Kodak Alaris official statement: Film future

[HHPhoto]

Dear Roger,

with all respect, but I have to completely disagree:

Dear Jan,

Er... Sort of.

No-one denies the advantages of slide film. BUT, I'd suggest that Kodak were merely preparing people for the inevitable. Even if slide film sales doubled tomorrow -- and I don't think any advertising campaign or anything else is going to make that happen -- it would still be a tiny, tiny market: Kodak decided to stop making the stuff a year ago. I'd say that the argument is, "Quit while you have the illusion of choice." And (understandably) because they're Kodak they're trying to flog the films they make, which is hardly idiotic.

No.
1. Kodak started this campaign against slide film already at 2008 (at the Photokina fair), at a time when they had a full line of (really excellent) slide films.

2. If they had started marketing for slide films (instead of working against it), probably best before 2008, they could have stabilised this market.
Look at instant film: In 2008 all have said it will be dead, Polaroid stopped production.
But then IP and Fuji started marketing again for this film type, and saved it.
Now we have even increasing sales of instant film.

It's also true that Ektar 100 is an extraordinarily fine film that can be used in surprisingly many situations as a replacement for slide -- see http://www.shutterbug.com/content/kodak’s-ektar-100-35mm-roll-film-new-color-negative-film-kodak

Oh please, not again this Kodak marketing nonsense that Ektar could be a replacement for reversal film.
It cannot! Not at all.
Negative film cannot replace reversal film. Both are two different photographic mediums with different characteristics and different strenghts.
Apples cannot replace oranges and vice versa.

1. With slide film I have a finished positive, a finished picture.
I just hold it up to the light and can enjoy it in brillant colours.
I cannot do that with negative film.

2. I can put a slide on a light table, looking through an excellent slide loupe and have an enlarged, finished picture with excellent quality.
Not possible (useful) with colour negative film.

3. I can project the slide and have the best picture quality at lowest costs with big enlargements.
Not possible with negative film.

4. If i want prints from slides I can scan it and make prints (on RA-4 or other media), can use Kodak and Fuji Display films for big format slides, I can (still) use Ilfochrome for optical enlargements (currently there are still some labs who are doing it), or I can use Harman Direct Positive paper for optical direct BW prints.
So even for prints we have a little more creative options with reversal film than with negative film.
With negative films we have direct optical enlargement on RA-4, and the scanning option with output as above.

No other film type has such a versatility like reversal film. One of the reasons why reversal film have been the dominant film type for decades in professional photography.

5. Ektar cannot compete with the current slide films like Provia 100F, Velvia, E100G etc. in terms of fineness of grain, edge sharpness and resolution.
There have been lots of different scientific film tests during the last years which have proved that:
- the tests of Zeiss by Müller / Fleischer and additional tests by Nasse
- the extremely detailed tests of Seeman / Serger / Ventzke
- the test runs of Antora / Mayer
- the tests of Heuer / Müller (well Heuer, that is me).

The modern ISO 100/21° slide films have a bit finer grain than Ektar, significant better edge sharpness and about 35% higher resolution.
By the way, even Pro 160 NS, Superia 200, Gold 200 and Portra 160 have higher resolution than Ektar 100 (the above mentioned tests all proved that).
Concerning resolution Ektar is indeed one of the weakest films on the market.
Kodak know that.
Therefore they only say it is the finest grain colour negative film (they don't say it is generally the finest grained colour film, because they know that that is not true).

Why has Ektar this weakness in resolution?
Because its genes are from movie film.
Movie film stock is not optimised for resolution, because that is not needed in a movie film.
Because of the high picture frequency the human eye cannot resolve fine detail in fast moving pictures.
But in still photography the eye has time to "look into the picture", has time to resolve fine detail. That is not possible in a movie.
Therefore movie films have lower resolution than still photography films.
Ektar and Portra 400 are derived from movie film stock, both have this weakness in resolution (Portra 400 has 20% less resolution than Portra 400 NC-2; result of the Seeman / Serger / Ventzke and Antora / Mayer tests).

