know that Kodak tried to avoid that issue.

PE

 

[bishy]

Also one note to add to my last post. Several of the PS I know they also market Elite Chrome 100 but is is really the same film as E100G.

Similar film so i read before,slightly warmer color balance. I think the film is very similar to Ektachrome 100GX or maybe SW.

Thank you for the advice. Just to note i tested Velvia 100f over a period of months and conditions. I was fairly impressed and one of 100 speed films to trial again for my current project.

 

[brianmquinn]

I agree that E100G and Elite Chrome are different. The Elite is a little warmer but E100G with a 1A or 1B filter makes looks like Elite Chrome to me. They are so similar that I do not think anyone could tell them appart without carefully controlled testing. If you shoot in a studio with carefully controlled lighting then you probally could tell them appart and would probally go with E100G. I shoot mostly outdoors and so Elite Chrome is fine with me and about 10% cheaper.

 

[brianmquinn]

It is illegal in the US to sell the same product under different names AFAIK. I do know that Kodak tried to avoid that issue.

PE

If this were true than there is no way that Freestyle's Arista Premium B&W 400
is Tri-X. Everyone seems to agree that it is Tri-X. I have used it and can't see the difference.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak cannot sell one of its products with two labels. Recently the US government gave them permission to rebrand products for other companies. Before that decision it was illegal for Kodak and others to do so. So, what you describe is possible, just not by the same company.

PE

 

[michaelbsc]

Kodak cannot sell one of its products with two labels. Recently the US government gave them permission to rebrand products for other companies. Before that decision it was illegal for Kodak and others to do so. So, what you describe is possible, just not by the same company.

PE

I think this is probably a part of Kodak's Consent Decree. It isn't an ordinary trade restriction.

It *IS* illegal to misrepresent it under one of the labels. But selling the same product under two labels is ok. A lot of things like vitamins and stuff are marketed that way.

For bigger fish, Wellbutrin and Zyban are the same drug.

But once you get to the point you're operation is under the constant scrutiny of an antitrust order things change.

 

[OzJohn]

I think Michael may be right because for years Fuji sold both pro and consumer versions of their 35mm neg films in 400 and 800 ISO that were the same emulsions (the published specs were identical and they printed identically using the same filtration/printing channel). The only differences were the edge imprints and the pro versions were sold only in five packs. OzJohn

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fuji stated that the pro emulsions were more pushable as did Kodak. The Kodak products were different and due to the Fuji comments, I would think that their comparable products differed also.

For example, pro products are expected to be processed immediately, but consumer products are expected to be kept for up to several years in-camera, so the constituents differ to adjust for keeping. I know that consumer negative is built to a contrast of about .63 - .70 and pro products are built to 0.6 - 0.63 due to camera flare factors in consumer vs pro cameras.

PE

 

[brianmquinn]

Thanks PE, for the info on contrast of Pro films. I don't think I ever paid much attention to contrast in my tests. I will have to go back and look more closely. Maybe the Pro films are a little sharper but I missed it due to their lower contrast.

 

[lxdude]

It *IS* illegal to misrepresent it under one of the labels. But selling the same product under two labels is ok. A lot of things like vitamins and stuff are marketed that way.

I have seen that. I just bought some pills for my allergies from CVS, both under the same brand name. One was called Night-time Cold Medicine, the other Allergy Multi-symptom. The type and quantity of active ingredients is identical, the list of inactive ingredients is identical, in fact the rest of the entire box, every single word, is identical. The caplets' appearance is identical, too.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, the easiest comparison is Gold to Portra.

PE

 

[michaelbsc]

I have seen that. I just bought some pills for my allergies from CVS, both from the same maker. One was called Night-time Cold Medicine, the other Allergy Multi-symptom. The type and quantity of active ingredients is identical, the list of inactive ingredients is identical, in fact the rest of the entire box, every single word, is identical. The caplets' appearance is identical, too.

CVS does not operate under the scrutiny of a regulator enforcing an arbitrary regulation. Kodak, unfortunately, does. So Kodak lives with made up extra rules the rest of the world doesn't even know about. Much less have to follow.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, Kodak has been declared a monopoly, but lately the US Government has been relaxing the rules. I guess they noticed that EK no longer is dominant!

As for the CVS medications, you did not say if the brand name was the same. You see, selling the same thing under two brand names is not illegal AFAIK, and so two drug companies may sell the same thing under their own company name but with different trade names and they may contain the same ingredients.

This is a very complex subject that many companies just ignore if they do not fall into categories regulated or noticed by the US Government.

PE

 

[lxdude]

As for the CVS medications, you did not say if the brand name was the same. You see, selling the same thing under two brand names is not illegal AFAIK, and so two drug companies may sell the same thing under their own company name but with different trade names and they may contain the same ingredients.

Yes, it is the same brand name, TopCare. I have edited my post to make that clear.

 

[lxdude]

CVS does not operate under the scrutiny of a regulator enforcing an arbitrary regulation. Kodak, unfortunately, does. So Kodak lives with made up extra rules the rest of the world doesn't even know about. Much less have to follow.

What regulation? The consent decrees of 1921 and 1954 were terminated in 1994.

The DOJ appealed, but termination was upheld by the second circuit in 1995.

 

[brianmquinn]

My comment about not noticing a big difference in contrast between Pro and amateur films mainly had to do with slide films. I did notice a clear difference between Kodak Gold and Portra films. But I also realize that with film now being scanned in and digitally printed it is hard to tell how much of the contrast is in the film and how much is due to the digital printer doing what it thinks you want to see.

One of the reasons I like slide film is I make it what I want when I shoot it. No lab is going to alter it on me as long as they use fresh chemistry.

 

[michaelbsc]

Yes, Kodak has been declared a monopoly, but lately the US Government has been relaxing the rules. I guess they noticed that EK no longer is dominant!

As for the CVS medications, you did not say if the brand name was the same. You see, selling the same thing under two brand names is not illegal AFAIK, and so two drug companies may sell the same thing under their own company name but with different trade names and they may contain the same ingredients.

This is a very complex subject that many companies just ignore if they do not fall into categories regulated or noticed by the US Government.

PE

And if you are a small company selling an innocuous product, say men's socks or cheap dinnerware like you find at discount stores, even if it it completely illegal the likelihood of getting caught is small. And a lot of people take the attitude that it's only illegal if you do get caught.

 

[lxdude]

Yes, Kodak has been declared a monopoly, but lately the US Government has been relaxing the rules. I guess they noticed that EK no longer is dominant!

Are you referring to something other than the termination of the 1921 and 1954 consent decrees? Because the US Government, in the form of the Justice Dept. (jerks!), fought the termination of the decrees, including appealing it, while the US Government, in the form of a District Court judge, then the 2nd Circuit, approved terminating the decrees.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That was in the 90s. Yes. And it gave Kodak the permission it needed to rebrand products. Before then it could not thus giving an advantage to Konica, Mitsubishi, Fuji and Agfa in the realm of color and B&W products.

I believe that the effects of the latter consent decree did not take place until about 1958 or thereabouts. And yes, they hurt Kodak badly, especially in the 80s and 90s.

PE

 

[lxdude]

OK, I just wasn't sure what you meant by "lately".