The Future of E-6

Steve Roberts · Jul 11, 2018

philosli said:
Exactly! I shoot slides for projection (but I also scan my slides. why not?)

Indeed, why not! Twice the reason for shooting slide film!
As mentioned by Poisson Du Jour, many magazines would once only accept transparencies for reproduction. I always hated entrusting my valued slides to the postal service and the grubby, careless fingers of some editor. These days magazines prefer on the whole to receive contributions in digital format and I would certainly opt to send scans and hang tightly on to the originals. There's something about a traditional 'slide show' that is lacking from its modern equivalents. Apart from the medium itself, there's a certain cosiness about a group of people sat in the dark, the clack of the slides changing and the odd irritating hair in the projector gate.
Steve

jtk · Jul 11, 2018

RattyMouse said:

Only recently has Fujifilm reported any profits from its Imaging Solution division. Previously they ran a good decade at a loss.

Less than 3% of Fujifilm profits come from digital cameras.

Click to expand...

E6 is toast. I loved it almost as much as E4, maybe even more than Kodachrome (because it was more accurate).

Buying into profit figures allegedly published by Fuji or Kodak or (of all ridiculous companies Ferrania) is grasping at straws. They have better fish to fry, even poor Kodak (let's pretend Kodak still actually exists).

RPC · Jul 12, 2018

Poisson Du Jour said:
For a long, long time we'll-crafted slides were the only submission that would be accepted for many magazines and publications e.g. National Geographic. Send in a bunch of inverted, orange or brown negatives and they would either end up on the editorial room cutting floor or a rejection slip would be posted out -- sometimes both.

And slides have been not just stuffed into a dusty Pradovit for a family sit-down and look-see, but also printed commercially since at least 1963, and by hobbyists still before then. So there was really no such thing as asserting slides had one and only one use. That has never been true.

Magazines preferred slides over negatives because they were positive images, but had to do masking and color correction on them to look good in publications.

Although slides can be printed optically, they are generally not the best choice for that. Negatives are easier to print and give technically better results when printed. The fact remains that slides are first and foremost designed for projection, with their enhanced contrast and saturation, negatives for printing with their lower contrast and built-in masking.

Arklatexian · Jul 12, 2018

RPC said:
Magazines preferred slides over negatives because they were positive images, but had to do masking and color correction on them to look good in publications.

Although slides can be printed optically, they are generally not the best choice for that. Negatives are easier to print and give technically better results when printed. The fact remains that slides are first and foremost designed for projection, with their enhanced contrast and saturation, negatives for printing with their lower contrast and built-in masking.

In the past, really high quality "food" pictures for magazine covers, etc. were shot in studios on 8 x 10 Ektachrome (transparency) film here in the USA This was continued into the "digital age". My point being that a lot of 8 x 10 and 4x5 .film was used for "product" photography of all kinds in studios. Is this not still so or with the reintroduction of Ektachrome, might it be true again? Some of those pictures were, as is said today: "totally awesome. They were made by people who really knew how to use studio "view" cameras using the swings and tilts. I do fear that those photographers are gone and there is no-one to take their place. Are there even any schools left to teach such people?......Regards!

Ste_S · Jul 12, 2018

RattyMouse said:
Only recently has Fujifilm reported any profits from its Imaging Solution division. Previously they ran a good decade at a loss.

Less than 3% of Fujifilm profits come from digital cameras.

And Fuji film cameras (and the film itself) outsell their digital offerings. It's just not the format a lot of people on here shoot with.

If Fuji do kill off their print and slide films I hope they continue to develop Instax. What chances of a peel apart photo+neg Instax for instance ?

JWMster · Jul 12, 2018

Ratty: Exactly the point that Fuji's game is not sustainable for the profits, but perhaps for the demonstrated ability in engineering excellence. Sony makes its $'s in video, and stills are pretty much a demonstration tech as I recall reading. It's an ability to one-up their domestic competitors who in many ways now depend on their chips.
Arklatexian: +1
Ste_S: + 1
jtk: Apology accepted for not actually reading what I wrote (which fairly veered off topic) but slamming a claim I didn't make about E6 "coming back". Straw man? Ah... the joys of the internet... Where else can all of us be right about so much, say completely opposite and unrelated things, and no one cares more than a Twit or a Tweet?

Now wouldn't it confound ALL of us if Kodak re-introduced this Ektachrome and it took off, folks dropped digital and whatever comes next and adopted sled film? Highly unlikely of course, but the consensus expectation often has less to do with what happens in the real world. And I'd much more likely bet the private equity boys in Kodak are pawing through its tech to see what can be salvaged for "better" use elsewhere.... only finance guys don't really have the expertise to "know" that, and no one might... until later. By contrast, Eastman Chem seems to be doing fine.

