What is the current best non slide color film?

[wblynch]

Don't fall victim to defeatism. Plenty of solutions abound to help you reach success!

 

[benjiboy]

Corporations loyalties in the real world are not to their customers that's not how capitalism works, they exist to make a profit for their shareholders who wouldn't be happy if they continued to manufacture products that are unprofitable.

 

[MattKing]

Corporations loyalties in the real world are not to their customers that's not how capitalism works, they exist to make a profit for their shareholders who wouldn't be happy if they continued to manufacture products that are unprofitable.

In Kodak's heyday, George Eastman was reputed to have said (something like):

First, we serve our customers needs,
Secondly, we support our employees, and
Finally, we reward our shareholders.

Too bad it couldn't have continued that way

 

[miha]

Heliopan, Formatt, and B&W are all European brands. And Hoya markets internationally. Otherwise, you can pay shipping from somewhere else.

As I said Heliopan and B+W don't produce color conversion/correction (yes, they call them that way) filters any more, Formatt don't make screw-in filters. I could probably get some old stock Hoya, true.

 

[benjiboy]

In Kodak's heyday, George Eastman was reputed to have said (something like):

First, we serve our customers needs,
Secondly, we support our employees, and
Finally, we reward our shareholders.

Too bad it couldn't have continued that way

If Eastman were alive today he would see that the majority of his customers needs are digital, and the best way to to support his employees and reward his shareholders is to not manufacture unprofitable products there is a contracting market for, although I deplore this situation we have to face up to the fact that if Kodak kept manufacturing film at the same rate as before the advent of digital photography it wouldn't exist.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Miha - You are completely mistaken. I could have any of these filters at my doorstep within a week or two, all high-quality coated round glass,
even in your 58mm size if, if I wished - Hoya, Heliopan, Formatt. I don't know how active B&W is right now - but I have a full set of these from
them in certain sizes. You just need to do your homework and see who will ship to you. The most important filter will be an 81A (KR3) and
an 81C. These are common, with multiple outfits making them (more in fact than I noted above). You don't need CC filters or anything exotic.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If George Eastman were alive today, running a publicly-traded company, he would say, I want another big yacht, so I'm going to screw both
the public and the stockholders, and bleed to company dry while I still can. Thank goodness, not all corporations are publicly traded.

 

[BrianShaw]

... and then, if he were a good CEO, he would deny saying such a thing.

 

[Roger Cole]

As I said Heliopan and B+W don't produce color conversion/correction (yes, they call them that way) filters any more, Formatt don't make screw-in filters. I could probably get some old stock Hoya, true.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/126760-REG/Heliopan_705832_58mm_81C_Color_Conversion.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/21848-REG/Heliopan_705816_58mm_KR3_81C_Warming.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...BF_58_CTC81C_81C_Color_Conversion_Filter.html

They aren't cheap so I'd go with the Hoya, but they certainly seem to be made.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/147874-REG/Hoya_A5881C_58mm_81C_Color_Conversion.html

 

[omaha]

If Eastman were alive today he would see that the majority of his customers needs are digital, and the best way to to support his employees and reward his shareholders is to not manufacture unprofitable products there is a contracting market for, although I deplore this situation we have to face up to the fact that if Kodak kept manufacturing film at the same rate as before the advent of digital photography it wouldn't exist.

'zactly.

This is a point I've (there was a url link here which no longer exists). The only reason Kodak film continues to be available today is because Kodak management was not nimble enough to bail out of film and into something else 15 or 20 years ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well ... Kodak's past internal issues have been beaten to death on this forum by now. And they actually lost a lot of money trying to pioneer
too many different kinds of digital applications by subsidizing them with film profits. That's the whole problem with publicly traded companies. They have to branch off all over the place like some big octopus in order to make an appearance of growth, rather than just realizing a basic profit. Smoke and mirrors quarter after quarter, or the big shots can't smoke their big cigars. But then one of those cigars set the stage set on
fire, and the trick fell thru.

 

[wblynch]

Film was always their cash cow that they milked dry. In the end it's about all they had left, weakened as it is.

Regardless of all that, Kodak STILL produces the BEST non-slide color photography film on the planet. And most probably the BEST they ever made in their history.

Buy it and use it.

 

[Roger Cole]

'zactly.

This is a point I've (there was a url link here which no longer exists). The only reason Kodak film continues to be available today is because Kodak management was not nimble enough to bail out of film and into something else 15 or 20 years ago.

No way. 15 years ago it was still very lucrative, 20 years ago was near the peak. Now if you said 10 years ago, you'd have a point.

Then again if making a product is profitable do you bail on it just because it's not AS profitable? Or just take the profit and use it in part to invest in those new and MORE profitable areas and thus grow overall?

 

[StoneNYC]

What kodak should have done was not sell their digital patents and created the digital revolution, calling the name Digak or something, meanwhile moving their "Kodak" film brand to a small facility way ahead of ilford doing so, and kept that company as a separate small profitable film maker back in 2001 when the drop off happened using some of the insane profits the year before.

This would have solidified their position and been a very "pound wise" strategy.

They did not....

Let's move on to now... And what they should do now... Or actually let's not, just think about it.

Back to the OP, yes kodak is probably your best non-slide film, and I'm assuming, since the OP was normally shooting slide film, he is probably scanning, and therefore my suggestion actually would be for one of the Portra line, I can't tell you why, but I have an absolutely horrible time scanning ektar100, when I have the lab do it it comes up beautifully, so I know that the actual images are good, but something about my scanner just doesn't like that film, and I'm not technically savvy enough to understand how to fix the problem, while side-by-side transparencies show me that the film is actually exposed properly and that it something to do with my scanner and it's Settings that I'm failing at. Obviously the OPD might have better skills that I am that department, and that's about the most I'll comment on that particular aspect as I know that is forbidden here

Good luck OP!

 

[Roger Cole]

Well ... Kodak's past internal issues have been beaten to death on this forum by now. And they actually lost a lot of money trying to pioneer
too many different kinds of digital applications by subsidizing them with film profits. That's the whole problem with publicly traded companies. They have to branch off all over the place like some big octopus in order to make an appearance of growth, rather than just realizing a basic profit. Smoke and mirrors quarter after quarter, or the big shots can't smoke their big cigars. But then one of those cigars set the stage set on
fire, and the trick fell thru.

Well yes. Subsidizing new and likely to grow areas from existing, mature and likely to decline but currently lucrative areas is not, in and of itself, a bad strategy though. The problem comes in choosing what particulars and how to back the emerging stuff. Just throwing money at anything that looked promising didn't work out too well for them.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Still not forgiven Fujifilm for discontinuing the Press range
Long memory.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've not forgiven Agfa for going away. At opposite extremes there's nothing today on the market like either Ultra 50 or Portrait 160.

 

[StoneNYC]

I will not forgive film Ferrania if they fail to produce an E-6 line ...

 

[wblynch]

You must learn to forgive a ghost, lest they chose to haunt you forever.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm not too worried about being haunted by Agfa. For that matter the frozen APX 100 4x5 sheets I still have are probably still fine.

 

[Chris Livsey]

You must learn to forgive a ghost, lest they chose to haunt you forever.

Well they do actually, Fuji Press regularly haunts *bay, trouble is at lomography prices

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh Roger, I started shooting Agfachrome pre-E6. There were a couple of incredible products I loved. But they were certainly not fine-grained,
but ah, that grain and special color response was itself the draw. And people said they were too hard to print. But I had no more difficulty putting them on Cibachrome than anything else.

 

[Roger Cole]

I do remember Agfachrome and you're right about those, though I never printed them on Ciba (or Type R for that matter.)

Don't know if you ever shot the later Agfa C41 offerings but Portrait 160 was an intentionally very low saturation, pastel film, while Ultra 50 was an ultra high saturation film that rivaled, some thought exceeded, Velvia in saturation. I found it printed easier on Fuji paper than Kodak for some reason. I really liked it for things like colorful cars and sports as long as its speed of 50 was adequate. Otherwise good in the same situations as Velvia - for flat subdued lighting when you didn't want it to look flat and subdued.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I didn't do much with the latter low-saturation Agfachromes, but around that time, shot quite a bit of 35mm and 120 Agfachrome 1000 for
portraiture etc. Very very grainy, but beautiful grain, very good color response, even in contrasty scenes. Most people would have called me
nuts; but the other nite I pulled out one of my old bound presentation portfolios with Cibachrome portraiture done with that film, and I'll be
danged if they didn't look far better than the typical Type C color neg prints of analogous subjects - and I could print that stuff damn
well too. And the added advantage is, while those old C prints are already starting to show some yellowing, the Cibas look like they were
made yesterday.

 

[ME Super]

The Rollei B&W films made by Agfa in Belgium are pretty nice, though I find their IR400S to be a bit contrasty for general picture taking. It's a nice IR film though, I shoot handheld at EI 25 with a 720 filter in full sun. I find that I like Ilford's HP5+ better than Rollei/Agfa's offerings though for regular B&W. I know this is a bit OT but we were talking about Agfa.

For color negative film, I find I like Kodak's Ektar 100 and Portra 400. I need to try some Portra 800 though for low-ish light.