Ekatchrome can't be far off

"finite shelf life" is used along with production and sales discussion, so it seems to me they are referring to unexposed film and its expiration. But who knows.

 

Yes, I believe the quote from the article is meant to be for unexposed film.

 

I haven't heard numbers, but I suspect that we will get an ISO 100 film.

 

That should have a longer refrigerated or frozen lifetime than higher ISO films.

 

For non-professional use, maybe 20 years if frozen?

 

Then all we need is the chemistry to be available that long.

The last batch of Ektrachrome is actually more archival than Kodachrome was.

Yes, I believe the quote from the article is meant to be for unexposed film.

 

I haven't heard numbers, but I suspect that we will get an ISO 100 film.

 

That should have a longer refrigerated or frozen lifetime than higher ISO films.

 

For non-professional use, maybe 20 years if frozen?

 

Then all we need is the chemistry to be available that long.

Lower ISO film has longer shelf life than higher ISO films - is this true for the negatives as well? Or just the slides?

 

Of course it's all just speculations, but I think Kodak will try to release something other than ISO 100 as well (along with 100), because as far as I remember all slides that are in production are ISO 100 or lower. Maybe someone wants a faster film too. There was Ektachrome 400 or something several decades ago, nicht wahr?

here was Ektachrome 400 or something several decades ago, nicht wahr?

 

The last generation only went to 200, but there was a 400 speed "High Speed Ektachrome."

 

I used E200 once, but for the rare occasion I needed a fast slide film I found Provia 400F and then 400X better in every way. I still have some 400F in the freezer.

 

BTW, I've seen 10 year old slide film lose its "punch" but I have some Velvia sheets that expired in '97 and has always been frozen that looks great still.

 

B&W seems to truck on forever regardless of how it's stored, although someone posted(and I agree) that Plus-X seems to not age as gracefully as other films. The local camera store gave me probably 200 sheets of Ektapan that expired in the early 80s, and aside from a decent amount of base fog it looks good shot at EI 80.

 

Color negative can be hit or miss. I shot some 400NC yesterday when I was looking at a scanner, and the base fog wasn't bad although the color was pretty disappointing. At the same time, I don't know how much of an endorsement that is since 400NC wasn't exactly a jaw-dropping film when it was fresh :)

I have many rolls of different types of slide film, expired and some discontined, but I always cross process it.

I have many rolls of different types of slide film, expired and some discontined, but I always cross process it.

Is it really necessary to interject this on every thread on the new Ektachrome?

 

I can't speak for other folks, but I'd presume that most people lining up to pay what is probably going to be $10+ for a new roll of Ektachrome are going to use it as a true reversal film.

 

After all, if you want a negative, why not use a negative film?

The last generation only went to 200, but there was a 400 speed "High Speed Ektachrome."

 

I used E200 once, but for the rare occasion I needed a fast slide film I found Provia 400F and then 400X better in every way. I still have some 400F in the freezer.

 

(snip)

 

High Speed Ektachrome at 160 was in the E4 days, along with Ektachrome X at 64.

 

In the E6 days, Ektachrome 64, later replaced with Ektachrome 100, and also Ektachrome 200.

 

Not so much later, Ektachrome 400, with more than three color sensitive layers, and is

much better than Ektachrome 200, though also costs more.

 

I believe the other ISO 400 films have similarly more color layers, but I haven't followed them closely.

There was also a P800/1600 Ektachrome, designed for pushing.

 

Note that unlike black and white films, which can be developed for the optimal

time, C41 and E6 films have fixed times, independent of other properties.

 

So, unlike black and white films, an E6 film can be designed for longer

development, otherwise known as push processing.

Is it really necessary to interject this on every thread on the new Ektachrome?

 

I can't speak for other folks, but I'd presume that most people lining up to pay what is probably going to be $10+ for a new roll of Ektachrome are going to use it as a true reversal film.

 

After all, if you want a negative, why not use a negative film?

 

Because I like the color shifts and wonky colors. And there are no labs close to me to get it processed as a slide and it is probably cheaper cross processing it as well.

