'Sure Be Nice If Ektachrome Wasn't the Only One Available...

[Taylor Nankervis]

My point exactly. Why should we have to use a warming filter. Why can it not just be properly balanced for daylight?

The films are balanced for daylight exposure.
A film cannot be all things to all people. You are expected to have the skills necessary to know how and when to apply additional leverage over a film's colour temp. Every professional will have a number of filters in their kit for variations in lighting conditions that can potentially or will alter the known outcome for the film in use. For example, polarisers are used to increase saturation; 81b warming filters and Skylight 1B are used to gently increase the colour temp (though they are not a substitute for shooting film in conditions where the horrid blue cast will be expected), and light to moderately blue filters are used to tone down some overpowering renditions of reds e.g. during sunsets, or or enhancing the 'blue hour' effect of tungsten films (once a favoured trick with star trails photographers using Provia 100F to knock out the thick purplish cast that results from multi-hour long exposures).

Even RDPIII requires warming up because of its very neutral, sometimes cold presentation; OK for portraits 'most of the time', but sometimes that cool edge needs to be buffed over just a little.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Natural daylight has a very wide range. But in order to be predictable, color film itself must have a much narrower standard. For Kodak, this is 5500 K as the Daylight standard. With Fuji, it appears to be somewhat warmer, around 5200 K. For precise work or formal film testing, a color temperature meter is used to read the actual Kelvin temperature of the lighting. Most of these meters will also indicate any necessary color compensating (CC) and light balancing (LB) filters to match the manufacturer's specific standard.

Esthetic considerations or personal taste might be different.

 

[paddycook]

You know, I've seen this issue reported in a few places, and even gotten a roll back from that lab that skewed pretty heavily blue once.

But I've also gotten results out of current production E100 that looked fantastic with no blue cast, even in the shadows. No warming filter or anything. The difference? When I develop it myself, it seems to come out better.



That shouldn't make sense. I definitely have worse controls on temp and time and chemical pH and whatnot than a lab should. And half the time these days I'm actually using E6(-) development where I do HC-110 first dev, light fogging instead of chemical fogging, and ECN-2 chems the rest of the way through. Still better results than I seem to get from labs. My sample size is relatively small. A few rolls of 35mm, a couple rolls of 120, and maybe 10 sheets of 4x5. But I seem to consistently avoid the blue cast since I went in-house with my development. Can't explain it.

lol maybe your development method is the secret!

 

[paddycook]

The films are balanced for daylight exposure.
A film cannot be all things to all people. You are expected to have the skills necessary to know how and when to apply additional leverage over a film's colour temp. Every professional will have a number of filters in their kit for variations in lighting conditions that can potentially or will alter the known outcome for the film in use. For example, polarisers are used to increase saturation; 81b warming filters and Skylight 1B are used to gently increase the colour temp (though they are not a substitute for shooting film in conditions where the horrid blue cast will be expected), and light to moderately blue filters are used to tone down some overpowering renditions of reds e.g. during sunsets, or or enhancing the 'blue hour' effect of tungsten films (once a favoured trick with star trails photographers using Provia 100F to knock out the thick purplish cast that results from multi-hour long exposures).

Even RDPIII requires warming up because of its very neutral, sometimes cold presentation; OK for portraits 'most of the time', but sometimes that cool edge needs to be buffed over just a little.

I never had to use filters when I shot a lot of slide film in the 80s and 90s, certainly never to “warm” it up. My point is however they’re balancing Ektachrome these days it doesn’t seem like it’s balanced for normal daylight.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've very carefully tested E100. The quality control is superb; and the color balance is spot on 5500K per gray scale neutral as well as per overall saturation at true box speed.

I don't think you understand what is involved, Paddy. Every color film ever invented has needed corrective filtration if one expected optimal results under non-standard color temp lighting. Of course, many of us have bent the rules in terms of this or that preferential look, accurate or not, which is fine if that is in fact what we want. Hollywood deliberately did it for creative reasons, fully understanding exactly what they were doing. Those guys are experts at using color temp meters. Amber 81 filters were frequently employed to exaggerate the warmth of a setting.

 

[paddycook]

I've very carefully tested E100. The quality control is superb; and the color balance is spot on 5500K per gray scale neutral as well as per overall saturation at true box speed.

I don't think you understand what is involved, Paddy. Every color film ever invented has needed corrective filtration if one expected optimal results under non-standard color temp lighting. Of course, many of us have bent the rules in terms of this or that preferential look, accurate or not, which is fine if that is in fact what we want. Hollywood deliberately did it for creative reasons, fully understanding exactly what they were doing. Those guys are experts at using color temp meters. Amber 81 filters were frequently employed to exaggerate the warmth of a setting.

I don’t doubt you’re correct. Perhaps the issue is with the development at modern labs (or at least the labs I’ve been using). But something seems off. It just seems much bluer than slide films of yesteryear. I guess I’ll just have to get used to using warming filters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I rarely filtered slide film myself when it came to personal projects. Each had its own special look, and that's how I selected them. But when it came to commercial work (generally LF chromes), such as studio product shots, or architectural interiors, or technical lab applications, then all that fine-tuning of color balance came into play, along with a color temp meter and full filter set.

Yesteryear can go a long ways back. When I started out, I shot Kodachrome 25 and a very grainy pre-E6 version of Agfachrome which rendered warm hues and purples better than any film today, yet had problems with green. I sure wish some of those past films were still around; but change is the only certain thing. I'll be obsolete one of these days.

 

[koraks]

A guy on reddit translated a Lucky press conference a few weeks back, in the post Lucky stated that there wasn't any technical/material barriers for them to make a slide film (they had previously made one called "Lucky Chrome 100CH"). If there's enough demand for their new colour negative then they'll potentially either make a new one for cinema use, or just reintroduce their old 100CH film. Updates on this are stated to come out sometime before the end of the year.

Personally I'm optimistic that they'll make a new slide film, but it most likely won't drop until like 2027 or so. Probably even later.

Welcome aboard, and thanks for sharing that! I didn't know Lucky once upon a time made 100CH. Interesting! Was that also based on Kodak IP?

 

[MsLing]

Welcome aboard, and thanks for sharing that! I didn't know Lucky once upon a time made 100CH. Interesting! Was that also based on Kodak IP?

Maybe it wasn't. Lucky released their reversal film series during 1990s. It is hard to ensure what Lucky received from Kodak.

https://forum.xitek.com/thread-322433-1-2.html

Here are some examples.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

I don’t doubt you’re correct. Perhaps the issue is with the development at modern labs (or at least the labs I’ve been using). But something seems off. It just seems much bluer than slide films of yesteryear. I guess I’ll just have to get used to using warming filters.

In my very long experience, the labs would be responsible for less than 0.8% of bad processing (Australia). Karma moves fast, and the blowback on somebody's screwed holiday films can be enough to give them pause to consider what went wrong, where and how to improve — or whether to stay in the business at all.

Meanwhile, Ektachrome 100 will 'blue' very easily in conditions that favour that shift (or casting); I consider it a bit more sensitive than RVP50 in this regard. I earnestly avoid shooting it in anything resembling broad, bright daylight, preferring to allow the film to speak for itself in lighting conditions that favour it giving the best results (diffuse light). This is the same methodology employed when shooting RVP50/100, but sometimes — just sometimes, I will take the risk and slap on a warming filter and hope for the best! More than a decade ago I botched 2 highly prized rolls shot at Milford Sound in New Zealand, simply because I embarked on an multi-day walk without any filters but a Skylight 1B! That wasn't going to stop otherwise bewitchingly beautiful scenes from turning midnight blue as the sun came over the mountains and menaced in the shadows. Drrrrft.

Exercising considered judgement and analysis of how light is playing out in the scene before you (not necessarily as the camera lens sees it) is an invaluable skill. Obviously, snapshooters / machinegunners of E100 aren't going to be bothered with professional-level methodology and analysis and how-to, but here's the kicker: that might just be the reason their results are giving them the blues, 'scuse the pun.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Maybe it wasn't. Lucky released their reversal film series during 1990s. It is hard to ensure what Lucky received from Kodak.

https://forum.xitek.com/thread-322433-1-2.html

Here are some examples.

Oh drat. 403 error... Seems it wants a log-in...maybe a China-only site?

 

[koraks]

Maybe it wasn't. Lucky released their reversal film series during 1990s. It is hard to ensure what Lucky received from Kodak.

https://forum.xitek.com/thread-322433-1-2.html

Here are some examples.

Interesting, this would indeed predate their deal with Kodak, so the IP would have to be their own, of from another origin.
Like @Taylor Nankervis I get a 403 when trying to visit that page. I think it's only accessible to registered users.

maybe a China-only site?

The domain as such responds OK, it's just that particular thread that doesn't load. I get redirected to a login/registration page. Apparently their forum software throws a 403 if someone tries to access a thread that's user-only. Kind of awkward way of handling things, but hey...

 

[Prest_400]

Interesting, this would indeed predate their deal with Kodak, so the IP would have to be their own, of from another origin.

There was a mention of slide in some of the Reddit threads indeed, it would be very interesting if they turn around a slide film within a year. Back in the days (-2010?) I only remember Lucky for the SHD B&W line and the CN 200. No search engine or discussions found in the Google anglosphere nor recall seeing any canister or such un to now.
Anyways, Reddit:

Regarding reversal film (slide film): Lucky states there are currently no technical or raw material barriers. The decision to potentially produce movie positive film stock (cine reversal film) or re-introduce the former Lucky 100HC will depend on market response. Updates on this are expected within this year.

