That came quietly, New Kodak Film!

Changeling1 · Jul 15, 2006

I wish Kodak would.....

Re-introduce Ektar 25 and bring back Super XX

(Every film photographer should get the chance to at least try these two
long lost treasures from Big Yellow)!

craigclu · Jul 15, 2006

Just took a peek at the B&H site and it seems that they're promoting the newer version of the Portra 800 now. If someone has a chance to do some hands-on with this, we'd appreciate your reactions. I had avoided higher speed medium format color films for too long and have had great results when using NPZ. It had surprisingly smooth and accurate skin tones and it opens up backgrounds nicely in dimly lit bigger rooms and churches, etc.

Photo Engineer · Jul 15, 2006

Changeling1 said:
Re-introduce Ektar 25 and bring back Super XX

(Every film photographer should get the chance to at least try these two
long lost treasures from Big Yellow)!

I have stated this before.

Ektar 25 had a 90% reject rate in production. It was a loss leader. It also kept poorly. The solutions to the problems were achieved and given a new product name and a higher speed with similar characteristics because no-one wanted a 25 speed color film. The Ektar 25 sold poorly. People kept asking for more speed.

So, the 100 speed film that replaced Ektar was better technically for the user, and from a production standpoint, but some people 'thought' that Ektar 25 was better. It really was not as good as you think.

Super XX was good, but involved production methods and chemicals that are obsolete or restricted by the EPA, and so it had to vanish. I can duplicate my Super XX work with todays films with better sharpness and grain. A modern film was built to match the Super XX as closely as possible.

If you had Ektar 25 today and shot duplicate scenes with Portra 100VC and Ektar 25, you would be very happy with the VC, I'm sure.

But, you can never satisfy everyone. And, memories are a powerful thing, espically without side by side comparisons.

PE

Changeling1 · Jul 15, 2006

Thanks Photo Engineer! I trust what you have to say about film. I'm feeling better already...

roteague · Jul 15, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
I have stated this before.

Ektar 25 had a 90% reject rate in production. It was a loss leader. It also kept poorly. The solutions to the problems were achieved and given a new product name and a higher speed with similar characteristics because no-one wanted a 25 speed color film. The Ektar 25 sold poorly. People kept asking for more speed.

So, the 100 speed film that replaced Ektar was better technically for the user, and from a production standpoint, but some people 'thought' that Ektar 25 was better. It really was not as good as you think.

Super XX was good, but involved production methods and chemicals that are obsolete or restricted by the EPA, and so it had to vanish. I can duplicate my Super XX work with todays films with better sharpness and grain. A modern film was built to match the Super XX as closely as possible.

If you had Ektar 25 today and shot duplicate scenes with Portra 100VC and Ektar 25, you would be very happy with the VC, I'm sure.

But, you can never satisfy everyone. And, memories are a powerful thing, espically without side by side comparisons.

PE

Thanks Ron, for your thorough explination.

r-s · Nov 1, 2006

edz said:
Why do you think they appointed an ink-jetter from HP to CEO?

For the same reason Apple appointed a cola-spritzer from Pepsi?

[Rimshot!]

r-s · Nov 1, 2006

ajuk said:
Sorry for reviaval, but there is also apparently a new Kodak Max 800.

They say somwhere there "much finer grain" so these new film do have that 2 electron thing.

Link

This is good. When they initially released it for their movie film stocks, with no mention of taking it any further (as in stil camera films) I resigned myself to never being able to use them unless I obtained some odds and ends of movie stock to play with.

This makes me wonder, what ever happened with Agfa's wonder-emulsion, with something like a tenfold speed improvement? I know the company is kaput, but I wonder if anything will ever become of the IP behind that invention.

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2006

r-s said:
This is good. When they initially released it for their movie film stocks, with no mention of taking it any further (as in stil camera films) I resigned myself to never being able to use them unless I obtained some odds and ends of movie stock to play with.

This makes me wonder, what ever happened with Agfa's wonder-emulsion, with something like a tenfold speed improvement? I know the company is kaput, but I wonder if anything will ever become of the IP behind that invention.

There are posts on this here and on PN. It never amounted to much of anything as far as real reduction to practice. In other words "it didn't work well".

The Kodak film is based on 2 electron sensitization which did work well and which is totally different than the Agfa method. The Kodak method uses a metal salt of a sensitizing dye, whereas the Agfa method (IIRC) uses an aldehyde reduction sensitization.

Fuji has a new method coming along using Tellurium sensitization. It is currently in use in their color papers. This was never implemented by Kodak AFAIK, due to the toxicity of Tellurium.

PE

DBP · Nov 1, 2006

Is the 2-electron sensitization the technique that was written up in Photo Techniques a few years back?

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2006

DBP said:
Is the 2-electron sensitization the technique that was written up in Photo Techniques a few years back?

Not having read the article, I can't comment.

The Kodak method was introduced first in ECN-2 (Vision) films and now is being released in professional products.

It relies on the use of a metal salt or complex of a sensitizing dye.

PE

ineffablething · Nov 2, 2006

Sorry, I just ran across this. I never used Ektar 25, but did use quite a bit of Royal Gold 25. Did that film have the same problems as Ektar 25? I just used some that had been frozen for 5 years and then unfrozen for 2 and it had really nice color balance and seemingly superior sharpness....

Photo Engineer said:
I have stated this before.

Ektar 25 had a 90% reject rate in production. It was a loss leader. It also kept poorly. The solutions to the problems were achieved and given a new product name and a higher speed with similar characteristics because no-one wanted a 25 speed color film. The Ektar 25 sold poorly. People kept asking for more speed.

So, the 100 speed film that replaced Ektar was better technically for the user, and from a production standpoint, but some people 'thought' that Ektar 25 was better. It really was not as good as you think.

Super XX was good, but involved production methods and chemicals that are obsolete or restricted by the EPA, and so it had to vanish. I can duplicate my Super XX work with todays films with better sharpness and grain. A modern film was built to match the Super XX as closely as possible.

If you had Ektar 25 today and shot duplicate scenes with Portra 100VC and Ektar 25, you would be very happy with the VC, I'm sure.

But, you can never satisfy everyone. And, memories are a powerful thing, espically without side by side comparisons.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2006

Royal Gold 25 was a different film. It did not (AFAIK) share the problems that Ektar 25 had.

PE

ZorkiKat · Nov 2, 2006

But, you can never satisfy everyone. And, memories are a powerful thing, espically without side by side comparisons

In one old Popular Photography magazine piece announcing the arrival of Kodachrome II in 1963 (?), it was said that some pros did not welcome the new film. They said that the new, faster (ASA 25 vs ASA 10) K-II would not produce solid blacks as the old K-chrome would, and that its being faster meant loss of sharpness and not-as-fine grain. This, inspite, as that old photography magazine said, that the new, faster film did better all that K-chrome did and more.

Jay

r-s · Nov 2, 2006

ineffablething said:
Sorry, I just ran across this. I never used Ektar 25, but did use quite a bit of Royal Gold 25. Did that film have the same problems as Ektar 25? I just used some that had been frozen for 5 years and then unfrozen for 2 and it had really nice color balance and seemingly superior sharpness....

They stopped selling "Ektar" at some point, I think it was 1994, and immediately started selling "Royal Gold". Other than the name change I know of no other difference between the two 25's. From all I've read, they're the same film, with the same characteristics (resolution, curves, etc.)

I've used truly ancient Ektar 25, stored under the worst conditions imaginable, and gotten perfect results. I'm not the only one who's done that either.

I've also seen other "reliable sources" asserting that there were NOT manufacturing issues with this film, FWIW. But, this is the Internet, and anyone can say anything, so I find myself taking many large grains of salt. From my own experience, it's a great film, regardless of which flavor box it came in, and it's a pity they decided to kill it. But the same can be said for so many other great films that have joined it that it gets tiresome recalling the "death count."

r-s · Nov 2, 2006

A little context:

Joe Manthey , sep 12, 2006; 09:18 p.m.
"No, AFAIK Kodak had to reject most of the film they made because of quality issues."

