randall_pukalo Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Ingold...whats your deal, do you have some kind of axe to grind with Film? If so, GTFO (Get out of This FOrum) of this forum, as it is basically all about FILM cameras, for the most part. Your time would be better spent working over your RAW files in Photoshop to fix the blown highlights and white balance issues ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p><em>As with any smart company we will never know exactly what $ film produced -- as its lumped in with various other legacy items purposely.</em></p><p>Thank you for coming clean, Paul. As you know Kodak's financial report lumps film, photofinishing and entertainment into a single category, which is shrinking rapidly. One suspects, but an outsider can never officially know the contribution of film in this category. It would be nice if more items in the Kodak report were not enclosed in parentheses.</p><p>Randall,<br>Cool your jets! If others can make statements regarding the resurgence of film at Kodak I am entitled to put them in perspective. It is nice that Kodak has relabeled a movie film as "Ektar 100", and it may indeed be wonderful. I intend to try it, but that's as far as it goes. I don't have an "axe to grind with Film (sic)" <em>per se</em>, rather with those who make unrealistic assertions. How odd that your response is the first to even mention "digital". Do you have an axe to grind?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donnie_strickland Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p>Ektar 100 is not a relabeled movie film. See <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00SDLD?unified_p=1">this thread</a>, and particularly Ron Andrews' comments.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall_pukalo Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Look, your basically bashing film with your antagonistic quips, or "Raining on the Parade" and I think you know it. If you dont share our excitement over Ektar going 120, just dont comment in this thread, its that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p>Edward, it's not a movie film (Cine film). Please, do your homework before you come to a film forum and pretend to be an expert in that arena. Your posts are borderline trolling.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p><em>If you dont share our excitement over Ektar going 120, just dont comment in this thread, its that easy.</em></p> <p>I've done nothing to bash film - I'm bashing Kodak, a fine company sabotaged by its own (mis)management and lack of foresight. I'm also standing up to those who pull facts out of an hat to support their prejudices. Sacred cow makes the best barbeque.</p> <p><em>Please, do your homework before you come to a film forum and pretend to be an expert in that arena.</em><br> <em></em><br> The charter of this form encompasses both film and digital (read the little balloon as you enter). However, this is not a "film vs digital" issue, and it's a weak argument to paint it otherwise. Is it just possible, outside of your cloister, that they are not mutually exclusive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p>Ektar 100 in 120 would be a worthy addition of yet another back for my Mamiya.</p> <p>Edward, I do not know what you shoot today, but Ektar 100 in just 35mm outresolves the 5DII and has almost twice the dynamic range. 120 has almost 5 times the detail of 35mm when scanned.<br> If you dropped medium format for a crop sensor DSLR, I can understand why this is a sensitive subject. I would still give it a try and who knows, you may come back full circle back to film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 <p>These are some shots with Ektar 100 35mm for people who haven't had the chance to try it yet. 120 is a great addition to the world of photography.<br> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/5/412869552_SU8dE#412869552_SU8dE-X3-LB<br> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/5/412869552_SU8dE#412882634_PtEoi-X3-LB<br> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412836438_dfYZh-X3-LB</p> <p>This is Ektar 35mm next to the 5DII:<br> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#468030922_WQLZp-X3-LB</p> <p>This is Ektar 35mm next to TMX, Velvia and Canon 40D:<br> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6616619_YJEwK#471880876_V8LEa-O-LB</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmdelux Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Edward -- your attitude is like that of the Grand Inquistor. I dont appreciate your comment, "Thank you for coming clean, Paul," attempting to make it look like I am being less than truthful. I'll bet your a really nice guy in person, but your attitude needs a major realignment.<br> Go get a drink; in fact make it a double.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw63 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>I don't care if it's remarketed Wrigley's chewing gum. If it takes good pictures and is cheaper than slides, I'll try it. In fact, I have 4 boxes ,of the 35mm type, on my shelf.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippartridge Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>leopards and spots...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Edward, please let me know why you think Ektar 100 is rebadged Pro Cine film. If that were the case Ektar 100 would be formulated to work best under tungsten light. I shoot a lot under tungsten and this would be the prefect emulsion for me.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>"Kodak may (or may not*) have grossed 3B from film sales, but they lost 800M in 2008 out of gross revenues of just over 9B. For those of you unfamiliar with accounting practices, gross sales and profits are not the same thing. In the last 10 years, their stock has lost 90% of its value."<br> You have made a comment that applies to most companies these days. Look at the stock charts of hundreds of companies.