Bullcrap! (Kodak and Ektar/Ultra Color)

[jeff_z.]

"Why not just shelve the ranting, Arjun, and try Ektar 100?"

 

Gary, well said! From the technical data that has been presented here so far, this does look like a new film.

I've never fully understood the dumping on Kodak that I've often heard. Having never particularly liked the Fuji

pallette (I'm generalizing a bit), I've always loved Kodak films, and miss the old Ektar emulsions like so many.

 

I think it's hard to fairly lay blame on Kodak for quitting on past films, as when I've called them about how

much so many of us miss the great old discontinued films like K25, the Ektars, and Royal 25, 100, they tell me

that they do, too! Kodak discontinued them because people weren't buying enough, it's that simple. This was

before digititus; people's falling for slow, variable aperture, "do it all" zooms had much to do with it, along

with many pros and their followers embracing Velveeta, and its too often lurid colors, imho. Judging from so much

expressed anguish here in the last several years, I think that many of us were just starting to appreciate the

great slow speed Kodak emulsions about the time they were discontinued, and the action was perhaps, premature..

But Kodak is subject to the bean counters in corporate America, and the phenomenon in so many publically traded

companies of pleasing Wall Street.. Executives incentivized to attempt short term gain for, very often, long term

pain.. perhaps some of that, too. But, despite these possible factors, they still produced great films and are

continuing to innovate.

 

Just before this news, I called Kodak. The gent who answered was very helpful, but didn't mention the news. He

did, however, say that there was a lot of enthusiasm for film development there. So, it's really hard to

understand the complaining. If the poster is really worried about losing UC 400, as someone else said, just stock

up now as it is still readily available. I remember years ago, having just tried E100s shortly after it was

replaced with E100g/gx, and having similar fears. They were completely unfounded, as the new film was better, if

anything. And, I suspect from the data presented so far, that the new Ektar 100 will be an even more noticeable

improvement over UC 100.

[25asa]

Arjun,

 

I liked the improvement in colors on the new Gold 100, but I prefer the old ones more because it was the sharpness with decent colors that won me over. You can't get a film as sharp as the old Gold 100 anymore. It should be interesting to see if the new Ektar can compare in that area. It seems increased contrast boosts the sharpness, and the old GA-6 had plenty of that.

 

Again if anyone wants to spare a roll of Ektar 25 (sell it to me if possible), then I can do a test of that and the new film when its out. All I ask is that you know the condition of the Ektar 25 be in good shape, as I've had some bad rolls of this stuff before.

[arjun_mehra]

Well, Gary and Jeff, as I hope my tone throughout this thread has conveyed, my purpose, here, is just to do some ranting. So, thanks for the advice, but, even in its absence, I shall try Ektar 100.

 

At least one caveat to Ektar 100 (as opposed to 100UC and 400UC): its reciprocity reliability extends only from 1/10,000 (perfectly adequate) to 1 second; 100UC and 400UC require no compensation for exposures as long as ten seconds (and as short as 1/10,000). For those who enjoy night photography (and other genres that require considerably slow shutter-speeds), I imagine this might be at least a bit disappointing.

[patrick j dempsey]

So my question is... if they had called it Kodak 100 Ultra-Color Plus, would you still be mad or would you be

singing the praises of Kodak for updating your favorite film to give it finer grain structure and more color

saturation? The part you should probably really be upset about is that more than likely, Kodak will develop an

entire line of high-definition "grainless" color print films over the next 5 years and discontinue slide film

altogether. Or should you be happy that Kodak is making an effort to produce color print films with similar

characteristics to your favorite slide films, but cheaper and easier to get processed locally and with a wider

latitude making them more useful for shooting in dynamic lighting?

 

There's two sides to every story, but at least Kodak is making an effort to introduce new films with exciting new

properties and continue to push the limits of film photography instead of just selling the same tired old

products until everyone gives up on them and goes digital in frustration... a'la Polaroid. Kodak has dumped many

emulsions over the last few years, and their camera division has been personally responsible for a lot of the

push towards digital, but in the last 3 years they have also updated (or legacy branded) seven consumer emulsions

including: 160NC, 160VC, 400NC, 400VC, Ultra Max 800, New T-Max 400, and New Ektar 100.... each one offering

finer resolution, finer grain, and better saturation/tonality than ever offered before. Kodak understands that

many people still use film and many people want to be able to use film into the digital age, and continue to be

able to compete with the rapid growth of digital imaging quality. I love Ilford B&W films and I love Fuji for

their Polaroid/instant products, but I think that Kodak has the best color print films period, in both consumer

and professional price ranges. If they could update Gold 200 to be a little finer grained/higher resolution, I'd

be happy as a clam.

[25asa]

Patrick,

 

TMAX400 and Gold 100, 200, and Max 400 have been updated as well. Max 400 was recently updated.

[25asa]

And I did a test last year on the new Gold 100 and 200 if you look my posts up.

 

When I get a roll of the old Ektar 25, I'll do a test between it and the new film, plus 100UC. I just hope the old roll of Ektar lasts the tests of time or the test I do will be worthless.

