No new advances in high speed slide film -- why?

Kodak and Fuji have both made major advances in low speed slide film

lately. Kodak now has an ISO 100 slide film with a grain rating of

RMS 8, and Fuji now has an ISO 100 slide film with a grain rating of

RMS 7. However, Fuji's ISO 400 slide film has a grain rating of RMS

13, and Kodak's ISO 400 slide film has a grain rating of a whopping

RMS 19.

 

If they can make ISO 100 slide films with such incredibly fine grain,

how come they haven't been able to make any improvements in the higher

speed slide films? Astia used to be RMS 10, and now it is RMS 7. If

they have the technology to make that kind of an improvement,

shouldn't they be able to drop Provia 400F from RMS 13 to RMS 11 or

10? And what about Kodak? I love E200, but I'd love it even more if

they dropped the grain rating from RMS 12 to RMS 11 or 10. And as for

Ektachrome 400x, there's just no excuse for it being RMS 19 in this

day and age. They should at least get it down to RMS 14 or 13.

The improvement for Astia was achieved by applying the Provia's technology to it. Provia (100F and 400F), however, already employ this technology. So when you compare Astia and Astia 100F, you should compare Provia 100 and Provia 100F. You will find the same improvement there.

Maybe there simply isn't big enough a market for manufacturers to design high-speed slide films. Or maybe it's just a hard problem.

Actually Fuji did improve the emulsion technology between the introduction of Provia

100F and provia 400F and the introduction of Velvia 100F and Astia 100F.

And that improvement can be seen in what film?

That improvement can be seen in Fuji Astia 100F & Velvia 100F.

Provia 400F was a major advance in high-speed slide films, and it only came out a couple of years ago. The film it replaced was something like RMS 15 or 16. Nobody used it, because they got better results from pushing RMS or E200.

 

So what I'm saying is, your premise is false. Provia 400 used to be RMS 15 or 16, and now it is 13. Wait a few more years for the next high-speed film -- the market for these films is small.

 

And "major advance," "Kodak," and "slide film" just don't belong in the same sentence.

<I>And "major advance," "Kodak," and "slide film" just don't belong in the same

sentence.</I><P>That is simply not true and rather ignorant on your part. The

Kodak

E1000G/GX films are significant

& major advances over the films that preceded them. They were also available about

six months before the Fuji films, which are just starting to be released, were

announced.

My guess is that even Kodak and Fuji are sinking most of their development dollars into digital these days. Indeed, at high "ISO" ratings digital may prove to be significantly better than film in the end. Already ISO 800 on a 10D is pretty good.

 

With the slide film market (in fact all film markets) shrinking, and the use of high speed slide film (which was never a big market) being somewhat replaced by high speed digital, I think we may not be too far from the end of seeing huge advancements in slide film of ISO 400 and up.

 

I'd expect to see the greatest competition (and development) in the ISO 100 speed range, where the bigest market is and will probably remain.

That was in fun, Ellis. Heard of fun?

As Ellis points out, we're seeing many new professional slide films this year. I doubt there's much market for faster slides, maybe Ellis knows more about that since he's been shooting professionally for so long?

 

Also remember that changes don't happen overnight; bringing a new film on the market requires testing by both the company and the photographer. New films need to catch on too and if my salary depended on photography (or my travel pictures on one film, for that matter) I would do most work with something I know.

Slide film just isn't used that much for applications which require speed. They're used when quality matters, and taking slides takes a bit more consideration for the light (quality & colour) and exposure, so ... usually iso 100 is just fine.

The market demand for 400 speed slide films is actually very small compared to the slower speed films. Ask any professional lab what their percentage of films are, and 400 speed print films dominate while 400F and pushed E200 are not very common. Considering how difficult 400F is to deal with compared with 400 speed print films I'm surprised if we see any more R&D at all in this market segment. 100 speed print films typically don't compete with slides films. 400 speed slide films do compete with print films.

 

The latest round of emulsion improvements clearly benefitted Kodak more than Fuji. Portra UC and E100G are clearly more radical improvements than Velvia 100 and Astia 100F. In order to get more radical advances with film technology the entire C-41/E-6 loop is going to have be re-tooled, and that expense just isn't going to happen with the improvements of digital.

OT flashback!......>GAF 500 in 1970 was nice for astrophotography; it was better than asa 160 Kodak High speed Ektachrome pushed with the Kodak mailer to 400...I mean better for catching a meteor; or a timed exposure of the stars; for 1 minute; with the Exakta bolted to the telescope; doing the guiding.....With a fast 135mm F2.8 lens on the Exakta; a 5 minute guide exposure of Sagitarius; ie M8 was nice..........With the factory pushed Ektachrome; the grain was alot better; but the film wouldnt as much out of the stars; compared to the GAF 500 film...<BR><BR>For some shots of a sailboats on a lake; the GAF 500 was contrastly; but had really noticeable grain; it makes all slide films today look perfect......<BR><BR>Back in 1970; the C22 process was still mailorder; in smaller towns; and the amateur Kodacolor was only asa 80........Local processing of B&W tri-x ; my the average lab; was glossy......I have many dime store processed B&W tri-x from the 1960's ; that is better than the professional processed B&W today..........Last year I sent off a few rolls to a "good pro lab" and got horrid results; like the print paper was shot; or the darkroom has a light leak.......dingy whites; mostly greys; and no decent black tones...........No wonder C41 "pseudo B&W" has a good following.....

<I>I have many dime store processed B&W tri-x from the 1960's ; that is better than the professional processed B&W today....</i><P>Yep.

1) There HAVE been recent advances in 400-speed slides (Provia 400f)

 

2) But frankly, IMHO, even 400f is still grainier, fuzzier, and has weaker color, compared to Kodak's original Kodacolor 400 (c. 1977)

 

I've never been able to figure out the disparity in slide vs. negative color films - no slow-speed (under 100) color neg ever really matches slow slide films for sharpness and clarity, and no high speed (200 or above) slide film ever equals the best fast negative films - even after 25 years.

 

I can't think of a technical reason - I guess 'market share' may have an influence. But it's kind of circular reasoning. Those people who shoot slides tend to use slower film - but that's because the slower films are so much better. Build a 400 film as sharp as Delta 400 B&W and the market share might increase.

 

There is a much bigger disparity between slow and fast color slide films than between B&W neg films, for example. Velvia and Ilford Pan F are quite close in speed/resolution, while Provia 400f is still nowhere near (e.g.) Delta 400 in image quality.

High-speed color negative image quality c.1977

 

I have no idea what the RMS for Kodacolor 400 was - but to my eye it has just about the same resolution as Provia 400f (but possibly more obvious grain), and has much richer overall color and tonality.

 

Totally OT: it's also amazing how quick and easy it was to get a scanned image from this shot - considering the cost/effort required back in '77 to get a color print in the lab. Time, sheets of paper, and the skin peeling off my fingertips from exposure to color chemistry. Some things HAVE advanced - even if it isn't visible in fast color slide films. 8^)<div></div>

I think the RMS for Kodachrome 200 was higher than Provia 400F, actually. But the point behind your post is valid -- this thread is fixated on the RMS rating, when RMS granularity is really only one measure of image quality.

 

And RMS granularity is not necessarily even a good measure of image quality -- granularity and grain are different animals.

I should clarify - my posted image was with negative film. KodaCOLOR 400 not KodaCHROME 200.

 

It was my bad - since the thread is about fast SLIDE films. I was just trying to show 25-year-old ISO400 color neg. imagery - which modern ISO 400 slide films still haven't surpassed, IMHO.

You even said it was colour neg. I wasn't reading very carefully!

 

Back to my hole....