New 800 speed film from Kodak

[larrydressler]

That is because Walgreens used Agfa machines. Agfa is not dead. Just their arms and legs have been removed.

 

Larry

[mike_r.1]

What's interesting about the Kodak announcement is the bit about the packaging. I suspect they'll stop manufacturing film in USA and move all of that to China. Gone will be the 'Made in USA for North America' marketing thing; it'll all come from China. Maybe they'll pass the savings along to customers. Here in Canada it's hard to find a roll of E-series chrome for less than $15 unless you want to buy a brick. (Fujichrome is about the same price too). Ordering from Adorama is fine but you have to plan ahead.

 

I was a die-hard film guy up until my D200 purchase last month. Film-lovers may not think much of Scott Eaton's pointy posts but they are very, very full of truth.

 

Now I'm wondering if I should be keeping my F4, F5 & Rolleiflex 6003...maybe I'll sell the lot and go lens shopping.

[plasma181]

In my tenure as a photo-dot-net member, one thing I have refused to get involved in is the great film vs digital debate. To me, it's like arguing whether Abbott is superior to Costello. I shoot film because it's what I learned on and it's the type of equipment I have.

 

Is it better or worse than digital? I don't know, there is no simple way for me to find out, so it's not my problem. All I know is that digital is here to stay and film will be dying for a thousand years. So let's get back to the business of taking pictures; shall we?

 

Bob

[kelly_flanigan1]

Asa/iso 800 color print has come along way. Its "quality" varies with its age and storage conditions. Like old beer or old milk; a bad old heat soaked film batch often one a bad experience. <BR><BR>All the nikon F bodies I own dont have any foam either. The used one that I bought in 1962 never had any foam, or the newer Nikon F bodies bought new or used never had any foam either. <BR><BR>Changing the packaging and names of asa 400 and 800 print films seems to be a constant thing for kodak print films.

[steve_swinehart]

"Kodak abandoned color film users 20 years ago."

 

I would have to totally disagree with this statement. The Portra series films are probably the best color negative films Kodak has ever made. Likewise, the E series transparency films are far-and-away the best transparency films Kodak has ever produced. The E100G and E200 are just great films.

 

"You also plan on beating my 10D with your K1000 and Walmart/Walgreens processing and Kodak 800 speed print film?"

 

What's wrong with a K1000? Pentax made very good lenses that will fit on that body. I could certainly equal your digital camera with a Pentax 1000, my choice of lenses and 100 speed transparency or negative film (my choice) processed by the professional lab I regulary use.

 

Your rants lose all credibility because you lump every film shooter into the same lowest possible quality approach to photography.

 

Perhaps that's why you're so thrilled with your digital camera - you've finally found something that surpasses the low end approach to film that you use.

[Robert_Lai]

Most motion pictures are still shot on film - that qualifies as "film photography".

[randrew1]

I'm in the awkward position of having seen a carefully run comparison between the new Portra 800 and Fuji's product, but not currently having access to the images. I would love to offer some images. but for now, all I can offer is my observations.

 

Speed: the Kodak film is faster--underexposed pictures have more shadow detail.

 

Grain: slight edge to Fuji

 

Sharpness: edge to Kodak

 

Color: I choose the Kodak film (I know color choices are very subjective.)

 

Having seen these comparisons, the new Portra 800 is my choice when I need high speed.

[john_wire]

A recent roll of 35mm Kodak 800-4 "Made in China" sensor output.

 

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00FCSk-28087384.jpg"></center>

 

A piece of a roll of 120 Astia 100 sensors.

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4148876-lg.jpg"></center>

 

I love film! It ain't Kodachrome but it's not too bad.

 

That Kodak 800-4 film will save me hundreds of dollars on a "throw away" digital I was planning to buy.

[__jon__]

>Scott Eaton , feb 18, 2006; 04:42 p.m.

 

>and make you look like a complete *ss

 

How is that for the kettle calling the pot black!! Time to look in the mirror again.

[bill_tuthill]

Will these new emulsions be edge-coded Max 800-5 and Portra 800-3?

[john_wire]

Recent to me Bill, maybe not new to you. The last 400 stuff I used several years ago was really grainy. The recent Max 800-4 is much better by comparison.

 

I don't keep track and sniff the grain of all the emulsions from the various vendors like some do, however, the constant pontification from the digiheads about how absolutely "p" poor film is gets tiresome, especially since most of them haven't bought a roll of film for some time (at least it sounds like they haven't).

 

And from the looks of some of their digital pix they should have stuck with polaroids. Just "poking fun".

 

Photographic choices are based alot on peer pressure. This forum of experts has many who sound like they work in the digital camera propoganda marketing industry. This tends to make new/meek/uneducated/amateur consumers fear a film choice. That "p's" me off. But who cares what I think. Everyone knows I wouldn't buy ANY of this SF (small format) "lipstick covered" plastic stuff. Well....... maybe an RD-1 at the right price.

 

Did I say that? Only "poking fun" again at digi capture people. Come on smile, you can take some "funning". You gotta smile at something, as us film guys watch your gear depreciate away.

 

Regards.

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><hr><i>Antonio Perez has stated that within two years, film "wont matter" to Kodak. He is talking about the financial health of the company.</I><hr></blockquote>

<p>

He's got some catching up to do. Film <I>already</I> "doesn't matter" to <i>Agfa</i>.

<p>

Kinda sad watching the PR coming out of Rochester. Reminds me of the story of the Amazing Pig. You've probably heard it. There are many variations, they all have the same theme. A traveling salesman is driving down the road, and he has a flat tire. He manages to pull into the driveway of a farm house, gets out of his car, takes out the jack, and all of a sudden, a pig comes limping out -- it's a <I>three-legged</I> pig. The pig and takes the jack, puts it under the car, jacks it up, changes the tire, releases the jack, hands it back to the salesman, and hobbles off to his wallow.

<p>

The salesman is in awe, he can't believe what he just watched. As he's standing there, the farmer comes out, and says, "That's some pig, isn't he?"

<p>

The salesman fumbles for words, and says, "Um, yeah, he sure is!"

<p>

The farmer invites him in for dinner.

<p>

As they're sitting around the table, the farmer tells him about some of the other things the pig has done. One time the farmer fell into a well, and the pig went and got some rope, lowered it, and pulled him out. Another time, the house was on fire, and the pig got everyone out, then put out the fire all by himself.

<p>

After hearing several of these tales of bravery and intelligence, the salesman is in complete awe, and he asks, "And it was during one of these events that something happened to injure him, and that's why he's only got three legs?"

<p>

The farmer breaks down laughing, and when he finally composes himself, he says, "No, no, that's not it, that's not it at all! He <i>never</I> got hurt doing any of those things!"

<p>

The saleman, confused, asks, "Well, then, how come he's only got three legs?"

<p>

The farmer looks him in the eye -- and, with a tone of voice suggesting that he is speaking to a complete idiot, explains, "Look, mister -- a pig like that... A pig like <i>that</I> you don't eat all at once!"

<p>

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><hr><i>The great paradox of the digital age is that film is better than it's ever been.</i><hr></blockquote>

<p>

LOL!

<p>

<ul>

<li>Panatomic X</li>

<li>Technical Pan</li>

<li>Kodachrome 25</li>

<li>Ektar 25/Royal Gold 25</li>

<li>Ektar 100/Royal Gold 100</li>

<li>Supra 100</li>

<li>Verichrome Pan</li>

<li>Etc., etc., etc.</li>

</ul>

<p>

Yes, film is better than it's ever been -- presuming you have a large freezer, and the foresight to have stocked up before the best emulsions were discontinued.

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><hr><i>I've noticed that the most vocal digital haters alwyas have zero uploads, or a portfolio that looks like it was shot by a 7yr old girl on AOL. Gee Ed, why is that?

</i><hr></blockquote>

<p>

<i>I've</i> noticed that the most strident film-hating digiteratti seem to be rude, snotty, arrogant, and abusive toward their fellow photographers. Gee, Scott, why is that?

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><hr><i>Scott Eaton seems to be getting meaner with time. Like wine turning into vinegar. Something has made him so bitter and vitriolic. So sad.

</i><hr></blockquote>

<p>

You've said it perfectly.

<p>

All I can figure is that he's for whatever reason an "untouchable". I hardly accept the idea that any <i>other</I> user could get away with the stuff he pulls, and retain their membership, let alone the two Magic Icons next to his name. I cannot explain it, but I cannot help but observe it.

<p>

And observe it I do, even when I tried clearing my head of the noise by avoiding the place for several months. I stick my head back in, and what do I see, but Scottso, sniping away in a FILM forum. As the poster after you pointed out, if he hates film so much, why does he continue sticking his nose in here? Why is he driven to dive into discussions that are of no putative interest to him, and inevitably piss into the punchbowl?

<p>

Like I said, I can't believe that anyone else could get away with it, so, even accepting that he's got some kind of magic annointing that allows him to defecate in <I>anyone's</I> dinnerplate, and get away with it, the big question is <i>why</i> does he do it? Is that any kind of a life? Stalking the message boards, looking for other people's discussions, to jump in, disrupt, attack, insult, berate, and then stalk off, once the damage is done?

<p>

I mean, WTF???