Because I like the color shifts and wonky colors. And there are no labs close to me to get it processed as a slide and it is probably cheaper cross processing it as well.

 

Yes probably cheaper, but negative films are even cheaper, and have more exposure latitude.

Because I like the color shifts and wonky colors. And there are no labs close to me to get it processed as a slide and it is probably cheaper cross processing it as well.

 

I guess I don't understand why folks get excited over color shifts in negative film. If you run it through an automated processor, it's probably going to correct it out. If you scan, you can put all the wonky color shifts in place that you want.

 

And, as Glen_h said, negative film is a lot less expensive and easier to work with. Well stored expired slide film at least in emulsions no longer made isn't exactly cheap.

 

And, yes, E-6 processing is more expensive, but those of us who use it do so for a reason.

 

Like I said, why spend $10/roll+ on the new Ektachrome(guessing the price point based on Fuji prices) to cross process when you can get negative film for half that?

As I understand it, in the early days of color negative film, it was usual to do color balance for different light sources when printing. Tungsten lamps, clear flash bulbs, and daylight. Sometime later, color negative films designed for different lighting were created, and daylight films started recommending blue flash bulbs. (And blue photoflood lamps.)

 

Even later, black and white films started recommending blue flash bulbs, though I suspect it doesn't make so much difference.

 

With slide films, you have to get it right in the first place, so filters and blue bulbs are used.

With slide films, you have to get it right in the first place, so filters and blue bulbs are used.

 

Don't forget that even ~15 years ago, you could get tungsten balanced slide film. I have two bulk loaders full of Ektachrome 64T, plus a few loose rolls in 35mm and 120 stuck back in the freezer. I even have one or two rolls of Elite Chrome 64T.

 

A standard part of even amateur photographer's kits also use to be color correction filters. The 80 series filters are dark blue and are used with tungsten films outdoors or under strobes. 85 series filters are probably more common and are an amber color-they are for daylight film under tungsten. Lest we not also forget the FL-D to kind of correct for traditional fluorescent tubes. I USE to find 85 series filters useful even with color negative film, although the results are all over the place since few places are purely incandescent(if they have any incandescent at all). Overexposing negative film 1-2 stops and possibly using an FL-D can be safer, or just use digital for indoor ambient light.

 

BTW, my Nikon SB-800 came with two gels-one about the color of an FL-D and the other about the color of an 85 series filter. I think most high end shoe mount flashes come with something similar. The idea is that you use those to balance the flash to the ambient light, and of course the assumption is that you will be using them with digital so you set the white balance to match ambient.

Old Ektachrome had good resistance to damage from projection, but very poor long-term dark storage stability.

 

Here is an Ektachrome slide from 1960. The magenta half of the image is as it looks today, but the half on the right has been color corrected to a degree in Photoshop.

For lots of useful, scary, and freely downloadable information see Wilhelm Imaging Research

Ben, I suspect you got your 80 and 85 mixed up!

I guess I don't understand why folks get excited over color shifts in negative film. If you run it through an automated processor, it's probably going to correct it out. If you scan, you can put all the wonky color shifts in place that you want.

 

And, as Glen_h said, negative film is a lot less expensive and easier to work with. Well stored expired slide film at least in emulsions no longer made isn't exactly cheap.

 

And, yes, E-6 processing is more expensive, but those of us who use it do so for a reason.

 

Like I said, why spend $10/roll+ on the new Ektachrome(guessing the price point based on Fuji prices) to cross process when you can get negative film for half that?

 

I have many rolls of expired cold stored slide film. I like natural occurances and the lab does not color correct my film by request. I will have them crop and take out scratches and dust when I have enlargements made for art shows.

Old Ektachrome had good resistance to damage from projection, but very poor long-term dark storage stability.

 

Here is an Ektachrome slide from 1960. The magenta half of the image is as it looks today, but the half on the right has been color corrected to a degree in Photoshop.

For lots of useful, scary, and freely downloadable information see Wilhelm Imaging Research

1960s Ektachrome (E-4) was horrible in the long-term preservation aspects. The last years of E-6 films (Kodak and Fuji) had superior longevity to Kodachrome. I have many Ektachromes and Provias from the 1990s that are unchanged.

 

Twelve Pins, Clifden, Ireland 1998 (Very recent scan)

 

Kodak might want to answer the big UNanswered question: why they didn't just bring back E100/E100VS Ektachromes rather than squander money on the costly development of another.

 

Ektachrome slides that I have from the 1960s and 70s have not stood the test of time in dark storage (fading and casting) as well as many hundreds of adjunct Kodachrome 64 and 200 slides, which remain minty.

Kodak might want to answer the big UNanswered question: why they didn't just bring back E100/E100VS Ektachromes rather than squander money on the costly development of another.

 

Although it hasn't been explicitly stated, my understanding is that the "end goal" is a film that mimics E100G. The box mock-ups I've seen(although I don't know whether they're from Kodak or speculation) label the new film as E100, which is probably a reasonable name since I doubt they'll need to differentiate between two different color balances(G and GX).

 

I'm REALLY going out on a limb with this, but if E100VS returns it will probably happen after if the pilot with E100(G) is successful. Personally, I never particularly cared for E100VS and much prefer Velvia, so I'd rather see them branch out from the initial 35mm release into 120 E100 and then-if I'm dreaming-maybe 4x5 and even 220. Given that Ektar 100 initially was 35mm only before going to 120 and sheet film, I think that's likely to happen if it's initially successful-or at least more likely to happen than introducing a totally different emulsion that(from Kodak's perspective) might eat into sales of E100.

 

Aside from that, Kodak's overall trend has been toward consolidating their film lines. 10 years ago, there were 6 different Portra emulsions(160NC, 160VC, 400NC, 400VC, 400UC, 800) and they cut that down to three.

 

In any case, the story is that even though E100(G) is a known emulsion, they've basically had to re-create it from scratch. Among other things, I understand that they've scaled down production to make coating in smaller batches viable-something that will probably raise the price relative to old Ektachrome prices, but will make the film a lot more viable. In addition, I believe it was stated that some of the raw materials were no longer available and the film has been redesigned around it. So, even though the goal is something LIKE the old stuff, I think it will most likely be a new emulsion and probably have its own quirks. Fuji managed a reformulation of Velvia 50 without appreciably changing the character, so maybe Kodak can manage the same.

We'll have to sit out and wait until the little yellow and blue box hits the stands. I rarely shoot 35mm transparency now (99% MF, LF), so will be mulling over the investment in a single box for comparison purposes.

 

I ran through both E100 and 100VS in 2004 as part of formal tests for publication at the time (Australian Photography), and wasn't particularly inspired by the palette, or the difficulty in printing to Ilfochrome Classic, compared to Velvia and Provia, which again are different to Kodachrome et al. It must have been the only two rolls of that type of Ektachrome ever run through the camera at the time — the rest, as always, has been committed to Velvia and Provia!

Are we referring to the slideshow at the above link that zips by too fast to evaluate?

 

Also, I am tired of having to sign out and back in to post on this site.

 

I agree, its a bit tedious and should be sorted

I agree, its a bit tedious and should be sorted

 

I think there's an old saying about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I just found out about labs in NY that process slides so i Just may go there. I hear the wait time is 3 hours on the one lab. The reason I heard of kodaks problems was because they hired someione who worked at HP and he wanted to focus on printers instead of film. True or not. I don't know.

I hope Kodak doesn't keep us waiting too much longer! Was exciting news when I first heard about this early last year. But it should be worth the wait. I always felt Kodak had superior film offerings to Fuji, especially with reversal films.

I hope Kodak doesn't keep us waiting too much longer! Was exciting news when I first heard about this early last year. But it should be worth the wait. I always felt Kodak had superior film offerings to Fuji, especially with reversal films.

 

I believe Kodak was inferior to Fuji E-6 in terms of resolution. Don't know about the quality though. If they make anything right now, it should be at least on par with the Japanese.

 

As for the delay, it is frustrating. Since I thought that Summer/Autumn is the most convenient time for shooting slides personally for me. And if it's not out until the end of August, then it might as well be delayed until Spring of 2019.