Ektachrome is Back!

Didn't they first use the name Kodachrome to refer to a very primitive two-color process?
 
Hogarth Ferguson said:
I thought the h2 was the last hasselblad to be able to accept film.
Click to expand...

During the time of the H3 you needed an H2, when the H4 was out for a little while they released the H4x which could take film backs and Phase backs. Turns out the closed-system they were trying to create wasn't ready for prime time (though I would argue with their current backs users would have less of a reason to use Phase). There was later an H5x which has the same idea. Now with the H6 I have heard from a few unconfirmed sources that the cameras can accept film backs. They may drop the X designation for lack of need, but I'm not sure how it will play out. Having a 1/2000th of a second leaf shutter with some Portra 400 in bright sunlight would for me be quite a welcome shooting experience! Either way, yes, Hasselblad still 'sort of' makes a film camera. Just do yourself a favor and never look up the cost of a brand new film back.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
How so? Please explain.

Chris
Click to expand...

I'm not the person who made that comment, but I don't think Kodak can get away with rebranding an E-6 film Kodachrome; not in the information age. Those who are still shooting film tend to know (or have read) what made Kodachrome special.

Even a new, non-E-6, reformulation of Kodachrome would probably get some negative reception unless it's 99% identical to the old Kodachrome and also have processing compatible with the expired Kodachrome in people's freezers.
 
CliveC said:
I don't think Kodak can get away with rebranding an E-6 film Kodachrome
Click to expand...

Purists might be offended, but if it looks like Kodachrome I will buy it even if it's E-6.
I honestly don't think it's realistic to think Kodak will bring back K-14 processing.

With regard to image permanence, the last Ektachrome films are nearly as archival as
Kodachrome in dark storage, and Ektachrome has always been superior in projection.

Chris
 
Would like to see more E6 kits that hold for a while before shooting a lot of E6. They are tricky to get in America, and wind up costing quite a bit to process. 10 rolls would be a very busy month for me, development wise. I can walk down the street and have them done for like $7-$8 a roll same day.
 
Wow! I surfed in here the other week when I heard about the M10... But for me the real news is this!!!

Since the demise of my favorite stocks, I have simply not been able to find combinations I liked and haven't been snapping many pics lately.

Because of Kodak's milking to support other bad business ventures, trying out new Kodak films has been a no-go in my book. You just never knew why or when a Kodak product would get axed...

Think I'll try to shoot some TMAX 400 tomorrow. PLEASE Alaris be thoughtful and don't make knee jerk business decisions like Kodak. Be more like Ilford and show stability to your customer base. We need dependable partners... Not traveling salesmen-manager CEO's!

EDIT: And by the way don't rebrand some E6 film as Kodachrome. That would be the equivalent of calling me an idiot... I'm smart enough to know E6 is not K14...
 
CliveC said:
I'm not the person who made that comment, but I don't think Kodak can get away with rebranding an E-6 film Kodachrome; not in the information age. Those who are still shooting film tend to know (or have read) what made Kodachrome special.

Even a new, non-E-6, reformulation of Kodachrome would probably get some negative reception unless it's 99% identical to the old Kodachrome and also have processing compatible with the expired Kodachrome in people's freezers.
Click to expand...

As long as the new Kodachrome is non-substantive it should be just as sharp as the original. (Kodachrome films did not incorporate dye couplers in the emulsion layers. Dye couplers were added during processing. This made the emulsion much thinner and results sharp.) Kodachrome is a brand name.
 
Let's make it clear. Kodachrome is synonymous with K-12, K-14, etc. processes.

Selling it as anything else is deceptive. Doing so would be equivalent to a lie regardless of whether it is just a "brand" or not.

Doing this would be fitting in my opinion to the behavior Kodak has taken towards its film customers over the last 10 years.

This kind of attitude is why I switched all film purchases since the demise of Plus-X away from Kodak products.
 
JPSuisse said:
Let's make it clear. Kodachrome is synonymous with K-12, K-14, etc. processes.

Selling it as anything else is deceptive. Doing so would be equivalent to a lie regardless of whether it is just a "brand" or not.

...
Click to expand...

I buy products based on how they perform. Frankly I could care less about K processes. I am interested in the properties of the emulsion, which is why I never used Plus-X in any incarnation, never liked the results.

You probably will not be a Kodak customer, maybe I will again, maybe not.
 
I couldn't care less what the new E-6 film is called (and we already know it will be called Ektachrome, btw). Ektachrome, Kodachrome or Kardashichrome? If it's good and the name helps Kodak sell it and keep it in production... that's all I care for.

