No more home for Ektachrome

It has nothing to do with color vs. bw. The fact is that nowadays that most film gets scanned there's little reason to shoot slides. Hardly anyone projects slides anymore.

I shoot both negative and slide film, and scan everything myself and at a pro lab. Your comment is a bit puzzling. There is no way to compare these two, slide film is by far superior for scanning. Absolutely no grain, great colors, very high resolution. As far as I'm concerned, color negative film is only advantageous for when its superior latitude is needed, mostly in weddings and portraiture.
 
I shoot both negative and slide film, and scan everything myself and at a pro lab. Your comment is a bit puzzling. There is no way to compare these two, slide film is by far superior for scanning. Absolutely no grain, great colors, very high resolution. As far as I'm concerned, color negative film is only advantageous for when its superior latitude is needed, mostly in weddings and portraiture.

For the average amateur E6 is tricky to scan because most consumer scanners don't have an adjustable light source so it's hard to pick up all the shadow detail in a dense slide. Drum scanners or good home scanners don't have that problem, of course.
Color neg films like Portra 160 or Ektar 100 are virtually grain free and if you scan you can adjust the colors to your liking anyways.


Let's please stop this silly 'wedding and portrait photographers' nonsense. Most fine art photographers working in color with film use Kodak Portra these days. That goes for landscape, portrait and documentary photographers alike.

Personally, I think if you're into saturated colors, high resolution and don't need the latitude of CN there's little reason not to go digital.
 
No conspiracy. No motive for that (I agree, claiming that is ridiculous)
Just plain good ol' mistakes, pushing this product vs that one etc.
Or maybe not mistakes, just not believing in a line of products, and trying to change the course of their business without making too many people too angry.
Of course I could be totally wrong, but I simply get the impression that others than Kodak would have ran the business entirely differently, and better.
but, hey, what do I know..🙄

One thing I am pretty sure of: the PR people at kodak are not very good when it comes to making us, the customers, feel like we are considered as intelligent people.

Kodak is a large company with everything that comes with that so you can't expect them to start doing business like a small company with a handful of employees. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just saying it's not as simple as one might think. What's a profitsble business for a small company might not be for a large one.

I just don't think they're lying about the reasons why they discontinue certain products. Where I don't trust them is when they say that they'll keep producing everything else.
 
Let's please stop this silly 'wedding and portrait photographers' nonsense.

Historically there was a point where there was a clear division between jobs for immediate photographic print output (wedding and portrait almost invariably so, but also just about anything else printed in colour in editions of less than a few hundred), which were invariably done on colour negative (for its superior print quality at lower cost) and those with the end result in news/halftone print, which were as invariably done on reversal, to save on proofing cost and to avoid the extra generation loss of an intermediate print.

But that division had little reason after around 1990, when the pre-press industry converted to digital - it is rather strange that it still lingers on among amateurs who've never been part of either camp, whether then or now.
 
In the last couple of of years, we've seen the demise of some really historic films -- Kodachrome (from the mid-1930's), Plus-X (from the late 1930's), and now Ektachrome (from the early 1940's). And probably many more before these three. I know the formulas changed over the years, but it just seems sad.

Fortunately, tri-x seems to have a big following.

I never liked their Tmax stuff. I really think it's awful. Very bland.
 
That news sucks! Kodak, you will regret this decision!!
What a sad day.

I've used E100G and E100VS / Extra Color so far. Excellent stuff.
But I will not stock it up.
My money will now go to Fuji!
Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Velvia 100F are excellent films I like, too.

It is now time to support Fuji to keep color slide film alive.
Slide film is unique, it can not be replaced by colour negative film, and especially not by digital.
With slide I always have an authentic picture. I only need to hold it against light to enjoy it.
Impossible with CN and digital.
Slide film is a major part of photographic culture.
It absolutely deserves to stay alive!

There are lots of very good reasons for shooting slides:

1. Projection: Absolutely unsurpassed quality (brillance, sharpness, resolution, fine grain, tonality) at that big enlargements.
I've compared slide projection with excellent projection lenses to the current most expensive beamers (2 MP; 7000€).
The result is absolutely clear: Slide projection is a league of its own. Far superior resolution and sharpness, better brillance and tonality, much better color reproduction.
The most expensive beamers can not compete at all with slide projection.
With beamers you have the situation that you pay e.g. 7000€ for a 24 MP Nikon D3x, and then you pay another 7000€ to smash this resolution down to the extrmely low resolution of 2 MP with the beamer (and the 2 MP are only valid in horizontal direction, in vertical direction you have even 40% less resolution).
You burn more than 10,000€ to get crappy results. Digital projection is completely ridiculous in it's cost - performance relation.

2. Slide viewing with an excellent slide loupe: Outstanding quality, fast, convenient.
Viewing slides this way with a little, slim daylight light table is as fast as looking at prints in a photoalbum. But with better image quality.
This way you can easily show others your slides without projection.This set-up is smaller and lighter than a photoalbum or a laptop.

3. Prints have a limited contrast range of about five stops (max. contrast from deep black to shiny white on the print). There is a physical limit which cannot be surpassed.
Slides as a transparent medium can deliver higher contrast ranges. With certain (BW) slides films even more than 10 stops.
This greater max. contrast range of slides is one reason for their higher brillance.

4. With slide film you can achieve higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain compared to color negative films.
There have been some scientific tests proving that films like Ektachrome E100G, Provia 100F, Velvia 100 and 100F, Astia 100F have about 30-40% higher resolution than Ektar 100.
I've made some comparison tests, too, and can confirm that.

5. Reliability:
What you see is what you get.
Give your slide film in 5 different labs, and you will always get the same results.
Give your CN film in five different labs and order prints from them, then you will most probably receive five different results, because the operator at the printer does an interpretation. You get differences from the scanning and from the operator of the machine, who decides about contrast and colors.

6. Most authentic form of photography: A slide is an original, the pure form, not manipulated in any form.

7. Versatility:
Slides can be viewed only with the eye, holding against light, with a loupe, they can be projected on a screen, and you can scan and print them (and currently there is still the possibility to make a Ilfochrome, or a direct print with Harman Direct Positive Paper).
Color negatives can only be printed.

8. Very cost efficient:
Color negative film makes sense if you want prints.
For a quality print I have to pay here about 35 - 40 cents depending on the lab.
A 36 exp. CN film, developed and with prints cost me more than a slide film with development.

If you consider projection than there is an even much more significant price gap: With projection my huge, brillant picture of 1m x 1,5m or 2 x 3m cost me less than 1€ in total.
A print from CN film of that size cost me much more than 100€, and doesn't have the brillance, resolution, fine grain and sharpness of the projected slide.

9. BW slides:
Their tonality is unique. Yo can not get this unique look with prints.
Once you have seen BW slides, you are hooked.

10. You always have an original color reference for scanning and printing: Look at your slide and you know how the real colors are.
That is impossible with color negatives: Our brain is not able to convert the color negatives to real natural colors.
Besides the superior detail rendition of slide film that has been the main reason for the popularity of slide film in professional photography.

11. Slide film is the best photography teacher: You have to do it right at the moment you click the sutter (if you're doing the real stuff, viewing the slides on a light table and in projection; without scanning and further manipulation).
Slide film makes you a more disciplined and deliberate photographer. You think before you shoot. Less clicks, but more good shots in the end.

12. With slides you feel like being back in the scene at the moment you shot it, it's so real.
It's a "time machine":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus

Slides, that is where film is absolutely unique and can not be replaced by CN or digital.

Cheers, Jan
 
I won't begin to comment on Kodak's seemingly poor business decisions over the past couple decades--there are many on this forum who know the ins and outs of its collapse far better than I.

All I know is that I appreciate Kodak's place not only in the history of photography, but also its impact on American culture. I also happen to love nearly all their current 35mm films and bemoan the day when they will likely all go away. Porta and Ektar are, in my opinion, the best C41 emulsions out there today. I get along fine with Ilford when I use it, but Tri-X is still my go-to b&w choice.

The latest news about Kodak's decision to discontinue slide film is particularly disappointing for me, though far from shocking. It's not that I think Ektachrome is better than Provia and Velvia. It's more the symbolic nature of it all.

My reaction to Kodak's latest announcement? I went to B&H this morning stocked up. Today's Porta and Ektar are gorgeous, but they fall short when compared to slides for color work, in my personal opinion, and years from now I still want the option of shooting slide film. As for whether there will be any labs out there to process it, well...that's another story.
 
My colleague had a chat with Kodak Canada's Entertainment Imaging Account Manager this morning and they are not discontinuing Ektachrome 100D motion picture stock any time soon. So you will still be able to buy cans of 100D and roll it down if you wish.
I have not seen comparisons between the motion and still picture stock to know how much of a difference there is.
 
In the not-too-distant future, the remains of Kodak's once mighty film production will be reduced to meet the demands of the niche amateur and art photography community.

Certainly the production capacity must be scaled down.

At that time, Kodak film might easily be owned and operated by a small contingent of true lovers and believers in the medium.

There is plenty of reason for me to believe that many of the legacy films will be brought back, in manageable runs, and offered to us once again. Perhaps not Kodachrome, with its complicated development precess, but certainly Ektachrome, Plus-X and maybe even Panatomic-X.

I can see boutique offerings from time-to-time.
 
I only lament the axing of slides in 120 or bigger format.

In 35mm, I can accept digital as a substitute.

I slightly prefer Kodak films because they produce "warmer" images. But if Kodak does not want to play, I'd use Fuji stuff.
 
I have not seen comparisons between the motion and still picture stock to know how much of a difference there is.

I must have posted this three million times by now:
EASTMAN EKTACHROME 100D 5285/7285 is derived from and essentially identical to E100VS.

Well, there still is projection. Though that still could be done via cine print film even if Fuji kill their slide line as well...
I vaguely know of somebody who did/does that - they buy short-ends of Kodak VISION Colour Print Film 2383 and make dupe positives of their colour negs. But they do their own ECP-2D processing at home and are probably a bit crazy 😛

I've made a black-and-white slides from negs by contact-printing them to EASTMAN Fine-Grain Release Positive Film 5302. Once you work out the sort of exposure and process you need the results are really quite impressive. Works best with lower-contrast negatives, as the print film gives it a bit of a boost.
 
My colleague had a chat with Kodak Canada's Entertainment Imaging Account Manager this morning and they are not discontinuing Ektachrome 100D motion picture stock any time soon.

Did he define "soon"? And account managers aren't necessarily privy to executive decisions. Especially the ones coming tomorrow.

Edit: Those of us who live ROC know the jig is up. All the innovative people at Kodak (other than retirees ... two in my family) are now either working for imaging/optical spinoffs or living on severance, unemployment or the pogey.
 
That news sucks! Kodak, you will regret this decision!!
What a sad day.

I've used E100G and E100VS / Extra Color so far. Excellent stuff.
But I will not stock it up.
My money will now go to Fuji!
Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Velvia 100F are excellent films I like, too.

It is now time to support Fuji to keep color slide film alive.
Slide film is unique, it can not be replaced by colour negative film, and especially not by digital.
With slide I always have an authentic picture. I only need to hold it against light to enjoy it.
Impossible with CN and digital.
Slide film is a major part of photographic culture.
It absolutely deserves to stay alive!


Cheers, Jan

Amen, Brother!

While I have primarily been a user of Fuji products for transparency film, I did enjoy the palette of E100V and E100VS for certain subjects. These Kodak films were outstanding for capturing the reddish-orange hues of the American southwest.

I am not a Luddite and I use digital on a daily basis. That being said, when I head out to Death Valley in a couple of weeks, I'm packing a cooler filled with 120 and 4x5 transparency film.

I shoot digital for my clients. I shoot slide film for myself.
 
I must have posted this three million times by now:
My apologies for not having read your 3 million other posts on the subject. Thanks for the info. I have 400 feet in the fridge I might try as stills.
Did he define "soon"? And account managers aren't necessarily privy to executive decisions. Especially the ones coming tomorrow.
I work mostly with motion picture so can only tell you what I know.
I do sometimes despair that RFF is just one big pissing contest. I just wanted people to know that they could get the motion stock as it has not yet been discontinued. Unless you have heard different?
 
I've always preferred Fujifilm E6, so this doesn't directly affect me that much. However, I am concerned that this leaves only one major manufacturer of E6.
 
I just wanted people to know that they could get the motion stock as it has not yet been discontinued. Unless you have heard different?

There is precedent though - when EPY was discontinued in stills Kodak assured everybody that the motion stock would continue and their concern was unfounded... then six months later the motion stock was quietly discontinued and 5285 was rushed in to replace it.

Either way, if you are a big fan of E100VS then EKTACHROME 100D offers a good way of getting a lot of it absent the eBay and B&H price-gouging.
 
My colleague had a chat with Kodak Canada's Entertainment Imaging Account Manager this morning and they are not discontinuing Ektachrome 100D motion picture stock any time soon. So you will still be able to buy cans of 100D and roll it down if you wish.
I have not seen comparisons between the motion and still picture stock to know how much of a difference there is.

reversal motion picture seems a very small niche and I have my doubts on how much longer kodak will go on and producing it now that they have stopped dealing with reversal in stills (I don't even understand the decision to keep running the motion stuff if they want themselves out of all reversal stills products)
Now, after a small calculation, spooling the 100D stock is more expensive than a Fuji roll, so why bother?, unless you NEED that very special emulsion (I don't)..
 
Back
Top Bottom