Elitechrome 100

[nick_h5]

<p>Please can i ask if Kodak Elitechrome is a archival stable film?. A friend mentioned he has had problems with fungus on this film. On looking through his collection last night,his Fuji and Kodachrome slides are still in good condition to my eye.</p>

<p>Could this just be a result of poor processing on the fifty or so Elitechrome slides?.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Fungus can affect any film, they all have gelatin emulsions, which are great food for fugus given the right temperature and humidity. Keep any processed film cool and dry -- air conditioning is important.<br>

This is completely independent of dye stability.<br>

For dark storage, Kodachrome remains the most stable color film.<br>

The Kodak Ektachrome and Elite Chrome films are about as stable as E-6 slide films come, and are probably more stable than most or all C-41 negative films. But no color film is "archival" the way an archivally processed B&W negative or print can be. Dyes are much less stable than metallic silver.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I have found great differences among slides stored under the same conditions of Ektachrome and similar process films. Interestingly, Ektachrome processed by Kodak themselves is invariably well-preserved, while other processor's development often has faded over 50 years or less to pale memories of the original color. Did Kodak not tell the others something? Or, as seems more likely, did the other processors just not take the care that Kodak did in order to cut costs?<br /> Elitechrome hasn't really been around long enough to show just <em>how</em> long it will last, but since Kodachrome is gone, it probably will be as good as any. I've also had good luck with early 1960s Fujichrome.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As for the original question on "archival" film. No color film with the partial exception of dark-stored Kodachrome approaches true archival status. The closest you can come is to make color separations in B&W (maybe using platinum or palladium).</p>

<p>For examples of really archival color see the recent find of some more pre-WWI 3-negative color pictures from Czarist Russia ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/rare-color-photos-of-the-_n_785798.html#186298 )</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Kodak's line of E-6 films are some of the most image- stable films on the market! They are really great in terms of keeping for a long time. Tests done by the Wilhelm institute have shown it is quite possible that Elite Chrome or Ektachrome would surpass Kodakchrome in this. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Just a guess from my end but I would say 50 yrs should not be a problem if the film is stored in a decent environment. I think Elitechrome is a wonderful film. Perfect for a natural look with excellent grain. Skin tones are great also. My only issue with the film is the overall cost to shoot it. </p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Ross- If you buy Elite Chrome from a bigger place in the us such as B&H, it is more affordable. <br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Elite+Chrome&N=4291384683">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Elite+Chrome&N=4291384683</a><br>

There are also places like Clark Color lab who do awesome processing at only $3.95....<br>

www.Clarkcolorlab.com</p>

[nick_h5]

<p>Thank you very much for the advice gents.</p>

<p>I looked through some previous postings and i came across a few threads about color slides affected by Fungus, and Ektachrome was mentioned on many ocassions. I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I can tell my friend its just one of those things, and storage conditions of the past are to blame.</p>

<p>All the best.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_lane2]

<p>The responses to this thread are very encouraging. I have been using Elitechromes for more than ten years now - in fact it has been my film mainstay. I have often wondered about its longevity and this answers my question. The stuff I shot a decade ago looks every bit as good as my latest stuff.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Anecdotal evidence: Most of the slides from my childhood (some going on 30 yrs old) are still in pretty good shape. They've been stored in the closet all these years. The early ones are Kodachrome; the later ones must have some E-6 mixed in. The ones that are degraded are mostly Seattle Filmworks crap - not E-6.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, as you have figured out and some of the contributors have said, fungus is not an <em>archival</em> problem it is a <em>storage conditions</em> problem.</p>

<p>No one questions that a glass lens can last for a very long time, but fungus will even grow on glass given the wrong humidity and so on.</p>

<p>As for E-6 outlasting K-14? Maybe, but such tests can only approximate what happens in real time. Let's hope it does, but nowadays you can do digital separations easily and produce archival materials -- for any image I felt had to last for a hundred years or more, that's still the only <em>sure</em> way.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Patrick, Thanks for the information. I currently purchase all my film from BHPhoto. I have not heard of ClarksColorlab but it does look to be much cheaper. I guess I do not want to send the film that far however. It would take a very long time before it was returned. I can see that at $3.95 for a roll fof E6 they should have no problem getting most of the business. I suppose film processing will eventually become the domain of a few large places like this that do it all. Currently I shoot C41 and send it to Picture Preview in Beaverton. For 4.50 they process the film, scan it to an on-line account and mail back the negs. It takes 3 days from the time I mail it to being able to download my photos. In addition to the $4.50 it cost me 4 stamps to ship it from my mailbox. Return shipping is included in the $4.50. However they charge $10.50 for all that with E-6. Toss in 4 stamps and the cost of film and it gets expensive. I live in a smaller town with no processing available except C-41. They drag the negs on the floor so I do not use them.</p>

[christopher_platt]

<p>According to the data provided here modern E6 films processed using best practices<br>

(e.g. current Elitechrome film processed by a lab adhering to Kodak Q-Lab standard)<br>

will be<strong> <em>more stable </em></strong><em></em>over time ("archival") than Kodachrome in light or dark storage:<br>

<a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html">http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html</a><br>

<br>

Chris</p>

[johnny_smith5]

<p>"The ones that are degraded are mostly Seattle Filmworks crap - not E-6."</p>

<p>As someone who has handled plenty of ECP, and even measured the old hit dots printed on it with a densitometer, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the stock itself.<br>

The tricky thing about color processing (B&W too with wash times) is that all it takes to make it highly unstable is a run through an inadequately replenished stabilizer bath at the end. That's all.</p>

<p>Since 1980 both Kodak and Fuji have made huge strides forward with the color stability of their products. All modern motion picture print stocks are coated on Polyester base instead of Cellulose Triacetate.<br>

Even your Kodachromes are coated on this unstable base that is subject to vinegar syndrome.</p>

<p>Sure, you want to shoot the most archival film possible. I'd say in this day and age that that is polyester base C-41 or E-6 from Fuji, if you can even get it any more. It used to be special order for instrumentation or high speed instrumentation or long roll cameras.</p>

<p>I work printing ECP from C-41 and ECN negatives every week now. And I just don't like blanket statements about film manufacturer quality when they're thirty plus years out of date.<br>

You are barking up the wrong tree: Don't hate the player, hate the game. If customers accept unarchival results, improperly-fixed,stabilized prints, why SHOULDN'T the bulk labs get away with it? They want to get it out the door and go home. If you don't do fade tests on a sample of your processed work to ensure they are held accountable for shoddy results, you are just as much to blame.</p>

<p>All I can say, is that we've come a long way being able to display the same photographic prints in DIRECT SUNLIGHT for years, compared to having prints fade, even in dark storage in less that amount of time.<br>

And finally, as an avid Kodachrome shooter right up until the end, I can tell you that it has always had some of the WORST projection stability of any film. That's why people flocked to Ektachrome in amateur or consumer situations where the film got projected every year in class.</p>

[nick_h5]

<p>Can i assume according to prehaps more recent research, than the very helpfull Wilhelm Research studies. That current Elitechrome/Ektachrome 100 products, to have similar light/dark fade stability as the current Fujichrome emulsions?.</p>

<p><br />Seem to be reading conflicting reports on this. A few online articles have mentioned that Fuji E6 outlasts Kodak E6 etc. However if i have read the data supplied by Wilhelm correct,does suggest a slightly better dark keeping result for Ektachrome than tested Fujichrome?.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>