Why lots of Photographers don't see this using Ektar?
Because they use the workflow for film with the lowest quality:
scanning, mostly with scanners with only max 4000ppi.
With this low quality workflow they loose up to 50% of the resolution of film (drum scanners are much better, but not as good as classic optical enlargement).
You don't have this problem with optical enlargements with APO enlarging lenses, and you don't have it with slide projection with very good projection lenses. With this optical imaging chain you can get about 95% of the detail, which is on the film.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Photo_Smith]

I mostly agree Jan. We should start up an everyone use a roll of E6 month. 🙂

I've shown this before but I'll just add my daughters words as a caption.


Slides by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

Wow dad look at all those little pictures it looks like a church window...

 

[sevo]

It's also true that Ektar 100 is an extraordinarily fine film that can be used in surprisingly many situations as a replacement for slide -- see http://www.shutterbug.com/content/kodak’s-ektar-100-35mm-roll-film-new-color-negative-film-kodak.

Well, no. While Ektar is not that far in resolution and grain from Kodak's own slide films - it is not better, and compared to the Fuji films, it is noticeably worse.

Substituting Ektar for slide films would be a valid move if the only purpose of colour film was to wet print it to paper, where that loss would be compensated by Ektar needing one less intermediate step (at least now that there is no more direct positive wet print paper). But that is a niche-within-a-niche - the bulk of CN film will undergo a rapid automatic Frontier scan before being digitally printed, so it has no generation advantage compared to slide. And CN has significant issues scanning, and never has been used or proposed for high quality professional scan processes - the standards for colour profiling are only defined for positives.

Besides, CN does not project at all, given that Kodak scrapped their slide print film even before their E6 line of products, while projection likely is the last domain where digital will catch up in quality.

 

[Roger Hicks]

First, as I said before, "No-one denies the advantages of slide film."

Second, "surprisingly many", as in "can be used in surprisingly many situations as a replacement for slide" is not "all". I would never pretend it was. Quite honestly, as far as I am concerned, "any" is "surprisingly many".

Third, professional use of all film has for many years -- several decades -- involved scanning. This became the case as more and more magazines stopped accepting slides and wanted photographers and journalists to send in electronic files, whether direct from digital or scanned. I used (and scanned) E6 for many years. Then, when it was a choice of doing my own E6 or waiting a week for turnaround, I did my own. Then, to save time and money, I bought a digital camera. In any case, for journalism, it rarely makes much difference whether you scan slides or good negs: the LA times was scanning neg at least 20 years ago.

Fourth, it's all very well to wail and rail about maximum quality with drum scanners and projectors. The economic argument, unfortunately, is not a lot to do with quality. The number of people who care passionately about quality is tiny -- and I've seen it fall dramatically among publishers in my working lifetime. Once you take out the professional market, you're left with a few hobby photographers who have an understandable but hardly commercially supportable commitment to slide film. It's a nice fantasy that slide film sales could have been stabilized at (say) 2008 levels, but it's not a fantasy that I buy in to. As I say, Kodak were saying, "Quit while you have the illusion of choice."

Do I wish I could still shoot slide; take it to a pro lab 10-15 miles away; have it back the same day; and send the slides to a magazine, instead of faffing around with scanning? Of course I do. But not many magazines or book publishers work that way any more.

Cheers,

R.

 

[HHPhoto]

Hi Mark,

I mostly agree Jan. We should start up an everyone use a roll of E6 month. 🙂

good idea 🙂.
I've exposed 20 rolls of reversal film in September, and so far 8 rolls this month.
It probably will be some more the next weeks, because now its autumn, "Indian Summer" time. And the wonderful colours of the leaves looks best on slide film with its unsurpassed brillance.

I've shown this before but I'll just add my daughters words as a caption.


Slides by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

Wow dad look at all those little pictures it looks like a church window...

Your little daughter is a clever girl 🙂.

Well, for me, when I look at my slides on the lighttable through my outstanding Schneider loupes, and especially when I project my slides on the big screen, it is like a time machine:
I feel like that I am again back in the scene. The picture is so real that I feel I am again at the place where I took the picture.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Hi Sevo,

Well, no. While Ektar is not that far in resolution and grain from Kodak's own slide films - it is not better, and compared to the Fuji films, it is noticeably worse.

well yes, the Fujichrome reversal films are outstanding indeed. At the end of the 80ies Fuji surpassed Kodak in slide film technology, and increased their lug, their advance in the following years.
But Kodak came back in 2003 with E100G(X) and Elitechrome 100. These films were almost on the same level with the Fuji offerings.
Some of the best films Kodak ever made (and better than Ektar).
E100G and Elitechrome 100 both have a bit finer grain compared to Ektar, and better edge sharpness and about 30% higher resolution.
You may have a look at
http://www.aphog.de/?p=364

Besides, CN does not project at all, given that Kodak scrapped their slide print film even before their E6 line of products, while projection likely is the last domain where digital will catch up in quality.

Digital will never fully catch up in projection quality. The gap is simply too big.
In slide projection with very good projection lenses we get 50-55 MP resolution on the screen with standard colour slide films at medium object contrast.
With BW highest resolution slide films like Agfa Copex Rapid and ADOX CMS 20 II you even get resolution in the 100 - 170 MP range.
We've did these tests with all the films, different slide and digital projectors.
No chance for digital at all. The gap is so huge, it cannot be closed in the next decades. Expectations have to be realistic.
99% of digital shooters only look at their pictures on computer monitors with only about 1 MP resolution. That's how the main digital market looks like.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Dear Roger,

Third, professional use of all film has for many years -- several decades -- involved scanning.

well yes, for about the last 25-30 years scanning has been used in the cases a print output was the aim - in magazines, catalogs, books, newspapers.
Most professional photographers preferred slide film because with slide you always have the original as colour benchmark.
That is impossible with negative film, because our brain cannot "read" the colours of a colour negative.

But there have always been also professional slide film uses without scanning: For decades the best travel and wildlife / nature photographers have presented their work in front of big audiences in audiovision shows with slide projection on huge screens.
Some of the best, like Norbert Rosing, are still doing that business successfully, with more than a dozen shows a year.

In any case, for journalism, it rarely makes much difference whether you scan slides or good negs: the LA times was scanning neg at least 20 years ago.

Well, for newspaper work of course today digital is the most reasonable option. If I would be a newspaper photographer, I would use digital.

But newspaper work has been and is only one part of professional photography.
Catalog work (product photography, fashion etc), photography for books, the whole nature and wildlife photography, magazines like GEO, Naturfotografie and National Geographic, all this have been shoot almost exclusively on slide film.

Professional use of colour negative film have been mostly wedding photography, portrait in local portrait studios and for a quite short time span newspapers, when printing technology was able to offer cheap colour printing with newspapers. So at the beginning of the 90ies most newspapers switched from BW negative film to CN film. But this period was only a decade long, than digital took over in the newspaper business.

Fourth, it's all very well to wail and rail about maximum quality with drum scanners and projectors. The economic argument, unfortunately, is not a lot to do with quality. The number of people who care passionately about quality is tiny -- and I've seen it fall dramatically among publishers in my working lifetime. Once you take out the professional market, you're left with a few hobby photographers who have an understandable but hardly commercially supportable commitment to slide film.

Well,
1. The quality factors are only some of the strengths of slide film. There are a lot more.
An excellent list can be found here:
http://www.aphog.de/?p=357

2. The whole market for BW negative film is kept alive for many years as a tiny niche market by "the few hobby photographers" as you say.
People who care for the quality of BW film.
This market is bigger than the slide film market.
If it is possible to keep this market alive with hobby photographers, than it is also possible to keep the market for colour slide film alive with hobby photographers.
Especially if you did a good marketing for it.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The whole market for BW negative film is kept alive for many years as a tiny niche market by "the few hobby photographers" as you say.
People who care for the quality of BW film.
This market is bigger than the slide film market.
If it is possible to keep this market alive with hobby photographers, than it is also possible to keep the market for colour slide film alive with hobby photographers.
Especially if you did a good marketing for it.. . .

