- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,930
- Format
- 8x10 Format
They still make the greatest slide ever. Provia and Velvia is the pinnacle of chrome.
"CMS 20 II ISO 20 An Agfa-Gevaert ortho micro film converted by ADOX offering very high resolution, needing special developer to tame contrast for normal pictures."
They still make the greatest slide ever. Provia and Velvia is the pinnacle of chrome.
Ektachrome is fine, but is insanely expensive outside US and doesn’t always compare favorably with Provia.
The remaining C41film is markedly better than Kodaks similarly priced.
Acros is fantastic for night shoots and has a unique tonality.
Unfortunately, Velvia 50 is no longer made in large format. Velvia 100 isn't sold in America because it contains a banned chemical. Not sure if it's sold elswheres.
You quickly run into shutter times where motion blur is an issue.
In the studio, sure. But for daylight shooting? Perhaps not so much.
In the studio, sure
You tell that to the masses of landscape photogs who used to shoot Velvia 50 all day, every day.
..."CMS 20 II ISO 20 An Agfa-Gevaert ortho micro film converted by ADOX offering very high resolution, needing special developer to tame contrast for normal pictures."
They say that also in the datasheet : Spectral Sensivity : orthopanchromatic (not orthochromatic). They say the same thing from the CHS 100 II...
Other sources say it is Agfa-Gevaert Copex HDP (High Definition Pan), branded as EPM Imagelink HD.
I do appreciate the fact this goes into far more detail than “Kodak didn’t adopt digital, so they failed”. But I find that the analysis of what Kodak is today to be lacking. I understand that the primary focus of the channel is Asia specific, but if you are going to make a comparison video, you should… well, fully compare the companies.
There was nothing in there about Kodak being the only supplier of motion film, which is (for now, at least) a pretty stable market. Smaller movie productions often use film on shorter projects because it is still vastly cheaper compared to renting digital cameras of the same quality, even with development and scanning. And, although it is a smaller market, folks like me buy motion picture film directly from them for stills use, as do other companies like silbersalz, Ultrafine, and FPP.
Some industries also use technology that has been developed by Kodak from making film for other applications. Similar to Fuji, and hybrid film bees is being used in other industries, Kodak Estar is used in many industries for its optical clarity, as well as its incredibly tight tolerances in thickness. One easily found example is flexible PCBs. If you have a flexible PCB that was made in the US, an unfortunately eroding market due to China, chances are it uses Estar as the base. Kodak is also (slowly) expanding into the drug market, because they have a good understanding of how emulsion and suspension solutions work.
Another overlooked aspect to Kodak is the small areas of industry where imagery needs to be of the highest possible quality, something which digital cannot even compete with in larger formats. Areal imaging still uses a good amount of film simply because it is incredibly versatile, and the film can have more resolution at higher altitudes, meaning less exposures in the same area, and less time for the plane to fly around. You can still order Aerocolor IV new, and at larger sizes, the minimum order size is pretty small. Kanerasore, when is Santacolor 100 4x5 coming out?
And of course, IMAX. It is rarely used, as it is definitely more expensive than digital. By a lot. But it absolutely blows digital away in terms of quality. Yes, technically you’re not getting the full 18K raw captures due to digital intermediate steps and CGI. But you still get a massive image, with tomes of detail. Compared to digital IMAX, film still slams it out of the park in terms of picture quality. I have a fully CGI cell from Interstellar, and I cannot actually capture all the detail in it with my Nikon 55 macro lens. It’s incredible.
Unfortunately, the closest 15/70 showing of Oppenheimer is in Indianapolis, so I won’t be able to experience this incredible film on IMAX, but one day I do plan to go watch an actual 15/70 film, as people have said it is an incredible experience.
In conclusion: I think this is an excellent video, and it explains a lot about why Kodak failed, and why it wasn’t just that Kodak refused to embrace digital. However, a bit more explanation into what Kodak is doing now, more akin to what was done with Fuji, would have been much appreciated. As well as that, I think claiming Kodak failed is a bit misleading. They have not failed. They are still a somewhat successful company, they just aren’t nearly as big as they used to be. Saying Kodak failed is similar to saying Nintendo failed, simply because they don’t make card games anymore. Clearly Nintendo hasn’t failed, they just moved onto a new industry.
Anyway, sorry for long post, I had a lot of thoughts on this.
The OP said the video was Fuji centric.
+1. They are active and hiring, while making film products of uncompromising quality.I still think the fact they say Kodak “didn't survive” is a bit misleading.
+1. They are active and hiring, while making film products of uncompromising quality.
You tell that to the masses of landscape photogs who used to shoot Velvia 50 all day, every day.
Pick any book with "fine art" color landscape photography from the 1990s through to about 2005 and odds are its contents were shot on Velvia 50 in 4x5 or even 8x10.
If course, in this day and age, it doesn't make (commercial) sense to shoot Velvia 50 in the first place, regardless if format. The things it is/was most suited for are the exact things where digital reigns supreme for several (very good) reasons.
If course it worked in the studio - light is light. But Velvia50 really shone as a landscape film and was most likely conceived with primarily that purpose in mind.
I’m sure they got plenty of great and also plenty of terrible ideas from their employees. I’m glad they’re still around and apparently growing.But they could have been healthier or even avoided bankruptcy if they had listened to their employees, for example me.
But they could have been healthier or even avoided bankruptcy if they had listened to their employees, for example me.
It’s seems to be a general unavoidable sickness of well established companies.
And even when you try to do a “rebel” breakout group that plays startup and revolutionize from inside, that is also quickly assimilated and killed.
Think of Xerox PARC, the 80-84 Mac group at Apple, Ken Kutaragis PlayStation group etc.
There were several very valiant attempts at doing “something” at Kodak but they fizzled out when it came to the will to fail a couple of times with a first iteration product and keep pressing on.
A newborn baby will always fall short, when it’s expected to perform the same as a mature product very quickly.
The Kodak Instant film for instance should have been saved at all cost.
If they had really wanted to, Kodak could have buried Polaroid.
Their product was better and Polaroid really had no case.
Instead the case was allowed to drag on with a biased partisan judge, allowed to sour people on the brand and through flimflam and negligence on Kodak’s part it came to cost Kodak a tremendous amount of money and loss of goodwill.
Now Fuji profits on the exact same basic technology in Kodaks home market. And has done so for decades. While “Polaroid” is on European hands.
I’m sure they got plenty of great and also plenty of terrible ideas from their employees. I’m glad they’re still around and apparently growing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?