[arjun_mehra]

Patrick, I would be annoyed that they were changing a formulation I greatly like, and would see how well the new stuff compares with the old — which is what I'll do here, as well.

 

Scott, is Ektar 25 too difficult to come across on eBay? Well, I suppose, with that path, you'd still be unsure, until after developing it, whether the roll was or wasn't stored properly.

[25asa]

I am currently bidding on two rolls of the stuff on Ebay at the moment, but whether I win is one thing. Whether its usable is another.

[jeff_z.]

Scott, You probably know this already, but just in case.. I think that I remember reading that the slower the film, the less susceptible to degradation (radiation?) it was over time, so long as it was kept frozen. So, if you can get in touch with someone trustworthy, it would seem the chances would be good that your test results might be valid.

 

Perhaps it might be an idea to post your request on the Casual Conversations forum, also? I would think it fairly likely that someone here has a frozen roll, and that they are likely to be honest, and willing to participate. Jeff

[kelly_flanigan1]

Aging for film has many components; so does leftovers, fruitcake, beer and milk. Its NOT an exact science. That old roll of Ektar 25 from Ebay might have been frozen and stored in a deep cave; or just some stuff found in a attic too. <BR><BR><b> A simple coarse model for film ageing has three components; the *gremlins/bogeys* being high temperature, radiation; and weird gases. </b>Storing film in a freezer radically reduces the heat gremlin. The radiation component varies with the iso/asa; unless one has a giant lead shield or lives in a deep cave. Thus asa/iso 800 films get more fog in a decade than an asa 25 or asa 6 product. The film slowly gets *exposed* with time; the cosmic rays lifting up the noise floor; ie the fog level increases; thus the real iso drops with time since iso/asa is measured with respect to base fog. The third component is rarely mentioned; its mentioned in the 1940's Kodak literature; maybe folks were storing unsealed films in an old electrolux gas refridgerator; or with moth balls?; or packed with fruit cake? An unsealed film roll that sees certain types of gasses gets exposed too; the old books mention coal gas; but lay open that other gases can harm too. Storing film unsealed with three bean salad in the freezer for a decade might make the response more like the color of each bean.:) <BR><BR>With a color film the film has several layers; and the aging is more complex since each layer can age differently; this creates a shift in color accuracy. With an old film one can just shoot a test target at the start of the roll; and use this as a reference to "close the loop" around to back out any color shifts. <BR><BR>With a wad of film thats from one source and same emulsion number its more like having a six pack of beer or carton of eggs thats unknown; *probably* if one unit is ok the others in the group will be similar. A test with one roll/beer/egg would be prudent before doing a project thats important.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Film thats aged has a higher background fog level in the unexposed areas; this means the real iso/asa is less. Thus aged film over requires more exposure.

[tony_duda]

There was a post in the past couple of days on the APUG site by PE (can't find it at the moment) that Ektar/RG 25 was a unique film in that it was discovered that freezing actually damages it. It has some kind of layer that crystalizes when frozen. I have several rolls in my freezer since the early 90's, along with Ektar 125, which later became Ektar 100. I don't know if they're affected due to the same layer being used. I probably have close to 1500 rolls total of just about every film by every manufacturer that has been produced in the past 40 years, like those seed vaults in the Arctic in case the end of the world comes...lol. I'm sure the higher ISO emulsions are no longer much good due to fogging. Hmmm...do you think I'm obsessive/compulsive?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Film doesnt not freeze unless some duffus has soaked it in water. *Freezing* is a change of state; liquid to solid. Maybe APUG has folks who skipped a few basic grade school classes?

[tony_duda]

Kelly, I understand what you're saying, but PE worked for Eastman Kodak for several years, and was instrumental in the development of many of its emulsions. I think he knows what he's talking about.

[bill_tuthill]

Scott Pickering, I had some rolls of RG25 packaged and addressed

for you, but the box was stolen or cleaned off my desk at work.

Could you please send me your postal address again

and I'll mail a couple more? This time I'll do it from home.

[jeff_drew4]

For those lamenting the demise of Ektar 25, why not compromise? Shoot 100 @ 64? :-)

I would love to see and support Kodak if they would rollout the new Ektar100 in rollfilm!

[kelly_flanigan1]

Tony; here I have had some kept films in the freezer since the 1960's; over 40 years. The aging componets of film have been known for about a century. With the 103 series astro glass plates at an observatory in the 1970's they were shipped to us in dry ice; the emulsions were always kept cold. With roll films and 35mm some get a "set" in the film backing with time; the film doesnt lie in the film plane as flat; it sometimes is harder to load on reels too. Film and plates normally do not freeze; saying they do just means the author has a *hole* in their education; ie a blunder. There *is* some moisture present unless one has a pure vacuum; maybe the authors meant the typical duffus opens up the film rolls on a hot day in Florida; and then throws them in the freezer. Film degrades with time.; using a freezer slows down one of the three components. Here I used Ektar 25, 125 and 1000 when they all came out; and still have some *sub zero* Ektar 25 squireled away. Most folks here *DID NOT* support the last marketing of the older ektar film products; they look the Velveda pumped up route with slides. The old Ektar color stuff was expensive; marketing chaps gave away trial 12 exp rolls at trade shows. Kodak even bundled it as an extra 4th roll with consumer films; and the product was still a flop. Its was like the first start trek; the bulk of the cult following happened after the show was axed.

[kelly_flanigan1]

A 1940's and 1950's book had one storing ones special films in canning/Ball jars in the Freezer; WITH the factory packaging too.

[k._adam_berman]

Actually guys, Arjun is right.

 

Kodak has basically covered up the fact that they've consolidated the UC family into the Portra/Vision film series using

common components to save money by just slapping an Ektar name on the 100 UC replacement product. Who cares

what it is called? All that matters is how it performs.

 

Here is what has happened: Kodak has discontinued 400UC and 100UC.

 

They've replaced 100UC with a new film that has less saturation and finer grain, making it more akin to the rest of the

Portra Vision line.

 

Oh, and they named it Ektar. Name it Bob, they've still discontinued the imminently useful 400UC. Further, they

continue to be dickheads and not offer the film in anything but 35mm, which makes it useless for me except for

snapshots.

 

I am going to be open-minded about trying out the film. I'm sure I'll really like it, but I will be upset if, at the expense of

finer grain, they took the snap out of the film and basically make it akin to a slower version of Portra-II 160VC.

 

It probably will still be UC-like. I hope so.

 

But paraphrasing on the classic movie: "Forget it Jake, it's Rochester." These guys make the world's best color-

negative film hands down, but their marketing spin is legendary.

 

The result of the Wilhelm study? Kodak's paper is far less stable than Fuji's, so instead of making drastic improvements

to their paper to compete, Kodak writes its own standards instead! That's not to say that they didn't improve image

stability, but Kodak did not do what it should have and instead persists in duping photographers into thinking that their

paper is now as good as or even better than Fuji's. Hell, they even call their paper "Endura"!

 

I know for a fact, that, on display in a window, Fuji's 16x20s still last over twice as long as Kodak's. And I still like the

look of Kodak stuff better, and use Kodak paper for everything but 16x20 window displays and composite pictures that

are going to get blasted with sunlight.

 

But let's not pretend that we don't know what Kodak is doing. They still stick to the same 19th century gameplan of

duping the customer.

[tony_duda]

Kelly, perhaps I could have done a better job of wording my first post. The gentleman over on the APUG site stated

that there is a very specific layer, unique to the Ektar/RG 25 emulsion, that "crystals" form on when exposed to

freezing temperatures. According to him, this causes an increased granularity effect when the film has been stored

at those temperatures for prolonged periods. I don't think that he stated the particular layer, itself, froze. What I don't

understand is why you would question this, as this poster (I know who he is) was a photographic engineer at Kodak

for many years, was a member of teams that created several emulsions, and perhaps, even the emulsion in

question? To suggest that he didn't do well in his high school science class, or somehow has a "hole" in his

science, is somewhat insulting. I have no idea of your academic background, but whatever it may be, I do think you

should defer to someone that has more knowledge about this particular emulsion than either of us.

[25asa]

"They've replaced 100UC with a new film that has less saturation and finer grain"

 

How do you know it has LESS saturation then the UC films? From Kodak's chart Ektar 100 has MORE saturation then the VC films which seems to be in the same ballpark as the UC films. All the new film has is less contrast then UC.

 

As as for Ron who worked for Kodak, he is also a member of this site and has written up many informative film design posts. He knows what he is talking about.

[stephen_delear]

I hate to rain on any ones parade but 100UC is CRAP! RG-100 a decade ago had a better color range. 100UC has very fine grain but IT GIVES GOLDEN LIGHT A PINK CAST!!!! I'm sorry but Portria and Velvia both have a better tonal range then 100UC. I've got shots on Portria that have better brown tones then 100UC.

[arjun_mehra]

Stephen, I'm not sure about your experience, but mine with 100UC has been consistently excellent. It's not as though I'm basing my opinion on a data-sheet, here; I've used Ultra Color 100 for a time now, and I love it.

[stephen sullivan]

Dude- Get a Grip.

 

Last year Kodak updated it's T-MAX 400 (many people refer to it as TMY2.) Who's complaining? I'm sure that there

are a few, maybe you're one of them.

 

Kodak in the past few years has had some real winners. Updates to it's Portra Line-Up. Updates to Plus-X, T-Max

100 and now T-Max 400 (TMY2)

 

I hardly ever shoot C-41, but when I did, I loved Ektar 25. And, I'm looking very forward to shooting a few rolls of the

new Ektar 100.

 

IMO- 100UC never scaned as nicely as does TMY2 and the Portra Films.

[25asa]

I don't recall Kodak ever updated Plus X or TMAX 100. Im only aware they updated TMAX 400. Can you lead me to a link about the Plus X and TMAX 100 where it says they've updated them? And why then wouldn't they update Tri-X?