No more home for Ektachrome

If one relies on labs for film processing and/or printing, one's experience is too limited to properly evaluate today's digital technology. If one accepts prints from amateur-oriented labs, one's standards are too modest to evaluate inkjet prints.


Black & White and C41 may survive until boomers fade into the sunset, but hardly any pro uses film anymore...commercial clients want files and wedding/portrait clients want prints. Many commercial/wedding/portrait professionals now emphasize video...after all, why go to all that trouble and expense and not get something for the TV or Facebook (grrr).

I suspect arguments against digital have mostly to do with ownership of film cameras. I doubt SLRs will have any residual value in a few years, but rangefinders may be another matter (my Canon F1s and sheet film cameras have no significant dollar value but my Hexar AF seems to be increasing in value).
 
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 wasn't pissing. I was responding to the corporate-speak from a sales rep. If the cine stock is still available and people want to use it, that's wonderful. But you must admit that very little of what Kodak says publicly carries much weight anymore. And what you quoted wasn't even an official press release, just the opinion of a sales guy.

I drive by Kodak facilities almost every day. You should see the body language of what employees are left.
 
Apparently, another shoe has dropped:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...6493/kodak-discontinues-colour-reversal-films

I guess it's no surprise. Digital excels at color, although I've heard that projected slides beat beamers.

Sic transit gloria Kodak, I guess.
I don't think that digital excels at color YET. I think it will, as printers and inks improve, and I hope that will be soon. I did love E100S, though. and I loved K64 most of all. Wish I'd known then what I know now...
 
I wasn't pissing. I was responding to the corporate-speak from a sales rep. If the cine stock is still available and people want to use it, that's wonderful. But you must admit that very little of what Kodak says publicly carries much weight anymore. And what you quoted wasn't even an official press release, just the opinion of a sales guy.

I drive by Kodak facilities almost every day. You should see the body language of what employees are left.
In general I don't usually believe sales guys but we were going to order 10,000 feet of 100d in super8,16 and 35 and were told not to bother as its going to be available in the future. And I am aware there is not a press release yet.
I agree that Kodak could change it's mind at anytime. Sad that they are going this way. And i feel for the employees, its bound to be an awful time for them right now.
 
There is a possible explanation of why they would drop something profitable. It would not, in their view at least, profitable enough. This is a company that is apparently not interested in morphing themselves into being player in the now niche market called film. They want to be a dominant major player in imaging and photography (of some sort), with the enormous profits and presence that they once had. They are failing at that of course, but they (and their handlers in bankruptcy now) continue to try -- probably in vain too.


Still doesn't answer why they'd kill it if it were profitable.

Day's Range:$0.3280 - $0.34

Not helping the stock price much... not a ton of volume either. I just don't see its explanation as a smokescreen... just fact.

I think some just need to realize that we will keep seeing this over the next few years by anyone still making film. We will see whole product lines discontinued every year.
 
One of my responsibilities at the camera store I work at here in Portland is stocking the film coolers. B&W and color negative films sell very well, all of the time. Slide film has been declining in popularity for the last several years. Do the math...fewer rolls of slide film being shot equal fewer labs to process it, and thus....little reason to keep it in production. Fuji isn't far behind...count on their E6 films being discontinued in the not-too-distant future. Today's color negative film is the best it's ever been, with loads of latitude, and it scans (and prints) easily...qualities that slide film never really had. What's really interesting is that the older customers (60+ years-old) are the ones who are complaining the most about Ektachrome being discontinued, never mind that they are the major buyers of digital gear (and haven't shot a roll of slide film in AGES). The majority of young folk are the ones buying film cameras, and feeding them with C41 and B&W films. [They're not bothering much with digital cameras, as they have......right....cellphones.]
 
Last edited:
Funny, since Astia's end, I decided to give Kodak's Slide film another look. As seems to be par for the course for me, as soon as I get into something, it soon goes away.

i feel the same way. as soon as I got into film photography, they start discontinuing film and the infrastructure to get it developed and printed (for those of us not yet experienced enough to develop and print on or own).

I have decided when they stop making Trix I'm going to get into model railroading.
 
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


Very nice summary of the advantages of slide film.

I do fully agree with it.

Thanks for this fine posting 🙂


Greetings , Joop
 
Well, it's not all E-6 films. It's all Kodak E-6 films except for Ektachrome 100D 5285 / 7285.

That is somewhat debatable, as it is the same emulsion as VS - if they continue producing it in cine perforation, it doesn't really make sense quitting 135, as the joint volume would do more towards keeping the production line profitable.

Chances are that the cine market simply is small enough that their remaining inventory of master rolls will last for a decade or more if they only cut Super 8 and stock for a few odd music videos off it, so that they feel no need to announce a cancellation immediately.
 
Well, do you doubt that there was a steady decrease in sales and customer usage with Kodachrome?? It was true there and it's probably true in the case of Ektachrome.

This is what annoys me a little about the reaction of people to this news and it was the same with Kodachrome. Everybody's so sad it's gone but if you ask around who is actually using it on a regular basis only a handful of people say yes. If you use Kodak's Ektachrome is your go-to film I truly feel for you but if you've only been buying one or two rolls a year then sorry, you don't get to complain. (and by 'you' I don't mean you, sanmich, I mean the generic 'you')

The discontinuation of Ektachrome emulsions has been on the horizon for a long time. Kodak already hinted at it when they released Ektar and said it was a good replacement for slide film. I don't know whether or not it was still profitable but listening to other photographers and pro lab owners I'm sure that sales were decreasing. If the profits decrease from year to year it's probably best to shift the resources to something where the demand is more sustainable.

And if Kodak closed up shop altogether today, it's not at all certain that anyone would buy up the film division and make the same kind of film. Look what happened to Polaroid. You can buy up the machines and hire the same staff but that doesn't guarantee anything. The Impossible Project is still producing a horribly inferior product at a very high price.


You can guess that fewer and fewer people are using film just based on threads here on RFF. "Who's buying the new Fuji?", "when will the Nex be here"?, "what about that new Olympus OM-D", "Leica M10, bring it on!"...etc. Even in this little "film friendly" community film use has dwindled down to very low levels.
 
You can guess that fewer and fewer people are using film just based on threads here on RFF. "Who's buying the new Fuji?", "when will the Nex be here"?, "what about that new Olympus OM-D", "Leica M10, bring it on!"...etc. Even in this little "film friendly" community film use has dwindled down to very low levels.

Be careful there...
At least for this OM-D fan, I still use film as my main media.
I shoot film alongside digital just fine. There's a lot of us doing this.
 
Be careful there...
At least for this OM-D fan, I still use film as my main media.
I shoot film alongside digital just fine. There's a lot of us doing this.

Well, then answer me this. Once you get that OM-D, whether it's your first digital or not, will you not automatically be shooting a bit less film? Afterall there are just 24 hours in a day and the purchase of a new camera will not automatically make you have more time to take pictures. And is the allure of cameras such as the OM-D, the M9 or the X-Pro not that they offer a user experience similar to that of their film counterparts?
No matter which way you turn it, the digital camera will replace the film camera at least some of the time. And that means you'll be buying less film than before.
 
Before digital, I used to shoot an average of 6 rolls of film a year. Then I bought digital and for 10 years shot no film. Then, disgusted with digital I went back to film and now shoot an average of 85 rolls a year.

But it's not helping... Kodak still kills my favorite films

What happened to Kodak is a mirror of what happened to the entire United States. MBA's and 'finance' took over.
 
Before digital, I used to shoot an average of 6 rolls of film a year. Then I bought digital and for 10 years shot no film. Then, disgusted with digital I went back to film and now shoot an average of 85 rolls a year.

But it's not helping... Kodak still kills my favorite films.

Same here. Not quite 85 rolls a year, but I have started shooting lot more films after a period of digital. I feel 'many a handful' are in the same boat as us despite the digital revolution.

What happened to Kodak is a mirror of what happened to the entire United States. MBA's and 'finance' took over.

Now, now! Thats quite a drastic statement. Technologies change and shift paradigms. But beyond MBAs and finance gurus, lets hope that the US can innovate. Maybe something beyond digital photography await us in the future?
 
Back
Top Bottom