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p><em>Ektar 100 in just 35mm outresolves the 5DII and has almost twice the dynamic range.</em></p> <p>According to charts in the technical data sheet for Ektar 100, the resolution at MTF10 is about 100 lp/mm (40 lp/mm at MTF50) and the dynamic range is just under 10 stops. According to tests performed by DPReview, the 5DII has a dynamic range of 8.4 stops at ISO 100 and a resolution of 78 lp/mm. Ektar is better in both respects, but not to the extent asserted above. While I see no compelling advantage to 35mm film over small-format digital, medium format film is another matter. It will be interesting to put it through its paces in an Hasselblad and LS-8000.</p> <p>The performance of Ektar 100, on paper anyway, is not significantly different than other ISO 100 negative color films such as Fuji Reala. Kodak's sell point is Ektar's fine grain rather than resolution. As we know, fine grain does not automatically confer high resolution. The main reason I have avoided Kodak film for years is that they make major changes before I can get warm and fuzzy with a particular emulsion, and it was (is) often hard to get in quantity when I need it. It's kind of the GM mentality - change it and they'll buy more. (Kodak might have pulled it off if they could make film rust.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>cool.....wondered why they didn't do this in the first place...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdrose Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>This will put a smile on my self-portrait at Facebook.</p><p>Wow! My Mamiya RZ67 was starving for a new gourmet meal. Thank You Mr. Eastman!!!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>I don't care what Kodak's profits, gross sales, turnover, etc. are. It's none of my business.</p> <p>I just know that I did a little happy dance when I first heard about Ektar 100 in 120 size!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisarguelles Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>And digital people was saying "film is dead". They are claiming so since 2000. Kodak knows digital is "the market", but there is still enough demand of film, well above the market critical mass, for making an interesting profit. Moreover, the experience of Kodak with film and its proven technology makes it easy for them to get a big benefit per roll of film. In my opinion, after the "film is dead" motto, the actual tendency is going to be "film has survived". My Rolleiflex is very happy this morning!</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilserenity Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Awesome news! I've been using Pro 160C and Reala 100 as my main C41 film in my Mamiya C330, but this is just brilliant news given how much I have enjoyed using this film so far.<br> Hopefully it'll be in the UK by May then :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Edward, where in the publication is stated 10 stops of dynamic range? Or you are you deriving from the density curve.<br> Anyhow, Ektar 100 has 0ver 14 stops.</p> <p>Truth is (as usual tested by myself fore I quote it), Ektar 100 has over 14 stops:<br> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/2/424020444_n2LsD#424020444_n2LsD-O-LB</p> <p>.... at least the batch I got...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>On the congratulatory note;</p> <p>Edward, I have to admit I am positively surprised you acknowledged that 35mm film outresolves the latest Canon full frame DSLR. In 2009.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Mauro, don't show that test to Daniel Taylor.....you might get a bunch of links to Clarkvision, Koren, and Luminous Landscape sites trying to prove you wrong ;-)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p><em>Edward, I have to admit I am positively surprised you acknowledged that 35mm film outresolves the latest Canon full frame DSLR. </em></p> <p>I have never maintained otherwise. However the difference is not enough to write home about. Furthermore, the acutance of the Canon far surpasses that of film, so results will look sharper than film even if the absolute resolution is less.</p> <p>I derive the dynamic range from the characteristic curve (density) produced by Kodak using calibrated instruments and a well-established method. It is the only basis for objectively measuring dynamic range. The exposure is on a logarithmic scale, and the range can be expressed as f/stops by dividing differences by log(2) = 0.301. The toe is counted only to the point where its slope is greater than about 10%, which is about the lower limit of useful contrast.</p> <p>I have seen your experiment and find it to be subjective and and deeply flawed. Your method does not accurately control nor measure the light falling on the tin soldiers, and you attempt to create a gradient by flagging the light source. The subjects are lighted from one side, so each subject has bright and dark parts. If you can see any detail in any part of the figures, you count it as "inside" the dynamic range. The scanner you use to measure your results cannot have anywhere close to 14 stops range. I could go on. Let us say that you provided amusement for enough people to make a thread of record-breaking length when you published it in the Film Forum. I think Reverend Moon fooled a lot of people too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>The test may be flawed Edward, but regardless, the film beat the 40D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall_pukalo Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 <p>Ok, lets end the war, and get back on track with our celebration over Ektar going 120.<br> Kodak, I Thank You greatly for This. Glad to see you have not given up on film!!! And BTW, thanks for many of my favorite emulsions like EBX, BW400CN, 400UC (hope you replace with an Ektar 400), and of course, Kodachrome.</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