Jump to content

Ektar 100 In 120 Rolls


Recommended Posts

I called Kodak the other day and was talking to him about the new Ektar 100 film. Anyway he told me he hears at least once a day, if not more, that he gets requests for people to get Kodak to produce this new film in 120 rolls. So maybe if more of you on here phoned Kodak and put in a request as well, Kodak might seriously consider making 120 rolls of this film. If they see enough demand for it, they'll make it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Personally, I think Ektar shows that film for photography is pretty much dead.</p>

<p>I doubt there's a big enough photographic film market to justify unique development, so Ektar borrows cine film tech. The fact that it's as good as it is shows how neglected photographic film has been for several years now.</p>

<p>Give them aother 5 years and I bet we won't even see the token "tweaking" of cine film designs to make them run better in C-41, we'll start seeing labs being forced to deal with "pure" cine film. Maybe another 5 years, and we'll hit a point where digital takes over the movie industry, and it's goodbye to color film in all industries.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Now, I think they're still making film in very wide rolls and cutting it down to size, so theoretically, until that final death of color film, it should be possible to get Kodak to cut it to 120 in addition to 35mm. Manufacturers frequently don't appreciate that certain product lines might not be profitable in their own right, but their presence in your portfolio increases the sales of other, profitable lines. I'd suggest mentioning in your letter that 120 Ektar will keep you from taking all your film business, 35mm and 120, to the guys with green boxes. Mention this in a friendly way...</p>

<p>I did that at my favorite grocery store. I pointed out to one manager that the reason he wasn't seeing me often in his store any more is that they no longer carried "Butterkasse", my favorite cheese, and the lack of said cheese was making me take $500/month in business over to a different store. Now they always have it. They might not have much, but they always have a pound or two...</p>

<p>Now, before I point out more obvious parallels between film and cheese, I'm out of here.</p>

<p>;)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ektar 100 in 120 size would be a different master roll. The 120 film base is thinner that 135 film base. Also, the anti-halation treatment if often different in 120 films. So they would have to do an entire coating run for 120, which is a big expense. If it sells well enough in 135, they might consider it. But they did 120 on Ultra Color 100 and 400, and it wasn't selling enough to justify the expense.<br>

Kodak has been migrating technology from their Eastman cine films to consumer films for a long time. They sell a lot of cine film, and the customers are far less price-sensitive than still-camera film buyers. Still, it takes considerable extra effort to make a cine film into a still camera film, you need to put in much more shelf life, and more latent image stability. (Cine camera film is used really fresh, and processed the same day.)<br>

That said, Kodak film R&D is at best a quarter of what it was 5 years ago. But they are still smart people. But they know they need to pick their targets. They did new T-MAX 400. They could have also made a new T-MAX 100, but they decided making it even better wasn't going to pay the way it did for 400.<br>

What may be good is that Fuji appears to be more stagnant than Kodak in film product development. This means that Kodak isn't having to play in the saturation/contrast war with Fuji anymore in consumer films, and can invest in pro films. (Look how many generations of Gold 100, 200, and 400 there have been. Some of them are at generation 8, 9, or 10. I think that's going to change a lot less in the future.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I will also give them a call it seems like my supply of 120 Ultracolor 100 is down to 10 rolls.</p>

<p> I have migrated to shooting mostely 120/220 recently and I am sure happy I can get B&W and Color Positive in it still but for Color Negative there sure is nothing like a Nice High saturation for some things. The 160VC Porta is nice but it is no Ektar or Ultra.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This brings up something interesting that I am curious about. I can certainly appreciate that R&D is expensive and also that a film run can be as well. However, once you have a formulation for a film, shouldn't it be <em>relatively</em> easy to modify it for a different format and do a master roll? I can see changes that need to be made like John mentioned, but I would think they would be relatively straight forward, IE not requiring additional R&D to complete, or at least minimal. I guess I don't see the hold up on producing film in different formats other then an issue or lack of sales. I can see them not doing it if they think they will not be able to sell it or sell it within the expiry time of the film.<br>

Also is there anyway to produce smaller master rolls then the thousands, and thousands of feet long rolls they produce now? Or does creating small masters increase the bottom line cost way to much to be worth while. I am just thinking of things like Kodachrome since I'd imagine there a plenty of people would would love to keep buying and using it, even if the demand isn't worth producing a master every year or three that can produce say 20,000 rolls of film, but what about producing a master that can produce 1,000 rolls of film and roll one out as demand requires? Just wondering and asking as I don't have much knowledge of what it actually takes to produce film.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Looks like the plant in Europe that Rollei is using is producing on a smaller scale and doing it nicely same for Foma and Efke/Adox. You have a point. Could this be another Americian Automaker Union think big problem? My local computer store had a problem they were paying too much rent and after thought the Land Lord cut their space in 1/2 they have just as much business if note more and the display is smaller it just takes a day to get the stuff they stock across town from a warehouse. and the 1/2 that they gave up was used to expand the business next door.</p>

<p> An answer to every problem is just build a wall or think smaller.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John is correct that 120 film is normally coated on a thinner support. There was an exception. Kodachrome 64 in 120 format was coated on the exact same support as the 35mm film. The thicker support means that if a roll is not wound tightly in the camera, it may not be within the flanges and will get some edge fog. This is not ideal, but it is possible. It worked for most people who used K-64 in 120 format. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ektar is NOT movie film.<br>

Kodak said they used technology that was developed for their movie film to make Ektar.<br>

Kodak did NOT say Ektar is movie film.<br /> <br /> For example:<br /> Say Goodyear invented a new rubber for tires. <br /> They first used this rubber on their truck tires. <br /> Then decided to also use it in sports car tires. <br /> That does NOT mean that their sports car ties ARE truck tires.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Look; All it takes for Kodak to make Ektar 100 in 120 is just plain money; if many hundreds of folks would just paypal Kodak a 100 grand each; they could make a master 120 roll. Since there is no return on investment for them on a master 120 roll; if we bail out and inject cash they can prop up negative return projects!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ektar 100 uses some silver halide emulsions from motion picture films, but the chemistry is pretty much the same as Portra films. </p>

<p>Historically, still color negative had more money and led the technology developement. There have always been exceptions. Layered sensitizing dyes and two electron sensitizers first appeared in motion picture films. Now motion picture is still a growing market that is sensitive to quality improvements. They will likely lead technology development in the future. This is a good thing for still film photographers. We would be worse off without it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>i think youn have too much hope and optomizm.<br>

I wish you well. as any new film is a move in the right direction.<br>

all I want is panatomic-x. it is roumered that it is the negative in polaroid 55 p/n<br>

it would be easy for kodak to make some panatomic-x</p>

<p>I think the kodak folks are looking the wrong way and need to think differently.<br>

there is money to be made in the film camera field if marketed right.<br>

what could be more " obsolete" than B&W, yet there are companies making it,. if not in the usa.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Brian and Steve are correct. The connection between Ektar and movie film is indirect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The connection is <strong>very</strong> direct. What part of Kodak paid for the most expensive parts of Ektar. If it weren't for what the cine film business spent on Ektar, the photographic film business would not have been able to fund it.<br>

QED</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Look; All it takes for Kodak to make Ektar 100 in 120 is just plain money; if many hundreds of folks would just paypal Kodak a 100 grand each; they could make a master 120 roll. Since there is no return on investment for them on a master 120 roll; if we bail out and inject cash they can prop up negative return projects!</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is brilliant. Who'se got an extra 100K sitting around?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1787762">"Steve Smith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jan 24, 2009; 10:55 a.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>so Ektar borrows cine film tech.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a misunderstanding."</p>

<p>It most definitely is a misunderstanding. Joseph repeats it constantly....but it doesn't make it correct. Kind of like saying a chainsaw comes from Formula One race car technology because both use petroleum products to run. Kind of a stretch. It's been pointed out before....but some people keep stubbornly repeating it.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...