This isn't correct. Ektar/RG 25 shared relatively few components with other films, so its very low sales volume made it difficult to produce economically. There weren't any significant quality issues that caused large amounts of film rejection.

So, who is this "Joe Manthey" anyway, and why does what he says mean anything?

Joe Manthey , sep 13, 2006; 03:26 p.m.
I also miss Supra 100 and particularly PRN. A few of us unsuccessfully argued for continuation of a true 100 speed, professional-type film. Unfortunately, the marketplace didn't support the investment required for that kind of film, and I would guess that it certainly doesn't now. (I haven't worked at Kodak for a couple of years.) Remember that Reala was introduced in the late '80s and modified in the early '90s, so it costs Fuji little to keep on producing it as long as there's sufficient market. Creating a new film is much more costly venture.

The above quotes taken from Dead Link Removed

Key facts from the above:

Joe Manthey worked for Kodak, in the timeframe relevant to this film's existence, in a capacity related to production of these emulsions.
They are both the same film.
There weren't "significant quality issues"
There weren't "large amounts of film rejection."

I think we can put these rumors to bed now.

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2006

Yes, I know Joe personally and have known him for many years. We were both product engineers at EK at the same time. I guess the last time we worked in the same area was when I worked on Kodacolor Gold 400 in the early 80s.

Examples of poor Ektar keeping are shown in scans posted on Photo Net about a year ago. (here goes the techno babble - you can check it with Joe)

Among other things, Ektar used very fine coupler solvent droplets to get the very fine coupler 'grain' in the form of very minute dye specks. The couplers were very active and worked in small amounts of solvent to be incorporated into the coating. During production, the very thin coating layers had a tendancy to 'oil out' causing smeary oily deposit on the surface of the film. This was the main source of the rejected production.

Later, during keeping, the Ektar couplers would begin to crystallize in some films (but not all). These small crystals which formed in the film, would then appear as very high grain (see the PN scans for samples). I believe this problem was even seen at the end of the production line.

These two problems plagued an otherwise very excellent film.

Now, above it is stated that the Gold 25 and the Ektar 25 are the same film. Then you quote Joe as saying that the Ektar 25 shared few components with other films. This is quite correct. This goes for the Gold 25 as well. They were similar but with some 'fixes' in place to resolve the issue of 'oiling out' and crystallization with keeping. The Gold 25 had a different curve shape and IIRC it had a higher gelatin and therefore less sharpness.

I don't remember ever using much Gold 25, but did use a lot of the Ektar myself. I liked it. One of the goals in the Gold 400 that I worked on was to reduce gelatin to improve sharpness and reduce grain. It was a very strong effort in the Magenta layer in particular.

If you care to, you might want to jog Joe's memory with this. I have seen full width samples of Ektar from production with the oily residue on the surface as the problem was being worked on. I seem to remember there being a sheen of crystals on the sample I saw.

If what I saw was in the early stages of production and if it was eventually solved for Ektar, then I bow to Joe's further knowledge of this subject area.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2006

I've been thinking for the last few minutes about this topic.

I vividly remember us with a big chop of film in the lab office looking at some 'bad' Ektar.

In any event, perhaps this problem only cropped up later in the game. It could be that due to low sales the film was held in cold storage and that prompted the oil problem and crystal problem leading to destruction of the defective material.

IDK, but I distinctly remember the sample, and the problem.

PE

braxus · Nov 10, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
Examples of poor Ektar keeping are shown in scans posted on Photo Net about a year ago.
PE

Ron could this be my post on PN you are refering to?

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DpqL

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2006

Scott, the reference was to Ektar, and I seem to remember posting in the relevant thread, so I don't think that was the item. You mentioned RG, and as I believe, Joe has pointed out that it was similar, but I do remember that it was slightly different than Ektar. The Ektar was very fine grained and more subject to keeping problems IIRC.

But in any event, I know Joe, and he is a good man and was more involved in it than I was. Your results seem to indicate some keeping problem even with the RG, right? If so, it would indicate and substantiate some of Joe's and my remembrances of some similarities and some differences between the products.

Who knows so many years after the facts?