I mean, really, do we have 42 different E-6 and K-14 emulsions to pick from so we have nothing else to worry about except branding?!
 
HHPhoto said:
Hi,

Kodachrome will not come back!
In English:
https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/kodak-backtracks-says-difficult-revive-kodachrome/

In German:
http://www.photoscala.de/2017/01/28/hoffnungen-auf-rueckkehr-des-kodachrome-zerschlagen-sich/

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

No, it will not come back. Not as the actual Kodachrome process. But they could make an E6 film that comes as close as possible to the Kodachrome look. As to the name, I imagine it would be called something that suggests a Kodachrome heritage. Maybe K-Chrome or Kodakrome. As long as it comes in a yellow and red box, it will be close enough.

What would you like to call it?
 
Rob-F said:
What would you like to call it?
Click to expand...

A fake.
Because an E6 film with something like a "Kodachrome look" (which would probably very very difficult to achieve) is a fake.
It is simply not the real deal, not the original.
It would be a fake like all these crappy film simulation programmes in digital imaging.
Those few people who really want Kodachrome would not buy it, they want the real stuff.
So an E6 "Kodachrome" would be a financial disaster: Huge costs of R&D, and not enough customers in the end.

I really hope Kodak Alaris is not so stupid to do that.

Some people here forget that Kodachrome failed in the market long before the digital flood came. Kodachrome significantly lost market share already in the 80ies to E6, and during the 90ies most reversal film shooters switched to E6.
For very good reasons:
E6 films from the 90ies on have been better in all respects: More natural color rendition (or more saturated like Velvia), finer grain, higher resolution, better sharpness, much better color stability when exposed to light (on the lightbox and in projection), much faster turnaround with processing, local processing options and possibility of home processing, cheaper.

The best Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris now can do is to focus and concentrate on new Ektachrome(s).

Cheers, Jan
 
I basically agree with Jan. If Alaris starts to give some visibility and actually are committed to a successful film business, I will give the new Ektachrome a go.

And, Nikonwebmaster, I could also care less about the process itself. I happened to like Plus-X, you don't. That's fine. Don't buy it. Buy whatever YOU want.
 
JPSuisse said:
I happened to like Plus-X, you don't.
Click to expand...

I just never saw the need for Plus-X.

I admit I used Tri-X in Acufine rated at 800 for almost everything I shot, which might not have always been the best choice -- before I finally stopped shooting B&W, when small circulation magazines stopped using my photos (or stopped publishing), sometime in the '80s. Tri-X was just so easy to use.
 
HHPhoto said:
A fake.
Because an E6 film with something like a "Kodachrome look" (which would probably very very difficult to achieve) is a fake.
It is simply not the real deal, not the original.
It would be a fake like all these crappy film simulation programmes in digital imaging.
Those few people who really want Kodachrome would not buy it, they want the real stuff.
So an E6 "Kodachrome" would be a financial disaster: Huge costs of R&D, and not enough customers in the end.

I really hope Kodak Alaris is not so stupid to do that.

Some people here forget that Kodachrome failed in the market long before the digital flood came. Kodachrome significantly lost market share already in the 80ies to E6, and during the 90ies most reversal film shooters switched to E6.
For very good reasons:
E6 films from the 90ies on have been better in all respects: More natural color rendition (or more saturated like Velvia), finer grain, higher resolution, better sharpness, much better color stability when exposed to light (on the lightbox and in projection), much faster turnaround with processing, local processing options and possibility of home processing, cheaper.

The best Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris now can do is to focus and concentrate on new Ektachrome(s).

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

The Kodachrome trademark was applied to a lot of different films and processes though, just as the Ektachrome trademark has been. The two different names mostly just signified which line of films could be developed at home, and which was sent back to Kodak for processing. But both names were applied to a bunch of different films and processes.

Kodak conceivably could make a Kodachrome E-6 film, and while some might blah about it not being the real thing, I think most users would just accept it as some particular variety of E-6 slide film rather than its whole own process. At this point it's unlikely that such a move would hurt them.
 
Kodachrome was different from all E6 films. It wasn't as accurate or realistic but that made it interesting. Visually it looked as if the image was formed on the top of a dark underlay, perhaps because there really was an element of b&w structure in it (unlike E6). It 'd be great to have it again but I am not sure it'd make financial sense; and the important thing is to have a commercially succesful Kodak to produce everything else. Now, PlusX on the other hand...I feel it is really within reach.
 
Splitting hairs about vaporware...

Splitting hairs about vaporware...

If any new E-6 film Kodak introduces looks like Kodachrome I'll use it - whatever it's called! :D

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom