PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Ektachrome 100 Revival


Naughty Nigel
6th January 2017, 12:24 PM
According to an announcement made at CES yesterday Kodak Ektachrome 100 slide film is to be reintroduced later this year, but only in 35 mm.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Ektachrome-2017-770x526.png

This is welcome news after Fuji announced that is would discontinue Velvia 100F, certain sizes of Velvia 50 and several colour negative emulsions, but we are not out of the woods yet.

Oddly enough, I was speaking to a Dutch photographer recently who specialises in B&W portraiture exclusively using a Mamiya RZ67.

He says that younger customers are 'blown away' by the quality and concept of the large film format, and they will happily pay more for this service.

Simon Bee
6th January 2017, 09:18 PM
According to an announcement made at CES yesterday Kodak Ektachrome 100 slide film is to be reintroduced later this year, but only in 35 mm.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Ektachrome-2017-770x526.png

This is welcome news after Fuji announced that is would discontinue Velvia 100F, certain sizes of Velvia 50 and several colour negative emulsions, but we are not out of the woods yet.

Oddly enough, I was speaking to a Dutch photographer recently who specialises in B&W portraiture exclusively using a Mamiya RZ67.

He says that younger customers are 'blown away' by the quality and concept of the large film format, and they will happily pay more for this service.

Good to see, hopefully they will release it in 120 format in the not too distant future too. If they do I will definitely be purchasing it.

Simon

Zuiko
6th January 2017, 10:09 PM
Good news, but it's a shame it's not Kodachrome!

pdk42
6th January 2017, 10:16 PM
I've got a nice OM1 outfit now with a 24, 50 and 100mm lens kit. I've found some old Patterson tank gear and have a few bottles of chemicals - but I'm still dragging my heels to get out and use it. Digital is just so much more convenient!

Simon Bee
6th January 2017, 10:21 PM
- but I'm still dragging my heels to get out and use it. Digital is just so much more convenient!

True Paul, but I know you want too use that om1. In the words of a famous trainer ( sneaker ) manufacturer ........ 'Just do it' ....... even if its just once in a blue moon;)

Simon

Simon Bee
6th January 2017, 10:30 PM
Good news, but it's a shame it's not Kodachrome!

True John,

Nothing quite compared to Kodachrome.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343015/Last-roll-Kodachrome-film-developed-digital-revolution-brings-75-years-camera-history-close.html

AG photo lab can still develop Kodachrome if you have some undeveloped film ... but only as 'black & white' .

http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/kodachrome-processing-122-c.asp


Simon

David M
6th January 2017, 10:33 PM
Good news, but it's a shame it's not Kodachrome!

My thoughts exactly. I usually shot one of the Fujichromes in preference to any of the Ektachromes. The only Ektachrome I used any amount of was 200 in the early 80's for night time endurance racing and rallying.

Simon Bee
6th January 2017, 10:35 PM
Just came across this .........

http://petapixel.com/2012/07/17/shooting-kodachrome-film-in-2012/

Simon

Jim Ford
7th January 2017, 10:39 AM
I've been going through my old 35mm colour slides and negatives and scanning them. Although they were taken with competent SLRs, they're not a patch on my E5 images. I can understand the colour changes with time, but the resolution is generally disappointing.

Jim

snaarman
7th January 2017, 11:29 AM
I've been going through my old 35mm colour slides and negatives and scanning them. Although they were taken with competent SLRs, they're not a patch on my E5 images. I can understand the colour changes with time, but the resolution is generally disappointing.

Jim

Yes, exactly my experience... Plus old Ektachrome seems to gradually fade away.

Pete

pdk42
7th January 2017, 12:29 PM
We're living in paradise with the quality of digital sensors and modern optics. I scanned some old negs taken with my Cabin EOS 50 a while back and resolution is miles away from any digital camera I've used.

Ricoh
7th January 2017, 12:47 PM
Yes, exactly my experience... Plus old Ektachrome seems to gradually fade away.

Pete
Well in accordance with the second law, S always increases over time, so what more should we expect. And if your bet is on digital having immunity, think again!

David M
7th January 2017, 01:24 PM
Yes, exactly my experience... Plus old Ektachrome seems to gradually fade away.

Pete

One reason agencies prefered Kodachrome over Ektachrome. Much more stable when left on an editors light table for days.

iso
7th January 2017, 06:52 PM
Anyone ever use Agfa? Funny stuff - the reds always seemed to pop out of the trani as if in 3D

Naughty Nigel
7th January 2017, 10:31 PM
I've been going through my old 35mm colour slides and negatives and scanning them. Although they were taken with competent SLRs, they're not a patch on my E5 images. I can understand the colour changes with time, but the resolution is generally disappointing.

Jim

That is an interesting observation Jim, and one that I would agree with.

Nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be, and I for one don't think 35 mm film was ever quite as good as we like to think it was.

True we could enlarge 100 ASA 35 mm colour negatives to 16 x 12 (about A3 size), or even 16 x 20 at a push with reasonable quality, but that is not quite the same as examining film grain from a high resolution film scanner on a decent sized computer monitor.

I also find that modern film scanners with LED light sources somehow emphasize film grain in a way that older scanners with cold cathode lamps didn't.

With regards to resolution, if you look closely at pre-digital enlargements from film they simply don't have the fine detail that we expect nowadays.

Nikon once published a paper (around the time the E1 was launched) in which they said a 35 mm colour negative could yield a maximum of about 5 MP of useful information, whilst transparencies could yield roughly double that amount. It may well be possible to scan films at resolutions of 5,400 DPI (in the case of the Minolta Dimage 5400), but at that resolution much of the information will be film grain, and grain clusters, rather than useful detail.

In my view you need to be shooting medium format transparencies before you can beat the resolution and detail of recent digital cameras, including the E5.

However, there is something rather more graceful about the way film enlarges than digital; possibly because there is not as much fine detail in the first place. Contrast and saturation also tends to be lower from film. For me this is akin to listening to a good vinyl LP amplified through valves and first rate loudspeakers, rather than listening to an iPod and headphones. The digital source may be better on paper, and 'cleaner', but vinyl beats it hands down for sheer listening pleasure every time.

I rarely use colour film in my OM cameras these days, but rather use them with slow B&W films. There simply isn't much point in using them for colour, and especially colour negatives as the EM5 is so much better and more convenient.

Medium format transparencies, on the other hand, are a different matter, but for how long? :)

Ricoh
7th January 2017, 11:08 PM
All true Nigel, but have a look at 'Early Color' by Saul Leiter. He experimented with out of date and even heat damaged film to produce the effects he was after. I'm not sure digital could match the magic he produced, for one thing it would look too clinical, too sharp.

David M
7th January 2017, 11:25 PM
It's possible Nigel that what you're seeing is not the film grain with high resolution scans. You may be seeing an issue with the film base. Google Fuji pepper grain for more info. I remember prolonged discussions online about the problem when film scanners got good enough for a photographer to submit scans to their clients/editors. I'm finding some affected shots having coped 1600+ slides last winter.

Naughty Nigel
8th January 2017, 12:14 AM
It's possible Nigel that what you're seeing is not the film grain with high resolution scans. You may be seeing an issue with the film base. Google Fuji pepper grain for more info. I remember prolonged discussions online about the problem when film scanners got good enough for a photographer to submit scans to their clients/editors. I'm finding some affected shots having coped 1600+ slides last winter.

That's an interesting thought David.

I have found that Kodak colour negative films create the worst effects, but I have seen similar problems with Fuji transparencies as well. I have sometimes suspected the processing methods used.

Film scanners with LED light sources definitely accentuate film grain, in a way that traditional enlargers never did.

I wonder whether wet film carriers improve matters?

pandora
8th January 2017, 12:35 AM
*yesAnyone ever use Agfa? Funny stuff - the reds always seemed to pop out of the trani as if in 3D

I once tried Agfachrome, difficult to expose, always seemed to over expose (too dark) certainly no suggestion here of incompetence on my part :p

As you say, the reds did pop out in trannies just as they did in Agfacolor Optima 400,
which unfortunately I was forced to use in my Nikon F4s on a US wedding in 2005 as Fuji Pro 400H
was unavailable at Walgreens. Agfa Portrait would have been fine but also not stocked. I was however
partial to Agfa Ultra 100 that I used exclusively on our 1990 UK trip - it predated ICE for psychedelic effects. :eek:

Sandra - just outside our lodgings ... :p
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/Untitled-137.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/91574)

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/Untitled-26.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/91574)

Rather he than me
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/Untitled-33.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/91574)
AGFA ULTRA / Pentax-A

David M
8th January 2017, 12:49 AM
Now you say about wet scanning it reminded me about an article online about someone modifying a flatbed scanner to do wet scanning. My problem with wet scanning is cleaning the film afterwards. I've had trannys back from publishers in disgusting condition after wet scanning.

pandora
8th January 2017, 12:55 AM
To fill a duplicate thread

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/SSxx.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/91579)

Naughty Nigel
8th January 2017, 05:06 PM
Now you say about wet scanning it reminded me about an article online about someone modifying a flatbed scanner to do wet scanning. My problem with wet scanning is cleaning the film afterwards. I've had trannys back from publishers in disgusting condition after wet scanning.

I am sure Epson supply (or supplied) wet scanning carriers for some of their high end scanners like the V750. They were claimed to be very good. The film was placed into the carrier with a special clear aqueous gel; probably like ultrasound gel.

As I understand it the wet scanning process is supposed to be a one time operation for archival purposes. The idea is that the film is wet scanned at high resolution providing optimum image quality, but the film is effectively scrap afterwards. This may explain the condition that your films were returned in.

I have a glass film carrier for my Nikon film scanner, but wouldn't want to risk gel inside it! :)

David M
8th January 2017, 05:23 PM
I am sure Epson supply (or supplied) wet scanning carriers for some of their high end scanners like the V750. They were claimed to be very good. The film was placed into the carrier with a special clear aqueous gel; probably like ultrasound gel.

As I understand it the wet scanning process is supposed to be a one time operation for archival purposes. The idea is that the film is wet scanned at high resolution providing optimum image quality, but the film is effectively scrap afterwards. This may explain the condition that your films were returned in.

I have a glass film carrier for my Nikon film scanner, but wouldn't want to risk gel inside it! :)

Some (maybe all) drum scanners use wet mounting. So it wasn't me archiving the images, it was a publisher using the image. I could still license the image for further use if I could get the original cleaned up.

Edit. IIRC, the fluid used was mineral oil.

Otto
10th January 2017, 12:47 PM
Film scanners with LED light sources definitely accentuate film grain, in a way that traditional enlargers never did.

In the UK at least many enlargers had colour or variable contrast heads which use a diffuse light source, whereas heads intended for mono had a condenser. Condenser heads were well-known for accentuating film grain (and dust and scratches!) and produced a higher contrast.

I've been playing with slide copying using my E-M5 and an OM Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro lens, and a white LED panel with diffuser as the light source. I originally rigged that up as my old Nikon Coolscan IV was kaput and my Epson 4990 flatbed (also a diffuse light source) didn't produce good results from 35mm slides. Having found some servicing info on the web last week I've managed to sort out the scanner hardware problem (a dusty mirror!) and got it running on Windows 10.

Film grain and dust are much more noticeable on the scanned images, and actually, the image is quite a bit more detailed than from my E-M5 slide copier rig despite the scanner's lower resolution. Maybe I should hire a 60mm m43 macro lens from Ian and see how that compares as I'm guessing it's a better performer than the 50mm Zuiko. The scanner takes a minute or two to scan a 35mm slide whereas the E-M5 does it in 1/13 second which is a useful time saver :). The Coolscan IV does use an LED source, whereas I believe some other film scanners use a diffuse light.

Ricoh
10th January 2017, 02:28 PM
What are the benefits of using film?
I can think of some of the negatives, such as the cost and labour of processing/digitising, and the cost of buying a good scanner.
It's reassuring to see Ektachrome making a return, but in the long term I suspect film will die out. Cost will be a big driver for most.

Otto
10th January 2017, 03:44 PM
The only benefit I can think of in using film is that it makes you stop and think before pressing the button - simply because of the cost! I don't think there's any other reason to use 35mm colour film at least as modern digital cameras are better in almost every respect.

Black and white is a different matter though, in my opinion no inkjet print can match a fine silver print made in the darkroom. It's getting better but it's not there yet I don't think.

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 05:28 PM
The only benefit I can think of in using film is that it makes you stop and think before pressing the button - simply because of the cost! I don't think there's any other reason to use 35mm colour film at least as modern digital cameras are better in almost every respect.

Black and white is a different matter though, in my opinion no inkjet print can match a fine silver print made in the darkroom. It's getting better but it's not there yet I don't think.

I only use 35 mm film for the pleasure of it, (and then only B&W), as digital is superior to colour film in almost every way, is cheaper and more convenient.

However film is still superior to digital in medium and large formats, (I am thinking 6 x 7 upwards), and is still used by professionals for demanding clients. Only this week I was talking to a pro (via FB) about a commission he has from one of the big cosmetics companies, who expect 6 x 7 transparencies.

iso
10th January 2017, 07:52 PM
Just thinking about the comparison. Quill Pens and Parchment did seem to produce a product with an everlasting / more individualistic / result.

Ricoh
10th January 2017, 10:49 PM
I only use 35 mm film for the pleasure of it, (and then only B&W), as digital is superior to colour film in almost every way, is cheaper and more convenient.

However film is still superior to digital in medium and large formats, (I am thinking 6 x 7 upwards), and is still used by professionals for demanding clients. Only this week I was talking to a pro (via FB) about a commission he has from one of the big cosmetics companies, who expect 6 x 7 transparencies.

I've heard it said the other way, colour film being superior to digital, but I have no personal experience.
Regarding B&W, the ability to expose for the shadows and to let the highlights take care of themselves is quite a benefit I believe.

For street photography when someone asks to see what you've just taken, I can see a benefit by being able to say sorry mate, film. Give them a business card and move on.

Naughty Nigel
11th January 2017, 12:47 PM
I've heard it said the other way, colour film being superior to digital, but I have no personal experience.
Regarding B&W, the ability to expose for the shadows and to let the highlights take care of themselves is quite a benefit I believe.

For street photography when someone asks to see what you've just taken, I can see a benefit by being able to say sorry mate, film. Give them a business card and move on.

Colour negative films provide much greater dynamic range than digital, at the cost of reduced definition; in 35 mm formats at least. That is why medium format was so popular with wedding togs as it provided the dynamic range needed to simultaneously capture detail in a while bride's dress and black groom's suit in typically shadowy conditions, with plenty of definition in case large prints were needed.

However, by the time digital came along many wedding togs were using 35 mm to save cost; but rather than taking 36 or 48 well composed shots they were using their cameras like machine guns, so the bar was actually set very low when it came to digital quality.

mm500
11th January 2017, 07:25 PM
However, by the time digital came along many wedding togs were using 35 mm to save cost; but rather than taking 36 or 48 well composed shots they were using their cameras like machine guns, so the bar was actually set very low when it came to digital quality.

I agree. When I used 6x7 transparency film in the studio (Mamiya RB67) I used to aim for a "keeper rate" of as close to 100% as possible.

With 8 shots on a roll (allowing for a clip test if anyone knows what that is: if you do you really were a film user) every shot had to count.

There seem to be a lot of people now that shoot hundreds of images of no consequence.

To this day I am still quite brutal about "wasting images" and if I'm shooting anything of value (like travel shots) I only like to press the shutter button if I think I have a decent shot. This is a direct influence of my film days.

This thread made me look at some of my old transparencies. There's still a magic to looking at film. 35mm looks good but 120 still makes a real impression.

I keep intending to shoot film now and again but my inherent laziness stops me.

Mal.

Naughty Nigel
11th January 2017, 08:47 PM
I agree. When I used 6x7 transparency film in the studio (Mamiya RB67) I used to aim for a "keeper rate" of as close to 100% as possible.

With 8 shots on a roll (allowing for a clip test if anyone knows what that is: if you do you really were a film user) every shot had to count.

There seem to be a lot of people now that shoot hundreds of images of no consequence.

To this day I am still quite brutal about "wasting images" and if I'm shooting anything of value (like travel shots) I only like to press the shutter button if I think I have a decent shot. This is a direct influence of my film days.

This thread made me look at some of my old transparencies. There's still a magic to looking at film. 35mm looks good but 120 still makes a real impression.

I keep intending to shoot film now and again but my inherent laziness stops me.

Mal.

I was thinking more of 645 or 6 x 6 for wedding work, but the same principle applies.

When my wife and I got married, almost 25 years ago now (in 1992) we 'interviewed' half a dozen or so potential wedding photographers for our big day.

All but two brought along huge portfolios from recent weddings, and boasted of taking 200 plus photographs in all manner of locations and poses - all on 35 mm.

When I asked why they were not using medium format all said that 35 mm was "just as good", and that "nobody can tell the difference". Needless to say they didn't get the job.

(It was all a bit like the car salesman who says you don't need a spare wheel any more.)

However, what really persuaded us, (and is very telling), was that our Priest mentioned a recent wedding reception which in his words was 'completely ruined by the photographer', who 'took so many photographs that the guests were nearly two hours late for their meal'.

To me this speaks volumes about the lack of professionalism shown by far too many wedding photographers nowadays, who seem to think the wedding is staged for their benefit alone.

I fully agree about 120 roll film transparencies too; there is nothing quite like pulling a roll of freshly developed Velvia out of the tank and holding it up to the light for the first time. *yes