Kodak Professional Elite Color - more details

[aquilanebula]

Kodak's UK website now contains details about the new Professional

Elite Color 200 and 400 emulsions including the data sheets (dated

October 2004). Here is the link:

 

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/eliteColo

r/main.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.13.18&lc=en

 

As already suggested by others, they appear to be a rebranding of the

Royal Supra line, although there appears to be no replacement for

Royal Supra 800. With the arrival of Elite Color 400, BOTH Royal

Supra and Portra 400UC are disappearing from the UK market.

 

A browse through the different Kodak websites suggests Elite Color is

intended for the European/African markets, while North America

retains the Ultra Color 100/400 line, and Asia/Oceania keeps

Professional Supra.

[jim_gifford]

You know, I have no objection to "Take your child to work day" but when it becomes "Let your child devise your marketing plan" I think a rebuyke is in order. Let's all face Rochester and blow raspberries.

 

Be well,<div></div>

[bob_shop]

Fantastic ploy, spelling it "color" on a UK product.

[chris haake]

It's the perfect plan, Bob: it makes it seem exotic!

[r.t. dowling]

bloody hell... they should just rename everything "MAX" and get it over with.

[ted_marcus1]

Does this really mean the superb Ultra Color 400/Portra 400UC won't be available in Europe? If so, I'd like to know how Kodak managed to find marketeers with such a high vacuum in their skulls. Or maybe someone here who, unlike me, has an MBA and wears a pin-striped suit could explain how such a confusing marketing strategy involving multiple, possibly redundant product lines maximizes shareholder value.

[ilkka_nissila]

Portra 400UC was available in Europe in 120 but to my knowledge, not in 35 mm. We had Royal Supra 400 and apparently now, Elite Color 400.

 

So what's so strange about it? Kodak has probably found out in their market research that Europeans want slightly different products. It's always possible to order Ultra Color from B&H so it isn't a big deal. I think the RS films are great, and probably also the Elite Color - they seem to be similar if not the same from the information available on Kodak's site.

 

It's not the name that makes a product bad, but a product may make a name bad.

[john_shriver]

Well, they certainly have Max batteries in the lineup.

 

It's odd that they choose to offer this high-saturation film at 100 & 400 in the US market, and 200 and 400 in the rest of the world.

 

As for the segmented naming, I suspect it is another attack on grey-market film. There's no grey-market Ultra Color 400 available to the USA, since it sells under the Elite Color or Royal Supra names in the rest of the world. (I bet Kodak wishes that they could region code film the way the DVD vendors do. Then European film wouldn't work in American cameras.)

 

Also note that the Europeans don't get this film in 120 or 220 sizes.

[john_shriver]

Oh, if I didn't make it clear, I'd say that US Ultra Color 400, Europe Elite Color 400, and Asian Royal Supra 400 are the same film. Maybe very slight differences in color balance (regional tastes), but the same emulsion, same technology.

[rob_murray]

I am waiting for Kodaks next film name:

Kodak Ultra Max Portra Royal Gold Elite Ektar 100 Chrome Professional!

Sure wish they would pick a few names and stick with them..

They must have a whole department sitting around thinking of

ways to rename film.

[r.t. dowling]

If I worked at Kodak, I'd be worried about people buying this stuff thinking it was a new version of EliteChrome slide film, and then finding out "the hard way" that it's actually print film.

[aquilanebula]

The marketing doesn't do Kodak any favours. Ignoring the Portra line for a moment, the 35mm print film range in the UK looks like this:

 

100 - no products

 

200 - Elite Color 200 / Gold 200 / High Definition 200 (available in 24 & 36 exposure rolls)

 

400 - Elite Color 400 / Ultra 400

 

800 - Ultra Max 800

 

I recently tried Ultra Max and found it very poor. (Max 800 actually gives worse results than simply using Superia 400 underexposed by 1 stop.) The sale of such poor products can only sully Kodak's reputation and seems pointless.

 

I agree with Ilkka that the Royal Supra films are excellent, and I hope the Elite Color versions are direct replacements.

[ilkka_nissila]

I'm also a bit surprised that iso 100 films aren't widely marketed in Europe. I remember buying some Gold 100 in the US and that seemed to be a good film for what I needed at the time. I haven't seen it in many years in Finland.

 

I just use RS200 and expose it at iso 100. Seems to work fine!! :-)

 

It would be nice to see an Elite color 100 or even 50 for some applications but I suppose I'm just dreaming.

[r.t. dowling]

If it makes you feel any better, some folks have reported that the Ultra Color 100 product sold in the USA is the same as the Royal Supra 200 product sold elsewhere. They do seem to have very similar specs, and I remember a while back when Kodak discontinued Royal Gold 100 and Supra 100 and came out with Royal Supra 200, they suggested that customers rate it at 100 if they prefer. At least one user confirmed that Ultra Color 100, shot at 200, looked identical to High Definition 200 (a.k.a. Royal Supra 200) shot at 200.

[ilkka_nissila]

I believe this is possible but film speeds are measured using a standardized procedure so they can't (?) be identical can they?

[ted_marcus1]

<i>As for the segmented naming, I suspect it is another attack on grey-market film. There's no grey-market Ultra Color 400 available to the USA, since it sells under the Elite Color or Royal Supra names in the rest of the world.</i>

 

<p>There could be something to that, although I can't see how effective such a strategy is. If, for example, you knew that Elite Color 400 was the same film as Ultra Color 400, and it cost significantly less, why would you care about the "wrong" name? But then, the strategy will work perfectly if Kodak never admits that they're the same film-- and they get the benefit of unlimited free advertising on forums like this from the endless discussion and speculation about whether they are or are not the same. I'm not sure whether these possible benefits outweigh the cost of maintaining multiple product lines around the world that may or may not be the same, but it may be what's inside the marketeers' largely empty skulls.

 

<p>On the other hand, Kodak seems to have taken care of the gray market problem with Ultra Color 400 in a more sensible way. I notice that B&H no longer carries "Portra 400UC," the (former) name for Ultra Color 400 outside North America. Before they stopped carrying it, the (gray market) Portra 400UC was the same price as the Ultra Color version. There's no reason to bother with gray market if it's not cheaper. Of course they could always do what they did with the former Supra 400 early in 2003: increase the price significantly before discontinuing it, just to pixx off everyone who used it.

 

<p>As Forrest Gump might have said, "Kodak is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

[r.t. dowling]

One of the most basic concepts of marketing is consistency. You find something that works -- even if it's not perfect -- and you STICK WITH IT.

 

A popular example given to marketing students is General Electric. GE has had the same logo for many, many decades. As a result, it is one of the most easily-recognized logos in the world. It makes people think of a company that is strong, successful, and has lots and lots of experience. GE stuck with that logo, even though they probably could have come up with one that was newer or prettier or more hip. And it has paid off.

 

It is puzzling that Kodak constantly change the names of their products. This makes it very difficult to maintain consistency. And speaking of consistency, consistency is something that professionals like and demand. It's impossible to have consistency when a product keeps having its name changed, and you've got some people telling you that the product itself is unchanged, and other people telling you that it's new and improved. Supra 400 --> Portra 400UC --> Ultra Color 400... Royal Gold 400 --> Royal Supra 400 --> High Definition 400 --> Elite Color 400... all the same film, or seven different films? Who knows? You can ask two Kodak reps but you'll probably get two different answers. It's enough to make you throw your hands in the air and switch to digital.

[roman_kuznetsov]

I have shot a lot of Royal Supra, and some 400UC recently. From the results, I won't say the emulsions are the same. They just have something common in their character. The difference is most evident when scanning - while RS reqiures some curve tweaking to get neutral colors, UC scans are often dead-on on the first try. Both prints very well on Kodak paper, though. IMO, UC also has more saturated greens (or possibly less saturated other colors) than Royal Supra.

[frank_oddsocks]

Since no-one would ever want to buy film when travelling, of course it doesn't matter that the names are different. I have limited time and money to test new films, and I can't practically do it when travelling.

 

We were told half a dozen years ago that the Melbourne factory - now closing - was the main producer of Gold 100.