Ste_S · Jul 13, 2018

JWMster said:
Now wouldn't it confound ALL of us if Kodak re-introduced this Ektachrome and it took off, folks dropped digital and whatever comes next and adopted sled film?

I think slide film has the potential to become popular again if done right. Slide film gives increased utility over print film in a dev n' scan world, with a potential that I don't think has been tapped into yet.
Cost is one of the big barriers at the moment. If Kodak do end up releasing Ektachrome and price similarly to Fuji's current offerings then it's going to remain niche and slowly sink away.

Agulliver · Jul 13, 2018

I believe that slide film will always now be a niche. Gone are the days when magazines wanted slides, they now want digital files....gone are the days when National Geographic were responsible for hundreds of thousands of rolls of chrome film being shot every year....and those days are not coming back....

BUT...since Kodak dropped Ektachrome the film market in general has stabilised and begun a small scale recovery. Doubtless E6 film is included in that as people who dropped it start taking it up again. E6 film is easily processed in the home and there are still a few labs all across the world. It's versatile in that it can be both projected and scanned with great success. If the remaining photo film producers can manufacture it in small quantities (it looks like Kodak can and Ferrania are trying to do just that) then it has a future.

philosli · Jul 13, 2018

I believe the days of E6 films are numbered. There are 2 market forces moving against slide films: high cost per frame, and E6 process needs economic scale to be profitable for labs.

Regarding cost, slide films are the most expensive ones nowadays; developing is at least another $10 per roll. So all in all we are talking about at least $20+ cost per roll of shooting slide film. How many film enthusiasts are willing to shoulder that cost by using slide films as their main films?

This contributes to the vicious cycle. E6 chemicals do not last. Less people use it, less lab can afford to provide a E6 line service.

I have close to 50-60 rolls of slide films stocked up in my freezer. However, I'm already thinking maybe the days I need to home develop E6 films are not far away.

RattyMouse · Jul 13, 2018

philosli said:
I believe the days of E6 films are numbered. There are 2 market forces moving against slide films: high cost per frame, and E6 process needs economic scale to be profitable for labs.

Regarding cost, slide films are the most expensive ones nowadays; developing is at least another $10 per roll. So all in all we are talking about at least $20+ cost per roll of shooting slide film. How many film enthusiasts are willing to shoulder that cost by using slide films as their main films?

This contributes to the vicious cycle. E6 chemicals do not last. Less people use it, less lab can afford to provide a E6 line service.

I have close to 50-60 rolls of slide films stocked up in my freezer. However, I'm already thinking maybe the days I need to home develop E6 films are not far away.

I agree. E6 is dying and will not be with us much longer. Stock up while you still can folks!

Sirius Glass · Jul 14, 2018

I still prefer slide film to digital. Unfortunately the advent of digital, computers and then cell phone with cameras has overtaken any chance of a great slide film revival. I shoot negative film, but I would like to see Kodak and any others keep slide film available.

wiltw · Jul 14, 2018

Steve Roberts said:
There's something about a traditional 'slide show' that is lacking from its modern equivalents. Apart from the medium itself, there's a certain cosiness about a group of people sat in the dark, the clack of the slides changing and the odd irritating hair in the projector gate.

Something lacking...which might also be attributed to the fact that (if you consider $100k affordable) digital projectors only have 4K resolution (4096 × 2160) at best. And $1800 only gets you 3840x2160, NEITHER of which does not even match what the lowliest of entry level 9-year-old dSLRs can capture!

I too believe the days of E6 films are numbered...in part because there are very few labs that can process the film to the level of quality standards that used to be achieved by multiple hundreds of labs 25 years ago!

faberryman · Jul 14, 2018

Ste_S said:
Cost is one of the big barriers at the moment. If Kodak do end up releasing Ektachrome and price similarly to Fuji's current offerings then it's going to remain niche and slowly sink away.

I don't know why you would think transparency film is going to get cheaper over time.

RattyMouse · Jul 14, 2018

faberryman said:
I don't know why you would think transparency film is going to get cheaper over time.

Exactly right. The cost of E6 is only going to go up. And up. And up and up.

Sirius Glass · Jul 14, 2018

wiltw said:
Something lacking...which might also be attributed to the fact that (if you consider $100k affordable) digital projectors only have 4K resolution (4096 × 2160) at best. And $1800 only gets you 3840x2160, NEITHER of which does not even match what the lowliest of entry level 9-year-old dSLRs can capture!

I too believe the days of E6 films are numbered...in part because there are very few labs that can process the film to the level of quality standards that used to be achieved by multiple hundreds of labs 25 years ago!

Unfortunately the market is driven by people who selected VHS over Beta and PC over Mac. There is no accounting for good sense or intelligence.

Ste_S · Jul 15, 2018

faberryman said:
I don't know why you would think transparency film is going to get cheaper over time.

