Ekatchrome can't be far off

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by chuck909, Jun 9, 2018.

  1. Two years ago, I had my parents' Kodachrome from a 1956(?) trip to Europe, and Ektachrome from a 1972 trip to Kenya scanned.

    Europe was still punchy. Africa was long since faded and washed out.

    Will Kodak make the new Ektachrome last?
     
  2. "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.
     
  3. AJG

    AJG

    Not all E-4 or E-6 processing was created equal--some processors cut corners and the slides look fine when you get them back but they don't last as well as they should. Kodachrome is the long term dark storage champ, but E-6 Ektachrome is also fairly stable when stored well and processed properly in the first place.
     
  4. The last gen Ektachrome-which is Kodak's target if the name is any indication-had storage lifetimes comparable with Fujichromes and as good as dark-stored Kodachrome.

    Some of mine are 15 years old and still look great-along with my Velvia and Provia.

    I do not worry about the storage properties of modern E6 emulsions, at least provided that they are processed properly.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. The last batch of Ektrachrome is actually more archival than Kodachrome was.
     
    Moving On likes this.
  7. 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?
     
  8. 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 :)
     
    Moving On likes this.
  9. I have many rolls of different types of slide film, expired and some discontined, but I always cross process it.
     
  10. 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?
     
    Moving On likes this.
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. Yes probably cheaper, but negative films are even cheaper, and have more exposure latitude.
     
    ben_hutcherson likes this.
  15. 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?
     
    Moving On likes this.
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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.
    Color-slide-fading-(Ektachrome).jpg
    For lots of useful, scary, and freely downloadable information see Wilhelm Imaging Research
     
  19. Ben, I suspect you got your 80 and 85 mixed up!
     

Share This Page