Question on expiry date - EPR (Ektachrome 64)

[lo_robin]

I just found some cheap EPR (Ektachrome 64) on Ebay and curious about how much

it will affect the imaging quality after the EPR film passes the expiry date. I

know it won't be a problem for most Black and White films as long as they are

stoed in certain freezing condition. But what about Kodak slide films? Thanks

for your suggestions!

 

Barveni

[r.t. dowling]

Depends on how old it is relative to the expiration date, and whether it was stored cold or at room temperature.

[john_shriver]

Kodak's tech folks told me that EPN (Ektachrome Professional 100) has poor shelf life compared to other E-6 films. No idea if that extends back to EPR (Ektachrome Professional 64), but it is the same generation and techonolgy.

 

If you can find Ektachrome E100G or E100GX at a similar price, I'd sure recommend that instead. Two generations newer, a lot finer grain. EPR, EPN, and EPP are rather dated films, that exist only because a particular industry (catalogs) is so used to them that they don't want to switch.

[r.t. dowling]

A few years ago I was able to pick up some expired EPR for about 50 cents a roll. It was three or four years past the expiration date, if I remember correctly. It had, however, been kept refrigerated during that time. It was fine, aside from being a bit blue -- which the older Ektachromes are known for anyway. If it hadn't been refrigerated, it probably would have had a more noticable color shift, and perhaps some fog.

 

B&H sells EliteChrome 100 for $2.99 a roll -- a very reasonable price, and a better film than EPR in almost every way.

[roger_hicks1]

ALMOST every way?

 

Where is EPR better?

 

A senior Kodak man once told me that they were embarrassed to be making such an awful film, but that as long as there was a demand, they'd go on making it. That was some years ago, and the beastly stuff is still in production, grainy, unsharp, blue and with rotten colours.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[r.t. dowling]

<i>Where is EPR better?</i><br><br>I can't really think of any particularly compelling reasons to shoot EPR, other than if you specifically need ISO 64 for some reason, or want the "retro" look, or you're able to find some for dirt cheap. I certainly wouldn't pay $12 a roll for the privilege of shooting it.

[User_502260]

I uderstand tnat certain medical and research studies were begun with a particular film years ago. To keep things consistent the researchers would rather keep buying the older film, even at high prices, than go digital or recalibrate to a new film type.

[r.t. dowling]

I bet many such studies were done with Kodak Tech Pan. I wonder what they use now...

[john_shriver]

CCD's.

[Aoresteen]

EPR was available as 70mm perf film. If I found some today I'd shoot it. Otherwise the 100GX is much better film.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jeff,

 

An interesting thought but given the appalling keeping qualities of EPR I can't help wondering why they'd bother. I mean, if the old slides have deteriorated, what's the point in staying with EPR to compare new trannies with old?

 

Like John, I suspect that most have switched to digital. And I'd be surprised if many research institutions used Tech Pan for other subjects than its design purposes: as I recall, some kinds of astronomical photography and photomicrography, for both of which digital is superior.

 

Agree about the 'retro' look, though...

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[edgar_njari]

EPR is the oldest E6 film, both historically, and the oldest one in current production. It has been unchanged since 1976. It is the only true vintage product besides Kodachrome, in fact it is older than current Kodachrome (which was revised in 80's I think).

 

I don't think it's a bad film. Sure it's bad in 35mm in terms of grain and sharpness compared to modern films, but then it's no worse than avarage negative film in 35mm, specially faster emulsions, and yet people still use those and don't complain.

 

In 120/220 those problems are solved, unless for work where you are pushing the limits of MF (but for such work 4x5 is more suitable anyway)

 

So what leaves to be judged is color, latitude and crossover

 

It's colors are great as long as you use it for what it is. You can't use it as a replacement for Provia or E100G for color purity and subtlety (though I still think it's fairly accurate with colors), but you can use it as a more "classic" looking film.

 

I don't think anyone would want a "retro" look in something like landscape photography, but for example the retro thing is often used in advertising, so it has its place.

 

I don't know why 35mm shooters complain so much about grain of different films, when grain is a part of the whole look of 35mm photography. If you don't want grain, why do you shoot in 35mm anyway?

 

I use 35mm a lot, but I don't really expect any film to deliver grainless slides or negatives at that size (24x36). When I don't want grain, I simply shoot 120.

 

You can get used MF gear for the half of the price you spend on your state of the art Nikon 35mm system, and still get drastically superior results.

[john_shriver]

<p>My comment on stability was on <i>unexposed</i> EPN. According to Wilhelm, as of 1992 EPR, EPN, and EPP were the most stable of processed E-6 films, in terms of dye fading and yellowish stain formation.</p>

 

<p>Here's what Kodak has to say about EPN:</p>

 

<quote>EPN is primarily designed for catalog photography and other applications where natural color rendition is requiredﾗparticularly those with reflectance characteristics that often adversely affect color reproduction.</quote>

 

<p>Those folks have a workflow that works with EPN, and they're willing to pay a high price for this film.</p>

[berk_sirman2]

That's very interesting but much has changed since 1992, like all of Fuji films as well as Kodak's E-series. I would guess EPR (and EPP, EPN) would be the worst in terms of longevity now. Another thing to keep in mind when using this film.