Dear Jan,

Possibly, but I still don't think so. Most serious photographers do their own B+W film developing, but slide is far more dependent on commercial E6 labs. It is the decline of these, rather than film availability, that has slaughtered slide film.

And, to repeat what I said before, no-one denies the advantages of slide film, and not just in quality. You are of course right about colour refs (not that this always weighed heavily with repro houses); I have myself given illustrated talks with slides; I love the convenience of being able to pull out a page of slides from my filing cabinets and select the ones I want. It is just that in my opinion -- and presumably in Kodak's -- the commercial viability is (a) declining and (b) irreversible.

Cheers,

R.

 

[StoneNYC]

Dear Jan, Possibly, but I still don't think so. Most serious photographers do their own B+W film developing, but slide is far more dependent on commercial E6 labs. It is the decline of these, rather than film availability, that has slaughtered slide film. And, to repeat what I said before, no-one denies the advantages of slide film, and not just in quality. You are of course right about colour refs (not that this always weighed heavily with repro houses); I have myself given illustrated talks with slides; I love the convenience of being able to pull out a page of slides from my filing cabinets and select the ones I want. It is just that in my opinion -- and presumably in Kodak's -- the commercial viability is (a) declining and (b) irreversible. Cheers, R.

I agree with a lot of what has been said so far, slide film is better than CN in many ways, and if I have to shoot color I always shoot slide film, however using slide projection as an example of quality isn't practical or useful as it's not something that anyone does anymore, you don't go to your neighbors house and see their slides of their trip to oompah loompah land... Using that as an example also cuts out CN as a projection option. So it's not a fair comparison anyway.

The two are different animals since you can't print optically anymore (yes some specialty lab in Australia can do it while supples last but let's get real here...).

Thanks for the info about this campaign I got out of the film game in 2007 (bought a canon digital 40D and back in in December 2010 during my mad rush around the country shooting K64. And before 2006 I was an amateur shooting only 35mm as a hobby, now I'm shooting 35mm(rarely), 120 mostly, and 4x5 (damn that slide film processing is expensive in LF).

Which brings me to my point. The one thing I disagree on is that I don't believe it's the unavailability of labs processing E-6 that's killing chromes, because people who use walgreens/CVS/RiteAid as their lab are not professionals and probably never used any chromes except Kodachrome back in the day. What's killing it for professionals is the cost of the chemistry AND the lack of availability for home processing kits. 3 bath kits are unstable and 6/7 bath kits are unattainable for anyone but in huge lab sizes. And the 3 bath kits go off so fast you have to stock up on rolls and rolls and then devote a whole day processing it all to make it financially worth it.

It's madness. If they just made simple, and cheap home kits that could be used as like 1-2 shot deals, instead of a kit that costs $40 and you do 20 rolls but really can only get 4 done in a day and still have time for other things.... So either you're spending $10/roll to do 4 rolls, or you waste the chemistry, OR you save up and then spend 28 hours straight processing and scanning your 20 rolls (I know because I've done this...

This is what causes me to pick up my digital instead... This is what's killing slide film...

End of rant...

~Stone | Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Photo_Smith]

Stone in Europe we have Professional E6 kits that are reasonable and high quality this will do 50 rolls:
http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/fuji-hunt-chrome6-e6-kit-5l-1758-p.asp

It may explain why E6 is more popular here, and I still project so does my father in law.
We have family evenings with old and new slides especially when relative come from far away–its a nice event and better than sitting round a laptop

 

[KM-25]

2. The whole market for BW negative film is kept alive for many years as a tiny niche market by "the few hobby photographers" as you say.
People who care for the quality of BW film.
This market is bigger than the slide film market.
If it is possible to keep this market alive with hobby photographers, than it is also possible to keep the market for colour slide film alive with hobby photographers.
Especially if you did a good marketing for it.

I think you are vastly underestimating how many more photographers, pro and hobby are using black and white negative over slide film, I bet it is at least 30:1 because unlike slide film, black and white can be easily wet printed, has carved a deep niche in the professional fine art world and has actually seen a bit of an increase in overall use. And above all, black and white as a viable future medium is highly stable compared to color film let alone slide....I bet it is even more stable than digital in current form for that matter.

I stocked up on a 120 and 4x5 Velvia 50 last year before it hit the prices it is at now, no longer have much interest in 35mm color, I would be scanning any color film for output, not wet printing it. At this point in time, I do not see any issues with sending my E6 off to any one of the great labs that are busy as heck with viable E6 lines, the prices are still good and this goes for C-41 too. I happen to like Ektar and Portra a lot, especially in 120 and 4x5 in which if shot correctly and scanned well, gives any E6 film a run for it's money in what I am seeing, don't really care what links you have, I know what I am seeing.

I did my use it before you lose it crusade with Kodachrome, I am not doing it again with E6, it is not my future and it will go away before any other film type does next. As a professional artist, I need product stability and availability far more than anything else and where I see that stability is black and white film and silver gel paper.

You can start a crusade for E6 if you want, but I don't think it ever held nearly as big of a nostalgic place in people's hearts as Kodachrome did so I think if you want to use E6, you should accept the fact that you are doing it for you and not because you can convince Fuji to keep making it for a handful of people who want it kept around...not after the balance sheet tells them they need to discontinue it....and some time in the near future, it will.

All this being said, I will shoot the remaining stock of Velvia I have for one reason only and that is to look at gorgeous 6x12 and 4x5 chromes on my light table to remember fondly how utterly wonderful photography was before digital and the internet all but relegated the craft to the junk it is now.

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks. I appreciate the news that someone will still be selling Kodak film for awhile longer. I enjoy using lots of different films and use Ilford and Foma products as well, but Kodak Ektar 100 and Portra 400 are still my go-to films whenever I get ready to shoot color film, particularly in large or medium format.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . What's killing it for professionals is the cost of the chemistry AND the lack of availability for home processing kits. 3 bath kits are unstable and 6/7 bath kits are unattainable for anyone but in huge lab sizes. And the 3 bath kits go off so fast you have to stock up on rolls and rolls and then devote a whole day processing it all to make it financially worth it.

Dear Stone,

Well, that and the time and the effort required to get colour balances right and the fact that commercially a scanned slide isn't worth a penny more than a digital original even if the scanned slide is theoretically superior.

To be sure, a drum-scanned 35mm tranny wipes the floor with an amateur-scanned tranny -- but who's going to pay for drum scans any more? And who runs drum scanners? Indeed, who knows HOW to run them any more? A friend of mine (ex-husband of a closer friend) SCRAPPED a drum scanner because of lack of business. Alas, he didn't contact me about rescuing it because he didn't think I be interested...

Cheers (for want of a better word)

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Most of what you say is a good argument if you wish to remain in the digital domain for final output.
I've started projecting again and using the two free projectors a Leica and a Kodak and nothing digital can touch them not even a fairly high resolution short throw projector costing many thousands.

Not many people project so and for me it's a fun exercise a few times a year and those slides have potential for scanning should you wish to show low resolution images.

Drum scans are great if you need to make large prints, not really any point if you want to show 1000px wide images on your iPad which is how most images are viewed now on low resolution screens.

There are users here who run drum scanners this is good thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134187

So E6 may die, and being replaced doesn't mean what it is being replaced with is better in all cases- hold one 4x5 up to the light in order to see the light.

 

[KM-25]

Dear Stone,

Well, that and the time and the effort required to get colour balances right and the fact that commercially a scanned slide isn't worth a penny more than a digital original even if the scanned slide is theoretically superior.

To be sure, a drum-scanned 35mm tranny wipes the floor with an amateur-scanned tranny -- but who's going to pay for drum scans any more? And who runs drum scanners? Indeed, who knows HOW to run them any more? A friend of mine (ex-husband of a closer friend) SCRAPPED a drum scanner because of lack of business. Alas, he didn't contact me about rescuing it because he didn't think I be interested...

I actually know quite a few who are seeing an uptick in workload, one such niche scan house in Brooklyn that works solely by word of mouth has come up with a way to get scans from Kodachromes that would blow your mind, he did Jeff's scans:

http://www.jeffjacobsonphotography.com/

I am working with him to get mine done, what a passionate guy! For starters, there is a movement to archive images to digital format, this is one way to keep the better scan houses busy....not 1990 busy but busy enough. Also, when Large Format Forum comes back online, check out how many threads there are on people buying and using drum scanners....I have even considered it but would rather pay a great tech to do it for me.

All any of this back and forth does is take away from true image quality...and that image quality is quality time away from the internet making better photographs who's impact and content is of a higher kind of image quality, the kind that matters most....how good or not the damned photo is to begin with.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I actually know quite a few who are seeing an uptick in workload, one such niche scan house in Brooklyn that works solely by word of mouth . . .

Sure. It's known as "last man standing". But I don't think that this, or any other of the anecdotes recited here, has much to do with the rapid and probably irreversible decline of slides.

I regret this decline as much as anyone, and for the same reasons. But I find myself unable to deny its existence, despite my best efforts.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pete hogan]

What a magnificent mechanism is the market. Tri-X may inherit the whole thing.

 

[KM-25]

Sure. It's known as "last man standing". But I don't think that this, or any other of the anecdotes recited here, has much to do with the rapid and probably irreversible decline of slides.

I regret this decline as much as anyone, and for the same reasons. But I find myself unable to deny its existence, despite my best efforts.

Agree 100%, the idea of my response had less to do with slides and more do to with the fact that the slides and negatives already in existence are a steady stream of business for scan houses. Most will go away but some will do quite well as niche demand will remain steady for some time.

FYI for those who may be thinking about it, Catlabs Jobo Outlet has come up with a really nice and economical C-41 kit that even I am considering getting for twice a year runs of my color neg film in my Jobo, so people are trying to fill those niches for color film, even as demand continues to fall:

http://catlabs.bigcartel.com/product/catlabs-c-41-3-bath-chemistry-kit-5l-10l

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agree 100%, the idea of my response had less to do with slides and more do to with the fact that the slides and negatives already in existence are a steady stream of business for scan houses. Most will go away but some will do quite well as niche demand will remain steady for some time. . . .

We do not disagree, even on the smallest detail.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Prest_400]

Kodak Alaris has DI division which makes scanners... Don't know if they could get their act together and release a good film scanner at a nice price. Then they would have a way to input their film into files which can be printed to their paper as well (C-Prints).

As of E6. I now want to try the new Kodak Films (Portra and Ektar) which I haven't yet due shooting E6 since Kodachrome's demise.
I've still got a few rolls of Elitechrome on the freezer. Developed one of them recently and am impressed by the beauty of E6 plus the resistance of the film (past date by 6 months and loaded in April 2012).

As of scanning and quality. I am a student and amateur. Good prints+scans cost $. I've sent for printing the scans of some slides I shot way back.
Drum scans are something out of my budget scope at the moment but might try Imacon+Fujiflex in a future. Frontier scans are decent for tamed films and perhaps negs but won't handle Kodachrome that well.

By word of mouth (internet) through an interview in Lomography, Ferrania seem to be advancing and still mantain the 1st Quarter of 2014 as date for their ISO 100 Chrome film. They are crazy enough to get into this market and have the possibility of being the last man standing.