Ektachrome's Demise and Longevity of C-41

[nbg90455]

<p>Had a question for the experts. On a different forum post (about successors to E100G), it was mentioned that Kodak itself hinted that they intended Ektar 100 film to be maybe be the successor, but I was wondering about the long-term storage of C-41 negatives.<br>

While there are plenty of (poorly processed) Ektachrome slides from the 1970s and 1980s with major colorshift and fading, at least they are usually salvageable in Photoshop. Any of my C-41 negatives from the 1970s are just blank orange strips without any apparent "information" on them. It was always my understanding that C-41 negatives (since they do not contain any silver anymore) are not "archival" and therefore not a usable medium for long term storage.<br>

<strong>Big question -- is that still the case?</strong><br>

While I enjoy 35mm slide shows immensely, much of my recent color work has been in 6x9 and can't be watched in slide shows (although it looks great on a light table :-) ). I use slide film for that because of my perception on long term storage. So, if I were to switch to Ektar 100, will all my negatives be gone in 20, 30 years ?</p>

[richard_eaton1]

<p>Ektachrome and C-41 are quite similar in basic design, as you can, of course, cross-process E6 films in C-41 and get quite usable (if querky!) results. My Father's early C-22 and C-41 negs were processed by the Kodak manufacturer service which was then available (also E4 slides by Kodak) are still fine).<br>

As with poor processing of Ektachrome, I'm sure there was, and still is, good and bad C-41 processing. Maybe more so than Ektachrome, as there are alternative independent versions of C-41 which use shortcuts like combined bleach-fix baths and variations of stablizer, which some people argue are not as good as the full Kodak (or Fuji) versions.<br>

I'm comfortable that the latest Kodak (and Fuji) color films <em>with proper processing </em>are as-good-as-it-gets for longevity. If you really need an absolute guarantee that you negs will be "as new" in 100 years, however, you will need to investigate archival properties and special storage recommendations.</p>

[peter_mounier]

<p>I've been scanning some of my old C41 negs from the late 70's, and although they turned out well, I could tell there was some minimal fading, producing color shifts that needed to be fixed in PS. The oldest one that I'm certain of the date, was shot in 1977, so I am happy that film from the 70's is still good after 35 years. Film made today must be even better.</p>

<p>Peter</p><div></div>

[starvy]

Peter,

That is a lovely shot. I wonder if the storage temperature has any bearing on deterioration?

[peter_mounier]

<p>I've always kept the neg in polyester sleeve and in the dark, but I haven't given temperature much consideration. I live on the central Cal. coast, so it rarely gets above 70 degrees f., so that helps I'm sure.</p>

<p>Thanks for the compliment on the pic! It's the Stanislaus River in Northern Cal.</p>

<p>Peter</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>See the <a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_05_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf">relevant chapter of Wilhelm's book</a>.<br>

Current C-41 and E-6 films are of equal levels of stability. Of course, it depends on the quality of the processing. I'm sure some labs skipped the Formaldehyde stabilization step that was required for C-41 until 2000, and that greatly undermines color stability. (Lots of workplace safety issues with Formaldehyde.)<br>

The "bad boys" stability-wise from Kodak were Kodacolor II, Vericolor, and Vericolor II. By Vericolor III, Kodak had their C-41 negative stability act together. I'd presume that today the Portra films remain more stable than the consumer "Gold" films, since they can use more expensive color dyes. (The consumer films are under enormous competitive price pressures.)<br>

Remember that the C-41 process is truly as Kodak wanted it. The E-6 process was compromised by not using CD6 (Color Developer 6), due to anti-trust lawsuits filed against Kodak by independent film processing companies after Kodak obsoleted all their C-22 lines with the announcement of C-41. So the E-6 process didn't get as big a change from E-4 as Kodak would have liked. (Kodak did switch to CD6 in K-14 Kodachrome process, which made it better.)<br>

That said, I've seen Kodacolor fading to be much more benign than the "classic" Ektachrome fading. With scanning, even ancient Kodacolor comes out quite fine with a little skill in levels and curves.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I keep stuff in photo boxes in the closet. Some of the real old stuff is in a large trunk and some of the really old stuff is in suitcases from the 30's give or take a bit. Photos and negatives for 100 years of my extended families.</p>

