4, if we count AgfaPhoto CT Precisa as amateur version of Provia 100F as well. This film is available in Germany for only 5.95€, much cheaper than Ektar and Portra.
I was talking about diversity. Precisa is the same as Provia 100F.
There is also still some Provia 400X in the market, even fresh film with longer guarantee date.
Not in 135. Seems there is more demand for high(er) speed films in 135 than in bigger formats (makes sense). Fuji's slide film is actually competitively priced in big(er) formats. Any idea what makes slide film cheaper in 4x5 and twice as expensive in 135 compared to negative film?
And Ektachrome and Film Ferrania are scheduled for this year.
And if we increase our demand for reversal film, we will probably see more re-introductions of reversal films in the future.
How can we increase demand for Provia 400X. By pushing Provia 100F?!
I was (and still am) ecstatic about Ektachrome. Less with the follow up interviews with Kodak people. It basically seems like all is still just in their heads with no real work done towards actually making the film yet. They said that they don't even know what basic components are still available to them and so can't really speculate on how the film will look. Perhaps a bit too much honesty from them that I can handle
😉
On the other hand I wish we could get some feedback from Fuji. Apart from "totally committed to film" (which film? Instax?). If you look for information you can find more or less regular and more or less official statements from virtually every other film manufacturer. Except from Fuji.
Your post are the closest to any insight into Fuji's film business. It's been like "film business is profitable, demand is increasing" for years now. And when another film gets discontinued it's like "demand for this film has been too low for years". Which one is it? Technically, it can be both. Maybe if we knew which film has the most solid future we could do something about it? Lets say I can buy 100 rolls of slide film per year. Maybe 50 rolls of Velvia and 50 rolls of Provia is too low for both, Velvia and Provia, but 100 rolls of Velvia could keep at least Velvia line rolling for another year?
I'm past thinking that the greatest thing about film is diversity and that you get totally different "sensor" with every type of film (this got me into film). Now it's more about just feeding something to the cameras I have.
No, because Provia 100F delivers excellent results also at ISO 200/24° with Push 1 processing.
And even good results at ISO 400/27° with Push 2
The fastest slide film is ISO 100. I've done many push2 rolls of Provia 100F. It is not an ISO 400 film. Period.
I recently brought two cameras with me to my friends party. It just happend that one had Precisa CT rated at 400 and the other Vision3 500T in it. I LOVE slide film, but I must admit 500T did better. Since this thread is about films being "accurate" it might be of interest:
(negative scanned and processed to match "my memory of the scene")
(IT8 calibrated scan of slide film, then (heavily) adjusted WB to make it somewhat believable - I wouldn't ask no friend to sit through a projected slide show of those slides)
Viewed at 100%, negative has less grain and better resolution. Other properties you can judge from posted downsized samples. Scanner wasn't the limiting factor with slide film.
I am shooting film for decades, and I've never met a photographers (neither enthusiast nor pro) who has spent thousands of dollars for filters.
And if filters are really necessary (seldom) then in cases when you would also use a filter with negative film for optimal results (pol and gradual filters). Therefore no big difference.
Ok, thousands is an exaggeration. Warming, cooling, color temp., gradual filters are virtually unnecessary with negative film. True, you can mostly skip color filters even with slide film. If you scan.
I am shooting negative and reversal film for decades, and I very seldom need filters, definitely in less than 1%.
Absolutely incredible.
AgfaPhoto CT Precisa is even much cheaper here than Ektar and Portra. Velvia is only 2x here.
And with reversal film no prints or scans are needed = huge overall cost reduction.
I am shooting reversal and negative film, and my overall costs with reversal film are lower.
True. But not everybody can get Precisa CT for 6 EUR (or even much lower as I can here) and I would say there are not many that can shoot it in 120.
If you want to scan, do it.
With negative film you have to do, or you must make optical prints.
With reversal film you have more freedom: You can scan, but you don't need to.
A clear advantage.
Scanning is a quality reducing process: You are significantly loosing resolution and sharpness. Even the best drumscanners cannot exploit the full potential of the film.
Looking at scans only on a computer monitor is reducing the quality even further: 2k / 4k monitors only have 2 MP / 8MP resolution.
From a quality and cost standpoint it is the worst you can do with film, and also with digital: Spending thousands of dollars on a 24, 36, 50 MP cam and then destroying all that resolution and fineness of detail by the monitor makes no sense at all.
The quality of a picture is determined by the weakest element of the whole imaging chain, and not only by the input.
In the classic, optical imaging chains projection and optical enlargements you have a much much better performance. The loss in detail is minimal, negligible.
My friends/family get much better quality when I scan the film. The difference is MASSIVE. Sometimes they can see absolutely NOTHING if I don't scan.
1. Indie Film lab, Carmencita etc. all have a strong dependance on Kodak. Remember the Indie Film lab advertizing film, it was sponsored by Kodak. And every minute they hold Kodak films into the camera.....I know that most of these labs have very close business relationships with Kodak. Therefore they mainly advertize Kodak film. And as Kodak does not offer any E6 film, almost all there is about C41 and BW.
Since 2008 Kodak has worked against reversal film with their advertizing and wanted to destroy the reversal film market. Here in Germany they even spent their whole advertizing money on ads to influence photographers to switch from reversal to negative film.
Shame on Kodak for that photography culture destroying behaviour.
Of course, if they want success with Ektachrome in the future, they must stop that nonsense.
2. Indie, Carmencita etc. make most of their money with their expensive scans. As they don't offer optical prints, negative film users must order scans by them.
In contrast, E6 customers don't need scans, for them it is only an additional option.
Good for the E6 customers, not so good for the lab.
Therefore these labs only promote negative film, because they are making much more profit with it.
If I look at Indies and Carmencitas prices, it is insane. I pay only 1/3 here in Germany, for excellent quality. And the German labs are also much much faster with their service.
Let's all hope that the ban on Fuji's marketing on film (other than Instax, of course) that was imposed on them by governments and photo industry is lifted and they can also... market the film (other that Instax, of course) before it's too late.
Interesting discussion.
In the course of a long career as a documentary and commercial photographer, slide film was always my preferred medium and was also usually required by my clients. I have shot many thousands of rolls.
Medium format work was always E6, of course. In 35mm, I shot Ektachrome up until about 1980, then switched to Kodachrome 64. I loved the K64 colors, but around 1986 was seduced by Fujichrome Professional 100D, which remains my all-time favorite film. After its demise I preferred the colors of Astia/Sensia to Provia.
In addition to shooting lots of E6, I have also processed thousands of rolls, many of them in a Unicolor Film Drum with a motor base and a home-made water bath with a fish-tank heater to keep the chemicals up to temp. (Although only the first developer was temperature-critical.) Later, we had a King Concepts processor in the studio.
Almost every situation was evaluated with a Minolta incident meter, and almost every exposure was bracketed over a one and a half stop range in half-stops. Most of the time the half-stop under exposure was the selected one. I also used filters extensively, especially warming ones, to get exactly the feel of each scene on film -- something that could not be done with color negative film.
I was a very precise and careful photographer in those days, even in situations where I had to work quickly, and a much better photographer than I am now. Digital has made me sloppy. Photography was much more satisfying and fun when I shot film.
Since I started taking pictures only recently, I wonder where have all the folks as Dave, nikonhswebmaster and Jan gone? Or how many of them were there at all back in the day? Because, obviously, digital didn't bring anything (good) to them and the negative film isn't an option. Why is slide film doing so poorly? Who is still abandoning it and why?
I don't believe in preaching "just buy slide film" to the people that are already buying slide film. I tried buying more slide film than I can shoot, it didn't work for me. Ended selling 50 rolls of Precisa CT which probably did more harm than good to me as well as Fuji.
Maybe there is a smarter and more effective way?
