Kodak discontinues three colour reversal films

I just picked up a roll of E100G just shot during the family skiing week: superb colours, landscape and people. Will be really missed (well, at least until all the stock in my mother-in-law freezer runs out..)

<p>Okay Robin, you might be right. There no “haters” here I apologize for inappropriate word usage. But there’re still bunch of folks who penetrated to this site just with purpose to profane film photography. I’m not blaming them for doing so, they are just the psychological products of brainwashing techniques organized by digital media. Somehow Brits are able to keep their Ilford alive, but we, Americans, keep loosing our historical and cultural heritage. And I don’t understand why it makes some of my country mates happy.</p>

<p>Ray,<br>

When I was shooting E100GX and Provia 100F I almost couldn't make any difference when I put them on a light table side by side. Have you tried Provia 400X? It has much better colors than 100F. Yes, it’s iso400 and at 35mm grain could be somehow evident. But if you shoot MF the grain is almost negligible. To my opinion it’s the best slide film ever released. At least for general purposes and travel. At 35mm this film is quite costly, but in MF it’s cheaper that E100G.<br>

You might take a look at this thread <a href="00N3Pv?start=20">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00N3Pv?start=20</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>“…more of a film look. “ </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Ray, I’m shooting Velvia not because it gives me a film look, but because it gives me the color palette that no one dslr does. Most of my Velvia/Provias shots are scanned without any tweaking, that drastically reduces my PS work and I have more time for photography. Also I still have a slide projector and enjoy viewing my pictures without turning on a computer. </p>

<p>Looks like film! Has anyone noticed that the latest non-film picture taking machines have, "Film Modes"! How insane is that? Why not just shoot film and go already!</p>

<p>I haven't shot 400X. I have shot 400F, not developed yet - had for some yrs in the freezer. 400 is not my thing. I have used E100GX it is a bit warm for my taste. Really? I could tell them side/side. GX is more warm, Provia 100F is more blue look, not a cast bit the blue tones gets more bluey. I guess it depends what and when you shoot though.</p>

<p>The film and lab is so pricey here, I actually import them from B&H and then export them to Dwaynes in batches of 10 rolls. Despite international postal it is heaps cheaper. $10US for Kodak slide is like $12US for us. Fuji is like $6US right but here it is about $13US but processing is like $22US and maybe $7US for mounting. Maybe $10US for a speed change.</p>

<p>This last sample, I just bought the film here b/c I didn't have much to get. So the intl postal of the film purchase didn't outweigh it. Well those prices are imports. The local store price matched it for me. If not, a roll of slides would have been maybe $20US each. </p>

<p>Okay Ray, you might be right saying that it depends what and when you shoot though. But in many cases I found that the difference between GX/G and Provia is quite negligible. So I didn’t find reasonable to pay more for E100G/GX. But you have your own preferences and I’m just sorry that you’re loosing your favorite emulsion. I don’t recommend you Astia b/c I don’t like it myself. What I’ll be missing from Ektachrome line it’s the E200. Slightly saturated with delicate palette film with huge latitude. I also was trying to adopt Ektar for landscape. I’ve got some decent results, but in some cases Ektar left me disappointed. Where do you live? It sounds like you have really expensive photography there.</p>

<p>Hmm .. you might be right too. If you shoot them by themselves and just look at them. G and Provia is not much to it. With Provia 100F and digital, I found that the foot path was more blue and the water was blue when on the digital it was more green. But it's - if you just look at them by themselves you might think it's just normal. Unless you are take the same shot with another camera.</p>

<p>I don't like Astia. It's good for skin but lacks punch. <br />I live in New Zealand. We only have 2 main labs that do E6 now. All the good stores that we grew up with just do C41 processing but send them the E6 films. There is one other small shop that does E6 by themselves but they're a loner. I swear those 2 places were like $30US to process one roll of slides. They have reduced it to $22US abouts ... b/c now that small store is the most $$$, before they were a fraction less.</p>

<p>With digital it's not too bad now, maybe 20-33% more than the USA. <br>

Before a 2nd hand Nikon F100 was like $1,500US when at the time a new one was $999US. A new one back then was $2,000US. Things are just expensive here. B/w chemistry was actually on par with the US a few yrs ago. But lately it's more like double. </p>

<p>Ray,<br>

In addition to what you said I noticed that the G delivers pristine blue sky while Provia renders it quite muted and a bit unclear. And generally G delivers a bit cleaner colors overall. Also it has wider latitude. However most retails here inUSAoffers a roll of Provia below $4 (120 format) while G costs $7.50 or more. I need about 20 rolls/yr and this is significant difference. Also Provia has much better pushing capability which is very important for me when I travel aroundEurope for a couple weeks. So as you see except colors there’re a few more things that drive me using Provia.<br>

I’m not surprised hearing how expensive this stuff is inNew Zealand. I have friends and relatives inEurope,Canada and Australia so I’m pretty much aware of your situation. The G is still available and Adorama has lowest prize as I see. So pack your freezer with a few breaks and you will enjoy using you favorite film for 2-3 years yet. Good luck!</p>

<p>Russ, I found that the color of CR200 135 was very different from CR200 120. As you said, the 135 is very skewed to the Yellow/Red end of the spectrum, not my taste. However, the 120 is much better and I like it a lot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Looks like film! Has anyone noticed that the latest non-film picture taking machines have, "Film Modes"! How insane is that? Why not just shoot film and go already!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because trying to get a particular "look" is just that, getting a look. Simple as changing a camera menu or clicking on a PhotoShop plugin. To actually "shoot film" is to revert to a workflow that</p>

<ul>

<li>costs $0.40 (35mm) to $12 (8x10) for every shot you take</li>

<li>involves delays of hours to days from when you shoot to when you see the results</li>

<li>frequently involves hauling a "life support system" including a large cooler around with you</li>

<li>leaves the single set of latent images vulnerable to shipping losses and lab errors</li>

</ul>

<p>It's all about the experience. Family style and fast food restaurants exist because a lot of people want the experience of a "tolerable" meal without the work of cooking it and cleaning up after it.</p>

<p>Well, you asked. </p>

<p>The comments about "hate" and people who "penetrated" to "profane film photography" don't get one simple concept. For most people, photography is about "the taking of pictures" more than it's about the pictures themselves. "Film photography" is not "holy", therefore it cannot be "profaned". Heck, according to the Bible, photography is "profane".</p>

<p>For every person who does it to produce sellable commercial work, there are a thousand people who do it because it's fun. Sharing results seconds after you shoot is fun. Shooting all day without a cooler and stopping to rewind and reload every 12-36 shots is fun. It's fun that my wife, my friends, my goddaughter appreciate.</p>

<p>Have you ever watched what people bring in for processing? On the average, they're a lot like my wife, shoot 15 shots at a birthday party, shoot 5 more when a flower blooms, finish the roll at Christmas and shoot 6 more shots on another roll, then don't take the first roll in for developing yet, because you've got a second roll going. Finish the second roll at your nephew's graduation, take both rolls in, then try to figure out which is what, how many copies to make for who, how and when to get them there.</p>

<p>For most people (and I mean a "big" most, a 99.9% sort of most), digital is just flat out a better experience. It started being a better "experience" back when it produced much worse "images" than film, and it still ripped the film market apart. Then the images improved.</p>