[nbg90455]

<p>Thanks everyone -- I guess I stand corrected, and will migrate to Ektar 100 film for the larger formats. For 35mm, I will stock up on E100VS for now...</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Portra 400 is also very nice. Now that 400NC and 400VC have merged into one emulsion, it has a little more color zip (saturation), but nothing excessive.<br>

Ektar 100 saturation is probably up there with E100VS. <br>

Portra 400 saturation is lower than E100G, but it is similarly "clean" looking to my eye. Of course it has less contrast! But you can "amp it up" easily in post processing.<br>

Portra 160 is so low contrast (enormous dynamic range) it's like no slide film there ever was. (Well, maybe Super Anscochrome once it fades.)<br>

The good news is that anyplace that processes C-41 sheet film is quite unlikely to cut corners.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I wouldn't want to dispute Wilhelm, but my C-41 shots have not survived well at all, compared to E-6. In shots that are only 15 years old, I've already got significant color shift. And a friend of mine who was well regarded in the print world, and a museum curator, would buy transparencies for the museum's collection, but he would never buy a color negative, due to color shift issues. I have my doubts, but I also have a refrigerator full of E100 and Provia.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>The long term stability of color negative materials is questionable. Fortunately, faded negatives are not hard to correct when scanning. </p>

<p>First we need to look at the test methods the Henry Wilhelm discusses in the link that John Shriver provided. IMHO, the tables that report the "Days necessary for a 20% loss in the least stable image dye" are worse than worthless. They are highly misleading. They only thing they are good for is predicting the fading at 144 F (or whatever temperature used in a specific test). The results that are highly useful are the "Estimated Years of Dark Storage for 20% Loss of Least Stable Image Dye". See the tables on pages 202 and 203. For these predictions, the film samples were subjected to a variety of high temperature treatments. The dye fade rates are extrapolated back to room temperature. These tests aren't perfect, but there is a huge body of testing that establishes these predictions as the best we know how to do.</p>

<p>Results: The problem with C-41 materials is nearly always the yellow dye. Kodak C-41 films are typically predicted to last 35 to 65 years under these conditions. By comparison, Kodachrome is predicted to last 185 years while Ektachrome is predicted to last 220 years. </p>

<p>Having maligned the image stability of some of the products that I helped design, I should also point out that is is easy to recover a good image form color negatives while scanning. I have scanned every generation of color neg materials from 1954 to the present day. I have yet to find a blank negative. I would estimate that more than half of the yellow dye had faded in the 1950s era negs. Here is an example of one of those scans:</p>

<p><img src="http://photos.randrews4.com/photos/510293455_7qAea-M.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The sharpness of awful because it was a cheap camera. The recent scan of this 1955 Kodacolor neg looks much better than the print. </p>

 

[john_shriver]

<p>Keep them in an air-conditioned room, and they will probably outlive you. Even the original horribly unstable Ektachromes can be great if kept cool. I have beautiful Ektachromes from 1956 -- and wretched ones -- all processed by Kodak. The wretched ones probably spent a few summers at 100 degrees F.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Some of your questions are more nearly answered with something approximating real test data in the publications of Wilhelm Imaging Research.</p>

<p>Discussion and links to old and new files at http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00a4RP</p>

[nbg90455]

<p>I have not read the whole Wilhelm book, but I am a bit of a skeptic in terms of the underlying methodology. Maybe it was just dishonest marketing people (and not the fault of Wilhelm & friends), but I once purchased an inkjet printer that advertised that it's color prints would last 80 years (according to the _Wilhelm_ methodology), only to have the prints fade beyond recognition in 3 months in my office -- granted, that's all UV ray-blasting CFL bulbs, but still... </p>

[james_smith55]

<p>Kodak C-41 films are typically predicted to last 35 to 65 years under these conditions. By comparison, Kodachrome is predicted to last 185 years while <strong>Ektachrome is predicted to last 220 years.</strong></p>

<p>Yet another reason to shoot mostly B&W and slide film. :( I want to use more Portra and I wish slide film was cheaper. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274846-USA/Kodak_1884576_E100G_135_36_Ektachrome_Professional.html">Almost $11 for 135 36 exp?!</a></p>

[randrew1]

<p>I'm aware of some criticism of Wilhelm's work on inkjet prints, but I suspect the problem in Mike's case is that the prediction was for dark storage and the prints encountered significant light fading. Good dark keeping does not translate to good light keeping. K-12 Kodachrome was much better than E-4 Ektachrome for dark keeping and much poorer for light fading.</p>

<p>I have confidence in the dark fading predictions of Kodak film in Wilhelm's publication. They are based on data published by Kodak. I knew the people who generated the data. They were top notch scientists who consistently produced excellent work. </p>

[sfcole]

<p>If you really need archiving, then get a hi-quality scan. Color film is more often scanned anyway.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Digitising color images is a great way to preserve them as long as someone is around to manage the films. The image archivists at the George Eastman House will tell you that all collectdions of computger files will eventually be lost if they are not backed up and properly managed. I have suggested in other threads that a great way to store color images (digital and analog) for future generations is to copy them onto Ektachrome film. The advantage of this method is that a bunch of slides can sit in a box for 100 years with minimal degradation. Now that these materials are being discontinued, the best convenient method is to make high quality prints. This is not a bad method, but it is hard to capture all of the detail and tone scale of a film image in a print and print materials are not as stable as Ektachrome film, but this is what we are left with. The ultimate in image stability for unattended storage would be B&W separations. This is what Disney has done for years for their animated classics. I don't know of any still labs that offer the service. This would only be worth the time and trouble for very special images.</p>

[eric_s7]

<p> Ron Andrews:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>....I have suggested in other threads that a great way to store color images (digital and analog) for future generations is to copy them onto Ektachrome film. The advantage of this method is that a bunch of slides can sit in a box for 100 years with minimal degradation. Now that these materials are being discontinued, the best convenient method is to make high quality prints. .....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why make prints instead of copying onto Fuji's E6 films? I am sure they are almost as good as Ektachrome, given that they are the same type of film, and are developed with the same chemicals. </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

Unmanaged digital files have a maximum expected lifespan

of around 20 years. Even the worst C41 negatives will last

longer.

[randrew1]

<p>For color films, it is the choice of couplers (the molecules that react with oxidized color developer to form dyes) that have the biggest influence on image stability. Fuji films use couplers that are, in general, not as stable as Kodak films, The comparisons are further complicated in Wilhelm's publication since Fuji reported stability data at 10% RH and 70% RH rather than 40% RH. </p>

<p>Fuji reversal films (40 to 150 years) would be a better choice that any color negative, but not as good as Ektachrome (220 years). </p>

[randrew1]

<blockquote>

<p>Unmanaged digital files have a maximum expected lifespan of around 20 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Is there a source for this? I suspect this is true. The image archivists at the George Eastman House have said that all unmanaged collections of digital files will be lost eventually. They didn't put a number on it. </p>

[nbg90455]

<blockquote>

<p>Unmanaged digital files have a maximum expected lifespan of around 20 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That seems like a heroic assumption -- anyone remember 8" & 5 1/4" floppies, how about MicroChannrel PS/2 hard disks? They died much less than 20 years ago, any are nowhere to be found now. Heck, my dissertation is somewhere on 3 1/2" floppies, and I am down to one computer that can still read them.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_4136860]

<p>How can Ektar be a replacement for Ektachrome ? you can't project it.</p>

[douglas_vitello1]

<p>I guess this article is still relevant even if it was written a few years back.It is very sad that Kodak is discontinuing one of the very last stable forms of casual storage available for the folks who shoot color and don't want to spend a large chunk of their life operating a computer.Just ordered another batch of Kodak E6 today for the freezer (despite the price increase).I hope Fuji picks up the ball and runs with it after the demise of Kodak Inc.My next order will be Fuji because without support they will drop E6 too.<br>

<a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/4201645">http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/4201645</a></p>