Kodak Ekatacolor Pro 160

S

SeaninBrisbane

Member
Local time
7:27 AM
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
38
Hi - I'm hoping someone might have information on this film - I bought 5 rolls (2011 expiry) from eBay.

Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • a.jpg
    a.jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Ektacolor? I wasn't aware the Ektacolor brand had been revived. In any event, Kodak's web site is a good place to start.
 
AFAIK, Ektacolor was discontinued long ago. A expiration date of 2011 is quite odd. I am thinking it is either Ektar, a fake date, or a brand name that was continued in one region.

Edit: A quick Google leads me to believe it is a re-badging of a Portra emulsion, distributed in Asia.
 
Last edited:
"Way Back When" Ektacolor was Kodak's pro line. Type S (for Short exposure) was daylight balance and designed for daylight and electronic flash and usually called CPS, while Type L was balanced for 3200K tunsten studio lights. I'm not sure exactly when, but it was replaced by Vericolor, usually called VPS, and more recently by Portra. The Ektacolor was process C-22, but this was replaced with process C-41 when Vericolor was introduced.

If it says to use C41 it's probably rebadged Portra or just plain fake. The original Ektacolor would tell you to use C-22 process.
 
Hmmm...

Check again. Made in 2008. Expires in 2010. If you had a better JPEG, you might find the C-41 statement. The fine print is not English. Looks Asian. You do know it is 120 film?
 
Just checked: the expiry is 2011 (stock photo) and it is coming from Thailand. Forgot to mention it is 120. Thanks for the replies everyone.
 
I used a few rolls last year, was not very impressed really, doesn't look much like Portra, it is very common as a cheap 120 film in South East Asia though.
 
This is certainly weird. Don't know why Rochester would regurgitate a long-dormant name (As Al states, Ektacolor [which I scarcely knew] begat Vericolor [hich I didn't understand, and hence didn't trust], which begat the current Portra line [which I dearly love...go figure]). Perhaps a language thing.


- Barrett
 
Rochester now makes film for all markets, AFAIK. I'll ask Ms. Hellyar about the branding.
 
Regurgitating the Ektar name makes good sense to me. Words starting with the "EK" of Eastman Kodak have been used for ages, although words ending in "ar" have been used by myriad manufacturers mostly as lens names (Ektar, Tessar, Skopar). Ektachrome is a wel known brand name.

Since Ektacolor was just used for their pro line of color negative films not many people ever heard of it back then, and a goodly number of us are long gone. Probably the majority of the market today never heard of Ektacolor before this film hit the streets.

Maybe it's time for somebody to buy the rights to another old name, along with the distinctive red box. ANSCO! Versapan was a gorgeous fine grain medium speed film with tonality to die for! I missed it when they stopped making it. Super Hypan, on the other hand was an ISO 500 film that gave you golf ball size grain without the inconvenience of being too fast to use in daylight. ;-) ANSCO sounds like a more sure way to good photos than LUCKY. Or maybe the Chinese are trying to avoid reviving the name RED as in Red Box?
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the expiry date conflict. I didn't know I was looking at a stock photo.

Good luck! Share the results.
 
The Ektacolor type S pro films (CPS, VPS, Portra) are balanced for daylight. The Kodacolor amateur films were balanced for 3800k, the color of light from clear flash bulbs. I suspect that the current line up pf Kodak Gold is still balanced for 3800k because it doesn't "go orange" in available light situations lik the pro films, nor does it "go green" in flourescent lighting. Well, it doesn't exactly stay neutral either, but it seems to handle all kinds of lighting including mixed lighting. If you get conned into shooting a wedding by available light don't waste your money on Portra.
 
Al,

Thanks for the discussion and the explanation of Kodak Gold. I have a family event coming up that may be appropriate for that film.
 
I have about 35 rolls of Ektacolor 120 film in my freezer now with an expiration date of 02/2007. It is C-41 process, made in the USA. I could understand why some might say it is rebadged Portra as the film itself if marked 160NC. There is a bit of Asian script on the pro-pack sleeve, but not nearly as much writing as shown in the stock photo above.
 
Trius, about all of the photos on my blog were shot with Gold 200, processed and printed 4x6 at Walgreens, then scanned on a cheapy $89 HP combo scanner/printer using presets. The images on the screen, with the rare exception, look OK to me. Recently though I've cheated a few times by scanning directly off things like a T-shirt.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

The May 10th post is directly from a T-shirt, May 9th a slightly faded color print and a real dead lizard placed on the scanner's glass, May 8th the blond is mostly illuminated by tungsten with a bit of street lighting, the shot with the dog in the yellow T-shirt is sunshine, May 7th me at the voting booth is a tad green from flourescent light, but well within the correctible range. The blond in the yellow T-shirt is window light.
 
Last edited:
popstar said:
I have about 35 rolls of Ektacolor 120 film in my freezer now with an expiration date of 02/2007. It is C-41 process, made in the USA. I could understand why some might say it is rebadged Portra as the film itself if marked 160NC. There is a bit of Asian script on the pro-pack sleeve, but not nearly as much writing as shown in the stock photo above.
Click to expand...

This film is readily available in Asia at the moment, and though I've haven't used it yet I've read it is similar to Pro 160 NC. I was hoping it would be similar to Pro 160 VC, but I guess I'll have to give it a try to find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom