Bullcrap! (Kodak and Ektar/Ultra Color)

Look, I know everyone has on his eager-cap when it comes to Kodak's launching a "new" color-negative emulsion —

Ektar 100: ooooh...aaaah — but, am I the only sucker who's upset that they've chosen to introduce this new

product at the expense of discontinuing their Ultra Color line, comprising 100UC and 400UC? For a while now,

100UC has been one of my favorite films, and 400UC's been a great runner-up for when I've needed a couple of

extra stops' speed. Not only do I expect Ektar 100 to deny me the great sharpness and saturation of 100UC, but

I'm upset realizing there's no higher-speed version of it.

 

So, Ektar 100 is like 100UC, which is significantly different from Portra 160VC; but, while 400UC is

significantly different from 400VC, there will not be an Ektar 400 to replace 400UC? I've tried Kodak's entire

color-negative line-up, and have found the VCs to be the most useless: they don't offer the neutrality or

subtlety of the NC emulsions, and they lack the brilliance and clarity of the two UC films. So, altogether, we're

just losing 400UC, and that's if Ektar 100 is actually able to live up to 100UC.

 

Moreover, Kodak's mere statement that Ektar 100 is supposed to be a sort of "C-41 slide," because E-6 is becoming

harder to find, annoys me only further: It seems one of the prime reasons that analogue photography is becoming

ostensibly scarcer, is that companies — most flagrantly, Kodak — are abandoning the technology. At least

Fujifilm, Ilford, and others appear to be making an effort, whereas Kodak is just sprinting away from what it's

highly certain is no longer profitable. Fine, maybe this is a complaint I ought to take up with capitalism, and

not with one specific corporation, but haven't I, as Joe-Schmo who wants to have his dessert and eat it too, the

right to expose my guts a little...?

 

Is anyone else bothered by any of this? No on-line petitions to "Save Ultra Color"? Another name beneath Tech Pan

and APX 25? Farewell to one more? Come on...

 

 

*Kodak's F.A.Q.s about Ektar 100:

 

Tell me about KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100 Film.

EKTAR 100 Film is the world’s finest grain color negative film. With ISO 100 speed, high saturation and

ultra-vivid color, this film offers the finest, smoothest grain of any color negative film available today.

 

Why did you name it EKTAR?

In years past, the EKTAR name, and EKTAR 25 in particular, were synonymous with fine grain. However, the low

speed and limited exposure latitude of EKTAR 25 Film essentially mandated use of a tripod. EKTAR 100 Film offers

the same fine grain as EKTAR 25 Film, but with 2 additional stops of speed, and significantly more exposure

latitude (-1 to +2).

 

Who should use this film?

EKTAR 100 Film is ideal for commercial photographers and advanced amateurs, and is recommended for

applications such as nature, travel and outdoor photography, as well as for fashion and product photography.

 

What about portraiture?

Professional photographers will more likely prefer KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA Films for their consistently

natural reproduction of the full range of skin tones.

 

Does the announcement of EKTAR 100 Film impact any other films?

Yes. EKTAR 100 Film will replace KODAK PROFESSIONAL ULTRA COLOR Film / 100UC. And based on the superior

performance and very positive response to our new PORTRA 400NC and VC Films, KODAK PROFESSIONAL ULTRA COLOR Film

/ 400UC will also be removed from the portfolio by year end 2008.

 

How does EKTAR 100 Film compare to the finest grain color reversal films?

KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME Film E100G is one of the finest grain, color reversal films in the world today.

Due to differences in measurement conditions, a direct comparison of EKTAR 100 and E100G Films is not possible.

However, if you scan images shot on the two films and then print enlargements for a visual comparison, you will

see that the grain of EKTAR 100 Film is as good or better than that of E100G.

 

It sounds like EKTAR 100 Film might be an alternative to high color reversal films?

Exactly. And that’s important as E-6 processing becomes less readily available.

 

What technologies were used to develop such an outstanding film?

In addition to Micro-Structure Optimized T-GRAIN® Emulsions, the film incorporates KODAK VISION Film

technology, and advanced cubic grain technology.

 

How does EKTAR 100 Film compare to the existing family of KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA Films?

 

What formats will be available and when?

EKTAR 100 Film will be available in 135-36x format (CAT# 603 1330) beginning in October.

 

How will I recognize the product?

Look for this packaging.

 

Do I need to do to anything different to scan or print EKTAR 100 Film?

No. The film was designed to be printing and scanning compatible with the existing family of PORTRA Films.

 

(http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/qAndA.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.5.14.14&lc=en)

I think I will keep my anger in check until I try it.

You and your "rational, reasonable, perfectly level-headed response"...

Well, I'm looking forward to trying Ektar 100. I love 400UC as my all around general purpose print film .. I will miss it most assuredly .. but I think this may be a good move. I'll reserve judgement until shooting a few rolls .. Kodak has some great film recipes and I want to see if this gives me a color palate that I like.

 

Now, if they'd only bring back Panatomic .. I'd buy another film camera just to celebrate that!

Arjun,

 

Have you ever used Ektar 25? I seriously doubt you will be dissapointed with the sharpness of Ektar 100 being based from the 25 film. And its color saturation is even higher then the VC films. The only difference is the contrast isn't as high as the UC films. And I found the contrast a bit much on the UC films anyway. But I can understand you being dissapointed with losing a film you love shooting. And the fact Kodak is putting a lot of effort into revamping their current lineup and also adding a new film goes against your statement of Kodak having no interest in films or sales. They have revamped several films in the past two years, while we've seen almost nothing from the other major manufacturers.

 

Before you pull the gun on Kodak, try this new film first. You may be surprised. It will have the sharpness you are looking for.

 

Now as others have asked for- if only Kodak would re-engineer Panatomic X for todays age and produce it again.

I don't think you will be so bummed out when you actually shoot some. Ektar is legendary stuff. If they're willing to put that label on this film...really, with the film market the way it is, there just isn't much need for the UC any more. I know it was a decent film - but if you really want the best result (in 35mm) shoot 100 ISO film. Hence the new Ektar.

If the lighting is poor, you don't want to accentuate anything bad - so shoot Portra 400...VC if you like. Wonderful stuff.

I agree it's not all roses, but please try to look at the glass as half full. :-) At least they're doing something good!

 

Jed

And who are you trying convince that Kodak has err'd in its ways? Now if they would bring back Panatomic-X!

Yeah, some of my old favorites are gone, too. Agfapan 25, Verichrome Pan.

 

But it's made me a little more flexible in what I'll shoot with.

 

I'm just glad that film manufacturers are working to improve their lines. I hope that all those Central- and East-European companies stick around a long while too.

 

I can't really blame Kodak. If the volume isn't there, then they start going into the red -- it becomes more expensive to produce a roll than they can sell it for, and nobody can keep going that way.

 

I could sit here in my armchair and quarterback it for them -- "why don't you market it better, why don't you this, why don't you that?" But that would just make me a bigger fool than I already sometimes tend to be (hey nobody's perfect, eh?), so that's out.

 

All I can say is, try the new stuff! Branch out a little, too, re-try some films you've written off before. Vary your exposures, run some tests. You might find yourself breaking some new ground in your work.

I used to shoot the Ektar films and really liked them. I will miss UC 400 but like some others here, I look forward to giving the new Ektar 100 a try. I have a bunch of UC 400 in my freezer and will probably pick up some more to add to the collection. Actually, I can't wait to get my hands on a few rolls.

My main print film usage these days is 400 UC for family stuff in a Stylus Epic, and if Portra 400 VC is not a suitable replacement, then yes I'm disappointed that it's going. Can anyone else comment on 400 UC versus VC (a lot of the existing threads refer to the old VC)?

 

I used to shoot Ektar 25 and 125 before I switched to slides so I'm looking forward to Ektar 100 if for no other reason than nostalgia over the brand name. I really do need a faster speed for most purposes, though.

It seems that Eastman Kodak has been an easy target on this site for a few years now, and Fuji has somehow been the "darling". Sure, Kodak has made some mistakes, marketing blunders, etc., but give them a break. Many on this site have lamented the loss of Ektar/Royal Gold 25. Although time will tell, it seems Kodak has listened, and brought out a film with the same (better?) image quality, but much faster. If you consider the cash invested into their Vision and Vision 2 motion picture film (from which the new Ektar 100 is derived), I'm sure it's cost them millions in R&D. Fuji is a great company with great products, but don't loose sight of the fact that Kodak had many more products in it's catalog. Some of them were duplicated or no longer profitable. The company did what any company would do under the same circumstances.

 

As for the loss of UC 100, the new Ektar 100 certainly sounds like a worthy successor. I like UC 400, but have to admit that I do like the newest Portra 400VC more. It sort of seems like the "next generation" of UC400, obviously based on newer technology. It just appears "cleaner" to me, with equal saturation. Despite the Ultra Color name, I never found the films to be super-saturated. In fact, I think plain 'ol Gold 100/200/400 is more saturated.

 

Bottom line: I don't think Kodak has given up on film, and should be applauded for still investing in R&D. Another plus...do you think Fuji is going to let Ektar 100 go unanswered? I doubt it :-)

Is Kodak revising their films to be more scanner friendly? That would be a reasonable thing, at least for color films. Is there a pattern to their introductions and cancellations of emulsions in the digital era?

Hell, losing 400UC is a SMALL price to pay to gain Ektar 100 (at Ektar 25 quality and then some.). Seriously, quit bitching and go stock up on 400UC, it's not gone yet. The old Ektar/RG stomps on UC films as far as quality anyway, so Ektar 100 will be a huge improvement if the specs kodak is providing prove accurate. Who knows, they may come out with an Ektar 400 if people like the 100 enough to buy a lot of it. I know I will be buying bricks of the Ektar 100 for sure. I still have a few bricks of Ektar 25/RG25 in the freezer so it will be interesting to compare with the Ektar 100 when it is released. My only wish is that they make the ektar 100 in 120/220 sizes or larger. That would be ideal.

 

-Ed

It will be very interesting to see if Ektar 100 replaces slide film. It almost seems like Kodak was hinting at that in their literature about Ektar. I wonder how profitable E-6 film is compared to C-41. There certainly is a big price difference between the two types of film.

<< It sounds like EKTAR 100 Film might be an alternative to high color reversal films? Exactly. And that’s important as E-6 processing becomes less readily available.

 

Unless of course you want slides...

Has Kodak made any statements with respect to archival qualities of this new Ektar 100? Not to date myself, but I know that my negatives from the 1970s (taken with an old Kodak Instamatic) are long shot, while I have seen slides from even earlier that are still usable. I think it is well established that (while not as archival as B&W negatives) slides are the preferred material in color if you want to still use the images in a few years -- is Kodak changing this?

See the following comparison of UC and PORTRA

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

I think the saturation and grain of PORTRA VC are similar to the UC photos.

PLUS keep in mind that PORTRA has recently been improved by Kodak.

So buy a few rolls and try it out compared to your current favorite.

You will most likely like it as well or better than your current film.

As for all you complainers shut your mouth and key pad until you have tried out the new film.

Remember Kodak is a company and you vote with your dollars.

So buy this film and Kodak will listen if you say you have done a 1 to 1 comparison to your old film.

Don't lie, just buy.

steady sales keeps a film available.

"Has Kodak made any statements with respect to archival qualities of this new Ektar 100?"

 

I haven't seen any statements, but I can make some reasonable estimates. My first assumption is that the chemistry will be similar to other current color negative films. (Kodak will not want to add chemical components that are used only in one product.) My second assumption is that I can remember Wilhelm's numbers for image stability of color negatives. He has published a document that covers many common film products, but my book mark no longer reaches a live page. I think the yellow dye is most likely to fade first and is probably good for 25 to 50 years before a 20% dye loss.

 

That is not as good as most slide films, but it will last as long as most of us will live. I've scanned Kodacolor negatives from the 1950's where at least 50% of the yellow dye has faded. I need to custom correct them, but I can make prints now that look better than the prints 50 years ago.

 

While I've "gone over to the dark side" (digital) for much of my photography, This product is one film product I intend to try.

The Portra series of films are very scanner friendly. If they weren't, sales would topple like a brick, since that's how most of it is printed. The same dye set is used in Ektar 100.

Scott, no, I've never used Ektar 25. I still fault Kodak for discontinuing many of their analogue products

recently (e.g., no more Portra or Ultra paper [supra's left standing alone]), but — I wasn't aware they'd done

this — it is promising that they've invested in re-evaluating their 400-speed Portra and T-Max films. (It seems

one of the things they've done is make 400VC more like 400UC, which might excuse their decision to do away

with the latter.)

 

Yes, I'm human, and I'll probably not resist giving Ektar 100 a run through my camera, but I can't shake the

worry that I'll sincerely miss 100UC. If I'm wrong, hooray.

 

 

Jed, yeah, yeah: another "reasonable" person. Geez: where are all the poison-tongued hot-heads who readily

condemn every change in the world?

 

Les: "I've never even tried Panatomic-X and miss that too": L.O.L.

 

It seems most people here will not miss the Ultra Color line very much, and that, those who will, will be more

affected by the departure of 400UC than of 100UC. I suppose I'm in the minority.

 

I wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Ektar 100 has to do simply with the name. Probably, this won't be the

same film (Ektar 25) people once loved (we're all aware, surely, that grain and name aren't all that make a color

film what it is), but, if nothing else, Kodak's idea that reclaiming the word will get a good buzz going appears

to have landed right on the head of the nail. How excited would we be if, coming Fall, 2008, were Kodak's new,

"Ra-Zer Ko-lor Max 100"?

 

Tony, how does the new 400VC compare with 400UC in terms of sharpness and contrast? How about rendition (not just

saturation) of color? I've indeed found the Ultra Color films to be richly saturated, and (especially in the case

of 100UC) very fine grained and extremely sharp — Gold 100, as I've seen it, plays in a whole different ball-park

from 100UC: you know, the one beneath the above-head train-tracks, next to the crack-/whore-house. Previously, I

did find a certain charm in Gold 100 (GA-6), but, I've shot two rolls of the new formula (GA-7), and have found

it nothing more than an average,

get-it-because-it's-two-in-the-morning-and-it's-all-you-can-find-at-the-local-24/7-CVS product. I agree that,

depending on how Ektar 100 actually turns out, Fujifilm might find itself in a position to put up a little

competition — can't blame 'em for not being perturbed by something's encroaching on Velvia's territory... (Think

it might happen?)

 

Ed, I should hold my scorn until I've gone through a roll or two of Ektar 100, and you, probably, ought to

restrain your praise till you've done the same. This likely is not going to be simply "Ektar 25 with two

additional stops' speed"; let's see how the film looks before we start dreaming of how swell it'll be to meet for

lunch, after these many years, with our old friend again, shall we?

Even though I haven't used a roll of the new Ektar 100, Im already planning on buying a brick of this film. And I don't ever buy that much all at once. I have complete trust in Kodak that the film will compare nicely with the old Ektar 25 in terms of sharpness and grain. And extra color will be ok with the right venues. For people shots I can still use 160VC which currently is my main film.

"Kodak's idea that reclaiming the word will get a good buzz going appears to have landed right on the head of the nail."

 

And it has. I called Kodak up the next day after the announcement and the guy on the phone commented on how much interest he's noticed for this new film from other callers. Using the Ektar name was a stroke of genius. People remember the old film, so what better to sell a modern version of it then the same name. And it won't be confused with the old films since Ektar in 100 speed was actually 125, so the new 100 won't be confused with it.

Scott, do let us know what you think of Ektar 100. If you still have some Ektar 25 — and are able to perform one — I'd be interested to see a comparison amongst it, Ektar 100, and Ultra Color 100; in the past, I've read a few of your comparisons, and they've tended to pique my enthusiasm.

 

Looking back, now, would you agree that Kodak did a poor job of updated their Gold 100 formula? Not seeking a long explanation of merits and detriments — just a statement as to whether or not you feel something significant was lost in the revision. I for one, kind of miss the old stuff (of course, I note that it, too, was "upgraded" from an earlier emulsion).

I've shot 100UC, I've shot RG25. There weren't many rolls of Color negative film in between. Let me tell you something 100UC is no RG25. If RG25 was an oil paining 100UC is a neon sign. 100UC saturates the visible tones, RG25 mapped non visible gradation in the red, brown and gold tones into the visible range (much like Velvia does for greens).

Why not just shelve the ranting, Arjun, and try Ektar 100? Kodak recently rolled out TMY-2 and tweaked Portra 400. Their continuing roll-out of new motion picture stock indicates to me that backward linkages to 135/120 films are likely.