Bullcrap! (Kodak and Ektar/Ultra Color)

I've never used 100UC, so the loss of it is of no consequence to me.

 

I am, however, enthusiastic about Ektar 100, and will be first in line to place an order as soon as it's available from B&H. I'll be interested in seeing what it's like.

 

With that said, I am very sad to hear of the loss of 400UC. I absolutely love the stuff-I'm not a big color negative user in general, but when I do use color negative, 400UC is my choice. I miss the days, not too long ago, when it was stocked in the Photo aisle at Walmart, and I could get 3 36 exposure rolls for $9 rather than $5 a roll from B&H. I also still have a few rolls of it in 120 stashed back in the freezer, and was really sorry when they discontinued it.

 

It looks like I'll be stocking up on 400UC, but, as I said, I'm certainly going to give the Ektar 100 an enthusiastic try.

Tony; its been my experince that film degrades with time; grain gets worse even if its kept in freezing temperatures. With food like beans; fruits; etc each has a different real freezing temperature lightly below 32 F.With film I have never read any of the Kodak literature published in the last 70 years that mentions anything about film actually freezing; or where a magical low temperature ruined a film or plate. A statement like "kind of layer that crystalizes when frozen." sort of sounds like one is saying the film is freezing; a state change. It just sounds the BS sirens where the hole in ones education is exposed; ie the BS failed. If its beans then yes the water froze; but with film what are we talking about; X files? The statement would be crediitable if there was some data where the actual temp was mentioned; and the term "froze" quashed. If the magical layer has unobtainum that feezes at 10 F then the chap has a point. Here I used Ektar alot when it came out; and alwys kept it frozen without any issues.. If one works for Kodak they really dont want forlks to store film forever; they want it used so one will buy more. Its not insulting to point out film doesnt freeze; its basic stuff. Folks who were not raised in todays 'feel good era'" had as apenality to sit with a dunce cap ingrade school if one uttered such stuff thats bogus. <BR><BR>PLUS X came out before world war 2; the ASA system came out for the military in ww2. 1940 Plus x was about an equalivalent asa 50 then; but the asa system was revised about 1960; the safety factor of 2 removed. The 1940 Kodak databook hasKodak Plus-X pan for 35mm and Bantum at a film speed of Weston 40. In the mid 1950's somewhere the asa of plus-x went from 50 to 80; when it was improved. Plus-X became 125 in the 1960s'. Plus X replaced Super-x in 1938

All I can say is I have seen what Ron was talking about. I bought some rolls of RG 25 and the grain size was HUGE. It was bought off a photographer which Im sure kept it frozen, so I can understand how this old roll of Royal Gold 25 went bad. I still have those rolls, though I can't use them. Whatever freezing this film does, I have seen first hand how on some rolls of RG 25 -it can make it go bad.

Kelly, please go back and read your posts. When you suggest that Ron somehow has a hole in his education and didn't do well in his high school science class, you are not simply pointing out that "film doesn't freeze", you are insulting the man. Of course, I'm sure you do know more about Ektar 25 than a man that was a Kodak engineer for many years. In fact, it's obvious to me that you even know more about Ektar 25 than a man that, most likely, played an important role in creating it. I'm quite impressed, and that's no "BS".

Scott, you've seen "HUGE" grain in frozen Ektar/RG 25 that we've been told cannot possibly happen. You've seen Gold 200 in 120 that we've been told never existed. Hmmm...perhaps you should consider LASIK? :-)

Tony,

 

If you don't believe me on the Ektar 25 stuff being grainy, then see it for yourself.

 

Look here:

 

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00DpqL

 

As per Gold 200 in 120, it was an Ebay auction I saw it at and it was definately the 200 ISO film.

Samples of the original Ektar film that have been frozen solid have a real chance of gaining grain due to the freezing process. It seems tht sometimes, the coupler droplets in this film, which were ultra fine and densely packed, had more tendancy to crysallize and form what appear to be higher grain.

 

This was one of the problems with the original Ektar 25, and the other was the low sales due to the slow speed.

 

There were differences in opinion on this problem, but I saw a full width chunk of Ektar 25 in the lab heads office showing the very fine texture that had grown (crystallized) in the raw film and which would lead to grain. In some rolls, there was no problem at all, some showed it immediately and some never showed it at all. So, watch out for the original Ektar 25 and Ektar 100 if it has been frozen for a long time. It will keep well sensitometrically, but may have higher grain. IDK how the sharpness was affected.

 

As for the new Ektar, this film features 2 electron sensitization which basically allows an ISO 25 emulsion to be boosted to about 100 by proper application of the Osmium complex and dye. Along with this is a new family of dye forming couplers that resist crystallization and also do not need formalin to assist in image stability. All in all, it is a changed film from the older UC film, and is more nearly like the Portra VC in formulation but with higher color saturation more in line with the UC film.

 

Ron Mowrey

Scott,

 

That comment was meant to be a defense (abeit sarcastic) of you, because the same poster that stated there was never Gold 200 produced also stated that freezing doesn't affect Ektar 25, both untrue. It was in no way directed towards you or meant to be taken literally, hence the ":-)". Please see my posts above responding to Kelly. I'm in refractive surgery, so that's where the LASIK comment came from. I'm sorry if the intent was lost in translation.

 

Tony

Ok Tony,

 

I missed that. Thanks for reminding me. And thanks Ron for jumping in here and clearing the air a little.

Thanks, Ron. Hopefully this will put the discussion to rest. An explaination of the problem by a Kodak engineer. It does exist. 'Nuf said.

I would like to stress that due to the nature of this being in some coatings and not in others, there was debate at EK over the problem, but I think that the grainy samples posted here and elsewhere are proof enough that something is going on and it isn't good.

 

I am using the interpretation given at a meeting of the color neg group in the early or late most likely as it was about to be cancelled... days of Ektar. I was working on either Gold 400 at the time, or was in the Emulsion Research Division. I really don't remember.

 

Ron Mowrey

Stephen, you must be right: I guess my comment about not even being aware of Kodak's update to T-Max 400 was just insignificant. As well, I suppose my numerous follow-up posts, in which I hinted several times over that the initial fiery0 tone was meant to be overtly hot-headed, and not to be taken very seriously, were just not worth noting.

 

Scott, I believe Kodak did, in recent years (within the 21st century), update its Tri-X emulsion (at least the 400).

 

Ben, I didn't even know the Ultra Color line was available in 120 format. Also, I don't recall ever having seen the film in "consumer" stores; hell, I haven't seen even Gold 100 on the shelves at CVS/Walgreens/Rite/Aid/Duane Reade/"Superstore USA" in some time, though, strangely, they do maintain a healthy stock of BW400CN.

 

Does anyone have have an idea of when B&H might be receiving a few rolls of Ektar 100? I believe the film is set to debut in October of 2008, but now that all this talk has gotten me a little horny for it, I'd like to take some Autumn shots with it and 100UC, if for no other reason, then to decide how much of the latter to stash in my freezer (maybe clear out some of those frozen vegetables that've lain in there since the 1990s...).

Film ages even if its kept at low temperatures; ie below 32 F. Kodak published this info BEFORE world war 2 in their literature. Its really OLD news that film degrades; or milk; or beer. It Astronomy I use to customer order many thousands of dollars of glass plates from Kodak; that arrived in dry ice. Here My experience is that films have a longer shelf life when kept cool. I read the late 1930's Kodak bookletes. Its been my experience that my Ektar 25 I bought when it was new in the early 1990's didnt have any radical degradation in grain compaired to other color films I have kept "frozen" since the 1960's. Most folks here didnt buy Ektar 25 when it was sold new; many are buying it off of ebay today from a seller who claims it was frozen. Most of my last stock has been used up; the stuff is in a few Ball jars in a freezer. The life of old stuff that degrades with time is going to have a spread thats wider with time. There were two variants of Ektar 25 and few seem to mention this; or mention if the they bought the films before they expired either; or how they stored it<BR><BR>In another thread I mentioned that Gold 200 was not in the 120 format in the Kodak Professional Photographic catalog L-9 <B>of 1991.</B>; maybe some cannot grasp that films are marketed in some years and not others? At least I again provided a ACTUAL reference instead of assuming; and throwing out insults; or maybe its that some need glasses?. <BR><BR>The original Ektar films were not popular; most folks here liked the pumped/jack up Velveda look of Fuji new film instead of the original Ektar. Its abit odd how such an old film that had little following is now talked about; and how the method some of us used successfully to store Ektar 25 for a decade didnt work; thats total BS; and agenda; its a darn insult. Did the group here store their failed film in the original factory film pouches; in a Glass Ball jar with a dryer pouch inside? Maybe the 1940 Kodak chaps had some wisdom with this method they recommended? <BR><BR>Some folks WILL have more problems with keeping items past their shelf lives due to their own nature of being careless. <BR><BR>Its NOT true that all Ektar 25 degraded wildly with large grain when it was kept frozen; YOURS might have but mine didnt have any wild/more grain increase than any other slow color films that I used.<BR><BR>For folks who buy old Ektar 25 off of ebay and assume that seller kept it frozen; or even cold where is the control like having bought the stuff oneself back in 1991 or later; with no issues for 10 to 12 years? Its total BS to assume that all Ebay sellers are honest; plus your film can now be 17 years old now today.,<br><br>In a way this thread is abit full of preaching ill about what DID WORK OK for folks who kept their new fresh in date Ektar 25 frozen for over a decade; and used it on many paid jobs with no issues; its an agenda to change history. Here I learned how to store their products for 1/2 century; using their Kodak literature as a guide. I bought alot of Ektar 25 when it was sold new; unlike others here; it kept Kodak making the film few wanted at all. The old Ektar films were not big sellers. I stored alot of ektar 25 frozen when its was dropped; and used most all for ANOTHER TEN YEARS without issues at all. Now folks are saying it all goes bad if kept frozen; the insult is with folks who like to rewrite what actually worked to follow some agenda. Is the agenda that the method that one person used for 10 to 15 years with no issues is wrong because it doesnt fit a more recent dumbing down simpleton model folks want? What about increased grain with Ebay buys of 17 year old films from an unknown? Maybe its that some folks what a simple model thats either yes or no? <BR><BR>With any product kept past its normal shelf life secondary failures can happen. With late 1970's Ilford FP4 I had many bricks of 120 in the freezer; the film grew a terrible curl ie set in the film base that would degrade focus and be a total #3&(2& to load on a film reel after about being 10 years old.<BR><BR>With process camera rolls we once had a mouse graw into and ruin several rolls of Kodak Super-K and P4 and the expensive Projection films; 42" wide by 100 feet. <BR><BR>Here the films I keep frozen are at -10F; below 32F waters solid point.<BR><BR><BR>

Thanks for enlightening us, Kelly. In the future, whenever I have a question about a particular emulsion, I'll come directly to you. I mean, what the heck does that manufacturer of the film and it's engineers know, anyway? Thoust doth protest too much :-)

What's in a name? Yet another ISO100 film from Kodak. Bravo.

Scott, I was refering to a few years ago when Kodak updated there B&W Line-Up. When was it, 2004 maybe. Last year it was the TMY to TMY 2.

 

Read what I wrote a little slower.

Kelly;

 

FWIW, I freeze all film that I am keeping long-term and refrigerate all film in the queue and about to be used. Fundamentally, the Kodak advice is correct and well grounded in scientific fact.

 

One must remember that color films contain a lot of organics that can crystallize. Early samples of Kodak films were tested at Cape Canaveral before the moon flight as there was concern that the incorporated solvents used to encapsulate couplers might evaporate in the vacuum of space and cause crystal formation and poor performance. That proved to be unfounded. The film did not outgas enough to be affected.

 

OTOH, as you pointed out, there were 2 versions of EKTAR 25. IDK what they were but maybe that fact (if correct) was linked to this problem. At the time of EKTAR 25, Kodak was converting to a new, fine dispersion method called RAS. It is unimportant here to discuss it but just to point out that one of the early problems with RAS was crystal formation. In color paper, this was no problem, as the grain was not apparent, and crystal formation enhanced dye stability as reported by R. J. Tuite in a paper at the Washington SPSE conference in the 80s. His discovery of increasing glass transition of dyes by allowing them to crystallize led to highly improved image stability, but degraded film image quality via crystals.

 

In any event, there is a lot of evidence either way, and I have seen the posted EKTAR 25 pictures here with heavy (and unusual) grain. It has to come from somewhere.

 

Couplers start as organic crystalline materials. They are dissolved in a hot solvent and dispersed into gelatin then blended with emulsion and coated. If there is not enough solvent, and the storage conditions get too cold, there is the chance that the coupler might recrystalize in the film. This was not undknown and everything possible was done to prevent it. It may have taken place in frozen EKTAR 25 but it may not, depending on a number of factors.

 

Ron Mowrey

Arjun Mehra wrote: "How does EKTAR 100 Film compare to the finest grain color reversal films?"

 

Thanks for the link to the Kodak site Arjun. Here is another link concerning RMS and resolution figures for popular camera films. http://cacreeks.com/films.htm#filmscan