I vaguely recall some discussion that parts of creating a Slide (E6) film are simpler than color negative, I imagine lacking masking and given how the new (re)entrants do not have it completely in place. But then, IIRC the layers were thinner so that was the more challenging development.
From the Smarter Every Day video, it appeared Kodak were optimistic about Ektachrome in that they invested into a specific lab just for for it. The price pressure, as @mshchem mentioned in this or another thread, is no good for the network effect or sustainability. Myself I ah very sparsely shooting E6 lately despite being a media that really made me want medium format.

 

[F4U]

I do not shoot slide film. Simple reason: Kodachrome is gone. Ektachrome and all the others are no replacement IMO. They all fade. Kodachrome didn't. Black and white doesn't. Therefor B&W is all we really have, as far as posterity is concerned. Digital is no option either. In a hundred years, nobody is going to pull a CD or a thumb drive out of a musty dresser drawer and see a picture. Or an Ektachrome slide. Although with B&W and Kodachrome they could. Point being, Kodachrome was a VERY involved and complicated process requiring technology so advanced you'd have to get in a time machine and go back to 1938 to develop it. OR, there could be a modern home-process to do it in 2025. Apparently in this world, as time and technology "progresses", it seems like we lose way more than is gained.

 

[ChrisGalway]

I do not shoot slide film. Simple reason: Kodachrome is gone. Ektachrome and all the others are no replacement IMO. They all fade. Kodachrome didn't. Black and white doesn't. Therefor B&W is all we really have, as far as posterity is concerned. Digital is no option either. In a hundred years, nobody is going to pull a CD or a thumb drive out of a musty dresser drawer and see a picture. Or an Ektachrome slide. Although with B&W and Kodachrome they could. Point being, Kodachrome was a VERY involved and complicated process requiring technology so advanced you'd have to get in a time machine and go back to 1938 to develop it. OR, there could be a modern home-process to do it in 2025. Apparently in this world, as time and technology "progresses", it seems like we lose way more than is gained.

I get your message, and in particular agree that "Therefore B&W is all we really have, as far as posterity is concerned." But let's face it, after we die, nearly all of our photos are going to be binned anyway, if not immediately (out of respect?) then after a few years! So a longevity of a few decades is probably good enough for most for us and colour transparencies are still one of the best mediums ... IMO. (As long as we also shoot B&W!)

As for Kodachrome, I spent a summer working in a Dynacolor plant in Alexandria, VA in 1967, working on the process-control of the Kodachrome processing line ... endless titrations and control-graphs; I was a photo science student at the time so at least knew the principles of the process (it was K12 at the time, even more steps than K14 I believe). Of course the process was involved, but I think people exaggerate the complexity sometimes, 20-30 steps is not really a big deal in an industrial setting ... and obviously it does not begin to compare with the complexity of manufacture of many modern goods, which have the benefit of automation and computer control. Equally obviously, it's vastly more complex than the 6-bath (no red-blue re-exposures!) E6 process.

The problem IMO is not the complexity, but the economics; it's just too expensive to resurrect Kodachrome processing for the relatively small potential market.

If there is to be any new R&D into improving the archival properties of transparency film, it should probably focus on finding new colour couplers which produce longer-lasting dyes in the final slide. Easier said than done, I suspect.

 

[Prest_400]

If there is to be any new R&D into improving the archival properties of transparency film, it should probably focus on finding new colour couplers which produce longer-lasting dyes in the final slide. Easier said than done, I suspect.

Of course not down to real exposure, but Fujichromes and Ektachrome are quoted to have great archival qualities that were refined in the late 90s up to thte 2000s. Paraphrasing somewhere that Ektachrome would surpass Kodachrome in non-dark storage dye fading. I don't exactly know but recall some photo.net contribution by PE that Portra and Ektar had improved couplers. And separately, that the new E100 might have also improved this compared to E100G.

Kodachrome, except for some almost divine intervention, won't come back.

I should put some money back to where my mouth is and buy a couple propacks of whatever chrome is available, and run through the few rolls I have left. BTW Chris thanks for the tip, Amazon appears to have Velvia 50 120 in stock in Europe (through a partner store) even though the shipment appears to be 20€+ to my location...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've seen piles of ruined, faded old Kodachrome slides. There's nothing inherently permanent about those either. All it takes is a lack of air circulation and some humidity, and mold and mildew take over. PVC storage sleeves ruined many others. And many outright faded due to too much projection.

 

[George Mann]

The problem IMO is not the complexity, but the economics; it's just too expensive to resurrect Kodachrome processing for the relatively small potential market.

Not if Kodak did it in-house. And any excuse for why they can't do it is just a convenient excuse!

 

[koraks]

Not if Kodak did it in-house. And any excuse for why they can't do it is just a convenient excuse!

I thought at first when you said things like these they were kind of tongue-in-cheek humor. I mean, we all make a good "bring back KC joke" once in a while. But it seems like you really mean it...? Surely, you can imagine the complexity of setting up a K14 infrastructure in all its glory, while at the same time demand will never be even a tiny sliver of what it once was. How do you figure the ROI would work out? I don't think they could break even on it even in the most optimistic scenario, and then we're not even talking about opportunity cost.

At this point, bringing a human photographer to Mars and back again is more realistic than bringing back Kodachrome.

 

[MattKing]

E4 Ektachromes wouldn't last nearly as long as K-12 Kodachromes.
Modern E6 Ektachromes will last longer than the last K-14 Kodachromes, when regularly projected.
And the dark storage capabilities for modern E6 Ektachromes and the last K-14 Kodachromes are probably similar - none has been around long enough to know for sure.
It isn't 1960 any more, you know!
And the likelihood that a tiny entity like the film division of Eastman Kodak would spend the money to expand sufficiently to provide worldwide Kodachrome processing infrastructure - even if they could find the constituent chemicals, which they probably couldn't - is also a 65 year gone reality.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Not if Kodak did it in-house. And any excuse for why they can't do it is just a convenient excuse!

Just to clarify, when I said "I think people exaggerate the complexity sometimes, 20-30 steps is not really a big deal in an industrial setting" I did not mean to imply it was easy or cheap to setup a Kodachrome processing line ... you are talking about $millions per system (depending on level of automation) and non-trivial labour/running costs to maintain quality, implying >100,000 rolls of film processed each year just to break even.

It ain't going to happen!

 

[F4U]

Sorry. My comment above wasn't meant to set off the old Kodachrome argument and turn yet another thread in that direction. it was a simple statement of having resigned myself to black and white only. When the digital revolution happened around 2001, notihng will ever be the same, or even could. The advancement of technology may bring about much good, but not always. There ARE casualties. I have the ability to completely switch over to digital and ditch film today. I know how to operate the various softwares expertly because of a past related profession. But that's not photography to me. It's computers. I could also get rid of all my nice radio gear and switch to SDR only. That's not ham radio. As in my ham shack AND darkroom, computers are strictly verboten. I also build balsa and tissue war planes. I could just as well 3D print them. Just not the same. I might buy a roll of Ektachrome someday, just for kicks. If there was a place to send it off and have it come back developed and mounted like it used to be. For those interested in it, use it with my regards and best wishes.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Sorry. My comment above wasn't meant to set off the old Kodachrome argument and turn yet another thread in that direction. it was a simple statement of having resigned myself to black and white only. When the digital revolution happened around 2001, notihng will ever be the same, or even could. The advancement of technology may bring about much good, but not always. There ARE casualties. I have the ability to completely switch over to digital and ditch film today. I know how to operate the various softwares expertly because of a past related profession. But that's not photography to me. It's computers. I could also get rid of all my nice radio gear and switch to SDR only. That's not ham radio. As in my ham shack AND darkroom, computers are strictly verboten. I also build balsa and tissue war planes. I could just as well 3D print them. Just not the same. I might buy a roll of Ektachrome someday, just for kicks. If there was a place to send it off and have it come back developed and mounted like it used to be. For those interested in it, use it with my regards and best wishes.

I too am a B&W film only photographer for my "normal" photography ... it gives me far more enjoyment than any digital.

My colour slide photography is very specialised ... medium format stereo photography. Once you see a stereo pair of 50x50mm colour slides (Ektachrome or Provia, I prefer the latter), viewed in a good optical stereo viewer, you will be hooked! It is literally as though you are standing in the exact place you took the photo, it's hard to find words to describe the realism. And once you're hooked, you spend too much money on film and all the trappings of film-based stereoscopy.

 

[BHuij]

I too am a B&W film only photographer for my "normal" photography ... it gives me far more enjoyment than any digital.

My colour slide photography is very specialised ... medium format stereo photography. Once you see a stereo pair of 50x50mm colour slides (Ektachrome or Provia, I prefer the latter), viewed in a good optical stereo viewer, you will be hooked! It is literally as though you are standing in the exact place you took the photo, it's hard to find words to describe the realism. And once you're hooked, you spend too much money on film and all the trappings of film-based stereoscopy.

I am a huge fan of sterephotography, and while I've gotten proficient at the "cross your eyes" viewing approach, I'd love to learn which viewers you prefer and where I might get one. Medium and large format slides in stereo sound like pure magic.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I am a huge fan of sterephotography, and while I've gotten proficient at the "cross your eyes" viewing approach, I'd love to learn which viewers you prefer and where I might get one. Medium and large format slides in stereo sound like pure magic.

Couldn't you scan smaller formats and display them in 3D through a smart TV. My Sony TV displays 3D using active 3D glasses.