Things were so compartmentalized at EK, that the information flow was too restricted and could have resulted in lack of information or incorrect information across project lines or product lines.

PE

braxus · Nov 10, 2006

So Ektar 25 was finer grained then Royal Gold 25? I always thought they were basically the same. Contrary to my Photonet posting mentioned before, I have had good luck with older Ektar 25 in 120 when it was used. The posting was the one time I came across some bad film, and the seller I got it from gave a full refund for them. Come to think of it I still have the unused portions of those rolls sitting on my dresser. I don't know what I'll do with them other then maybe display them in the future some day when people don't know what film is. Hopefully I'll be old and grey by then. Im only 36 at the moment (going on 37). I guess the earliest film I remember using when I was young was Kodacolor II in 126 format. I've been a VR-G 100/ Gold 100 user ever since then (mid 80s-on).

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2006

Scott, I believe that there was an earlier thread on PN about Ektar. I didn't see Ektar on the page you referred to above. I think that is where I first mentioned the keeping problem, on the earlier thread. And, I think that your thread is in a sense reacting to the previous thread.

My last roll of Ektar that I can document was 1991. I still have one roll left with the label "Film Allotment" pasted to the box.

I would have been in the emulsion area when it was cancelled, and Joe was in the negative design area at that time. However, neither of us would have been close to it when it was a product in the plant. It was the responsibility of the plant product engineers.

Ektar and RG were different and similar. They shared some components and had some that differed entirely IIRC. They were not the same film. Even their specs were different.

PE

braxus · Nov 10, 2006

OK. I guess I'll accept that they weren't the same. When I want fine grained film I use Reala, but I'm very interested (thanks in part to you and your comments on) in Portra 160VC. I talked to 2 Kodak reps on the phone and both said the same thing about the new improved version of 160VC. They've said the contrast has been reduced, while saturation increased. This would make it equivalent to Reala in use. I know the new PGI of 160VC is 34, so its better. Still not around 28 of the old 100 speed films, but better. Since Reala in 120 is an older tech film with larger grain then the 35mm counterpart, I may just make the switch to 160VC if the grain is small enough to compete or beat Reala 120. I tend to prefer Kodak colors over Fuji, but Reala is one film I dont mind. Slide films are different as I use Velvia in most cases, or when I want the "normal" look I use E100G/GX. I still haven't perfected exposures with slide film, so I tend to stay with neg film. I'd be happy if they could make Gold 100 (version 6) in 120 rolls though. And I don't mean the Pro-Image 100 film you can get in 120 either.

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2006

Try VC at 100. Or, try the 400VC or UC at 320. A 1/3 stop overexposure can do wonders.

PE

braxus · Nov 10, 2006

I tried to order some of the new stock of 160NC and VC, but I was told it won't be available in 3 weeks. I called a few Kodak numbers and they said they did have stock of those two films, but couldn't say if it was the new or old stuff. Our lab doesn't bring in professional film, so I requested if a special order from Kodak could be done. My manager said yes, but when I tried to order from Kodak these pro films, it wouldn't work on Kodaks computers. I have yet to find out if its our accounts fault or the fact Kodak doesnt have the new stock yet. When I do get a couple rolls I will try the VC along with Reala and see how they compare. I'll take your suggestion and shoot at 100, and this will make it easier for comparing as well since both are rated at 100.

Ron- how much do you think the grain size would improve if shot at 100? Also wouldn't saturation be even further enhanced due to over exposure? Also isn't a third a stop 125 and not 100? 80 is 1 stop.

Photo Engineer · Nov 10, 2006

I think grain would be very nice at 100. You are right, but I've been using 100, sorry about the error, 100 is about 2/3 stop, but either one (100 or 125) would be very nice.

At 100 or 125, you are using the slow component for the majority of your image and it is quite fine grained. So, grain would be reduced and saturation would not really go up too much. IDK offhand with the new film how much it would be. Maybe the VC would be more like a UC at that type of overexposure. Give it a try on part of one roll with the old film. It should give you some side-by-side guesstimates.

PE

That came quietly, New Kodak Film!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency