benny_spinoza Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <p>Lets all send e-mail to Obama that part of his stimulus package should include 10 million to Kodak to bring Ektar 100 to 120 and 220 format. Compared to most of what's in the stimulus package, I think that would be one of the better expenditures.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <p>JW<br> "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"<br> <br /><br> Firstly Ektar uses some technologies from Kodaks Vision line, which is very different from saying this is vision film 'adapted for C-41' just like Teflon™ has a variety of uses from clothes to non stick pans– same substance different application.<br> Consumer film is very different from cine film, it is unlikely that labs will be 'forced' to deal with cine film as that film has much lower CI because it is designed to be duplicated onto high contrast projection (transmissive) dupe stock. Cine film makes a poor medium for print (reflective) output (draw yourself a quadrant tone reproduction diagram to see the problems) because of its very low contrast.<br> Secondly if digital takes over the movie business completely (very doubtful) that will not necessarily signal an end to all colour film, it is possible that small runs of colour film can be made just for stills, film although not as profitable as 10 years ago is still a profit making medium for many manufacturers including Kodak.<br> <br /><br> <br /><br> <br /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_p Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <p >JW</p><p ><em>Personally, I think Ektar shows that film for photography is pretty much dead</em>.... <em>Ektar borrows cine film tech.</em></p><p > All digital cameras borrow computers tech. A digi cam, same as all modern computers, is implementing binary digits theory to represent all numbers and data (That’s why they are called “digital”, but there’re only two digits involved: 0 and 1). In technical term it means: signal off and signal on. This theory was introduced in mid 30’s last century. But electric signal has been found somewhere in 18th century. The difference between modern computers and that introduced 70 yrs ago is only the speed of data processing and algorithms. And a lot of toys, of course. </p><p > Having said that, may I suggest that the digital photography was dead even before it’s born since it implements quite outdated tech? I guess most digital shooters just don’t care where this dummy digital tech came from (or just don’t know – lack of elementary education). As long as they enjoy playing those toys they are fine. <br> <p >Joseph, I admire your expertise in grocery shopping and cheese selections. I also may reveal some knowledge is this field and explain you why I prefer to invest my money to buying good quality sausage and not to digital cameras. But on this forum we’re discussing photography issues, not grocery.</p><p > Personally I don’t care where the Ektar borrows its tech. As much as it delivers the result I want, this film works for me. The Ektar is the replacement for 100UC as far as i see. I don’t remember we ever had 100UC in 120 format.</p></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <p>Roman,<br>Once upon a time.....there was 100UC in 120 format. (Also, 400UC.) I got the images to prove it. Seriously...it wasn't too many years ago when UC was in 120 format. When the newer version of Portra VC came out, Kodak discontinued UC in 120 format, claiming that the new VC was very close to UC.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <p><img src="http://www.ultrafineonline.com/koulco220pro.html" alt="" /> <img src="http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-2405092478071_2028_8989259" alt="" width="160" height="160" /> <br /> http://www.ultrafineonline.com/koulco220pro.html</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_p Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <p >Larry, this is 400UC on the picture, not 100UC…</p><p > </p><p >Yes, alright, I guess I’m wrong. Sorry for making wrong assumption. But I really didn’t know that Kodak UC line is used by professionals much. </p><p > </p><p >Benny, it’s very interesting what you said about VC vs UC. I’m not using much C-41, but if I need to shoot neg the 400VC and 400UC are my favorite. Definitely there’re some similarities but they are different as well. It’s like Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F. So far Fuji keeps both of them in any possible formats. And I really like to see Ektar in 400 speed. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <p>100 and 400 were made. Just no 100 left except on ebay.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Firstly Ektar uses some technologies from Kodaks Vision line, which is very different from saying this is vision film 'adapted for C-41' just like Teflon™ has a variety of uses from clothes to non stick pans– same substance different application.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you for making my case so well.</p> <p>The cine business funded Kodak's "Vision" line. You wouldn't have a photographic version without the cine version. And that's rather similar to Teflon. Visions required a lot of funding. Although Teflon was discovered by accident, technology for large scale production and forming it into tubing and insulating tape was fantastically expensive. At first this was funded by the US military, because it turned out to be incredibly useful in uranium refining plants, missile guidance systems, amunition, armor, etc. After being cleared for civilian use, DuPont put big money into industrial applications, from Teflon pipe tape to the outrageously expensive wiring in my burner ignitor...</p> <p>There would be no Teflon cookware or stain fighting clothing without the big military and industrial customers.</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> Consumer film is very different from cine film,</p> </blockquote> <p>Only by the standards of optical printing. How many color labs still do that?</p> <blockquote> <p>it is unlikely that labs will be 'forced' to deal with cine film as that film has much lower CI because it is designed to be duplicated onto high contrast projection (transmissive) dupe stock. Cine film makes a poor medium for print (reflective) output (draw yourself a quadrant tone reproduction diagram to see the problems) because of its very low contrast.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you for making my point for me, again. If you can draw a curve for it, a digital lab can compensate for it. So, based on your argument, having separate films for photo and cine use is a totally obsolete concept.</p> <p>Man, you don't need me. Your own examples demolish your arguments.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 <p>Follow the money. not the people I never attacked you I know how it goes i am just enjoying the ride as long as I am a passenger. I can't be in the Drivers seat for this one nor was Ansel Adams.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 <p>JW<br> "The cine business funded Kodak's "Vision" line. You wouldn't have a photographic version without the cine version"<br> Yes but that doesn't mean they are the SAME product dopes it?<br> Just like I can't fry eggs on a Gore Tex jacket even though they both use Teflon- sheesh man<br> JW<br> "Man, you don't need me. Your own examples demolish your arguments"<br> What a silly argument you have Joe.<br> If you think labs are going to be 'forced to use cine film' explain this:<br> A lab having a reduced amount of film suddenly has to re-equip in order to process this film?<br> You are forgetting that cine film is radically different from consumer stock, it has a backing that must be removed in an alkaline wash, to do that you need to process the film in a continuos leader film processor which is fine for 35mm but what about 120 and sheet films? Would you expect a lab to get rid of their D&D machines and re-equip to process a smaller market of cine films?<br> "So, based on your argument, having separate films for photo and cine use is a totally obsolete concept".<br> No that' obviously false. cine film and consumer film although using similar technologies are not interchangeable for general use.<br> You seem to be mis understanding how digital labs work, machines like the Frontier could not be reconfigured to print cine film, neither could a digital Lab the target material (your print paper) would need to be re-formulated to a higher gamma, you couldn't 'just apply a curve' when printing through a minilab.<br> You could do this if youy scanned each individual neg and output on ink-jets through photoshop but that would be more expensive and time consuming.<br> Your arguments don't make economic sense, the amount of investment would not be worth it.<br> Just because something has a synergetic relationship doesn't mean it is an equivalent.<br> Don't expect your cine film everywhere in five years to happen<br> <br /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brent_bennett Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 <p>Many months ago I read that a company is selling Ektar movie film in 36 exp. rolls for still pictures. They also process it, since the processing is different (can't take it to Costco!). I can't find my notes but I am curious following all the discussion about the two existing Ektars: Has anyone read of comparison tests with these two films?<br> Also, I would request that when people call Kodak, please ask that they make it available in 220 as well as 120. My camera will take either, and I would really like to get it in 220.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brent_bennett Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 <p>Follow Up: I just checked on the Ektar movie film. It was sold and processed by A&I. They had it for about 2 years and dropped it due to lack of sales. Processing was ECN-2. It was actually Kodak 50D and Fuji F-64D that I was interested in. Other higher speed films were also offered.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 <p>I have seen short ends of the 50D for sale on the net I think 300 feet was the minimunm. Dales has a ENC processing line also.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 <p>"I can't find my notes but I am curious following all the discussion about the two existing Ektars"<br> There is only one Ektar and that is a consumer film, as far as I know (a call to Kodak reps confirm this) there is no Ektar cine film. Kodaks cine film neg is called Vision and has been since 1996. Before 96 they were called EXR but never Ektar.<br> The current Ektar uses some technologies from cine film but is NOT cine film a product related to but not the same as.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_mont Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 <p>If anyone wants to shoot movie film Dale Labs spools up Kodak movie film (not sure exactly what) and sells it with their name on it. I have a roll in front of my that I want to try just to see what it can do and it says that it uses the CNK-4/ECP-2 process. I guess this was a big think with the Seattle Film Works a while back. You can order this film from them for about $3 per roll........</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a._valerio Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 <p>Not to stray too far from topic, but...</p> <p>Patrick, where does Dale offer MP film and do you know what type it is? I see no mention of it here:</p> <p><a href="http://www.dalelabs.com/order35mm.html">http://www.dalelabs.com/order35mm.html</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverscape Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 <p>I guess this is getting WAY off the topic now, but I just noticed that you guys started talking about movie film. I just wanted to point out that you can still easily order 8mm, Super-8, and 16mm movie film. You'll have to order it, but if you do a search on Google, you will find a lot of places where you can order movie film online. <br /><br />I have a collection of vintage 8mm cameras, and I shoot with them sometimes just as a hobby. Dwayne's Photo sells and develops movie film. <br> I'm sure everyone knows the website for Dwayne's Photo. Just go to the site and then click on the <em>Order Forms </em>tab on the top of the screen. Then go to <em>Movie Film </em>and then <em>Movie Film For Sale</em>.<br> <a href="http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/">http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/</a><br> There is also another place I found, in Hollywood, California, called <em>Spectra Film and Video</em>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Film.html">http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Film.html</a><br> But just do a search on Google and you'll find plenty of other places too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverscape Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 <p>...Okay wait a minute. I just checked out that link for that Dale Labs place, and I don't know if I'm using that calculator and order form right...but it looks like they're charging <strong>$15 to process 1 roll of color film, with 1 set of 3X5 prints</strong>! Are they serious?! <strong>$15?!<br /><br /></strong>That's insane! I can get <em>movie</em> film developed for less than that. I don't think Dwayne's Photo or any other place I have ever seen charges that much. Not even for slide film. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 <p>Chris that is a fair price when you consider what is being offered, you do understand that this is cine film? and that film is processed in a special machine, probably printed on a printer that has been converted/adapted to print that film. It might even be printed by hand.<br> They sure aren't using a C41 mini-lab and a Frontier.<br> What we need isn't cine film- that would be too problematic. Ektar uses a technology from Kodaks Vision line of films called 2 electron sensitisation which has the potential of doubling the photographic speed because two electrons are injected per absorbed photon.<br> This is an emulsion technology that uses electron-rich carboxylate molecules to prevent re-combination of photolytic silver in the latent image making the image formation process more efficient.<br> The process described above is the most important emulsion advance since the introduction of the 'T' grain and one which Kodak is sure to implement across many emulsions, we should be happy that Kodak Research is still pushing the envelope in what is probably films 'twilight years' <br> At least films will become faster and or less grainy to catch what is left of the twilight ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverscape Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 <p>Mark, on that link to Dale Labs, it only says "<strong>send us your color 35mm film</strong>." It does not say anything about any kind of special cine film. From what is on that form, it looks like that is the price for developing a standard C-41 color film.<br />So I still have to ask, why are their prices so high? If it is hand printed or if they have some sort of special processing service, I guess I would understand that...but it does NOT say anything about that on that page. It just says send 35mm color film for developing and prints.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabbiinc Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 <p>I emailed Kodak, inspired by this discussion. I asked if they planned on making it in different ISOs or making it in 120. There reply is this</p> <blockquote> <p>Hello Dan,<br /> <br /> We have not heard of plans to make Ektar in 120 format or expanded ISOs. I have forwarded your request on to the appropriate people though. The more requests, the better chance of it happening.<br /> <br /> Regards,<br /> Kodak </p> </blockquote> <p>I emailed the wrong department of course. Maybe I should write a letter too.<br> Dan<br /> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 <p>Chris I have to admit I didn't read the link but understood from a previous post Dale processed ECN2.<br> There can be lots of reasons for films costing more than 'normal" minilab prices, I think in this case it sounds like they might be printing optically, 3"x5" is an old size offered before 4"x6" became the norm. I remember my first minilab in the early mid 80's (a Copal) did 3"x5" when we bought the Noritsu 33% bigger 4"x6" were the standard.<br> The last prints we offered that were 3x5 were printed optically on a Agfa 30MC each frame being tested and individually graded using a test mask.<br> Give them a ring, if they are printing optically or grading by hand that could explain the price</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 <p>Chris just looking round their site<br> http://www.dalelabs.com/frontpagelink_whydalelabs.html</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viridari Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 <p>Given that Kodak doesn't sell directly to end users for still camera film, might it not be better to lobby the people that we buy from and get them to leverage their actual buying power?<br> I mean, if Adorama called Kodak and said "if you did a run of Ektar 100 in 120, we would buy <em>n</em> cases the first year" that would carry some weight!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_pallas Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 <p>I sold my last 120 kit a couple of weeks ago. I felt quite sad because I had it since the early 90's and used it a lot. On the other hand in recent years I wasn't using it at all.</p> <p>In the days that i did use medium format a lot I was sending transparencies to magazines and they would reproduce directly from the slide which provided sublime reproduction quality. Today, I am using digital all the time because editorial staff want images ready to use and the repro quality in magazines today are often so poor medium format is a waste anyway.</p> <p>However, I think I sold the gear mainly because I feel that days are numbered for film. When Hollywood goes 100% digital then I really can't see Kodak making 35mm film far less 120mm. Maybe Fuji will continue but at some point the traditionalist photographer must die out leaving the youth who are weaned on digital capture.</p> <p>So I think I made the right decision because although I was sentimental about my medium format gear it really wasn't providing much pleasure locked away in a cupboard.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now