I don't.... just purely pointing out that if Ektachrome is launched at Fujichrome prices E6 is going to become further niche until it eventually dies

Agulliver · Jul 15, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Unfortunately the market is driven by people who selected VHS over Beta and PC over Mac. There is no accounting for good sense or intelligence.

While I agree with you over VHS vs Beta....having used both PC and Mac and not being a musician....I see zero advantages in the Mac.

This is also the world which inexplicably chose CD over vinyl, then realised 30 years later that vinyl was better after all. Film is having a small scale revival which should be enough to keep a few producers in the market.

wiltw · Jul 15, 2018

Agulliver said:
While I agree with you over VHS vs Beta....having used both PC and Mac and not being a musician....I see zero advantages in the Mac.

This is also the world which inexplicably chose CD over vinyl, then realised 30 years later that vinyl was better after all. Film is having a small scale revival which should be enough to keep a few producers in the market.

Sadly, those who want vinyl are the decided minority. Unfortunately most folks gladly listen the sonically decimated MP3 files, using Bluetooth transmission from the source, to be played on puny 3" 'full range' speaker systems like those from B*** that never has published Frequency Response data to prove the sonic fidelity that can be achieved with their speakers.

MattKing · Jul 16, 2018

Agulliver said:
This is also the world which inexplicably chose CD over vinyl, then realised 30 years later that vinyl was better after all.

As much as I'm enjoying listening to my records again, I don't agree with you about vinyl being better than CD.
I have CDs that are excellent, including some that are technically superior (Super Audio mostly).
I also have some technically inferior records - poor pressings, or strange packages.
In just about every case, it is the quality of implementation that matters. And it is the market forces that cause that implementation to be poor.

etn · Jul 16, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Unfortunately the market is driven by people who selected VHS over Beta and PC over Mac. There is no accounting for good sense or intelligence.

The market often goes for cheap over good... despite of this, the total cost is often higher in the long run!

Agulliver · Jul 16, 2018

wiltw said:
Sadly, those who want vinyl are the decided minority. Unfortunately most folks gladly listen the sonically decimated MP3 files, using Bluetooth transmission from the source, to be played on puny 3" 'full range' speaker systems like those from B*** that never has published Frequency Response data to prove the sonic fidelity that can be achieved with their speakers.

I must admit, people thought I was absolutely mad when I brought my spare turntable into work and set it up in my office with a pair of speakers salvaged from a skip.

then they heard it....

I work in a school and the kids now want to listen to Led Zeppelin on vinyl because they've heard how good it can sound. And that with my spare turntable which isn't even all that good (80s Radio Shack stuff).

As for film, the market stabilised a few years ago and is now growing. It will never be what it was. I doubt Tesco will be stocking 35mm film again....but look closely and Tesco still stocks cassette tapes and started records again so who knows? One lesson I have learned....dismiss the "hipsters" at your peril. I may not like what they do with records, nor do I have any fondness for hip hop music...but those two groups of people kept the record presses going, enabling some sort of recovery years later.

flavio81 · Jul 16, 2018

Agulliver said:
While I agree with you over VHS vs Beta....having used both PC and Mac and not being a musician....I see zero advantages in the Mac.

+1

Macs don't add enough value to justify the price.

RattyMouse · Jul 16, 2018

flavio81 said:
+1

Macs don't add enough value to justify the price.

JWMster · Jul 17, 2018

At the risk of running off topic, both my kids have: record players. They don't buy a lot of vinyl, but after converting to CD's for "the sound", most audiophiles quickly reverted and not just for the sound, but post Millie Vanillie... for the authenticity that a missed note or a muffed line was an authentic performance. As a former (classical) guitar player, I can attest to the desire for that authentic REAL performance. Studio art is not the same. I'm not sure the justification for "pop" music is quite the same with Classical or jazz, but it's there.

Film has similar properties. Less so perhaps with the hybrid shooting I do, but equally when I think of Audrey Bodine's use of Bermuda skies in his photos of the Chesapeake... there's nothing new under the sun.

That said, ease of use has a lot going for it. I don't envy Kodak trying to figure out WHO or WHAT is the market for this product. Is it moms? Is it pros? and what is the user's intention? Projection seems unlikely. If the use is through a scan, then what's the advantage of E6 vs. C41 other than certain spectrum or behavioral sensitivity? and if it's that, then why not just bottle that in a negative? As a hybrid scanner and negs or slides, there's an immediacy to slides that negatives don't have. But there's lattitude in dynamic range that slides don't have either.

twelvetone12 · Jul 17, 2018

Apparently Fuji has a bright future in mind for e6 film:

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/16/fujifilm-launches-film-simulation-instant-noodles/

(I wonder if "film simulation" is the taste?)

The Future of E-6

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency