 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2008A new film from Kodak.
http://tinyurl.com/6coc2 -- Keith Tapscott. > http://tinyurl.com/6coc29 > high saturation and ultra-vivid colour, Interesting. So Kodak has made a competitor to the Japanese "high saturation and ultra-vivid color" film, such as Velvia. So Kodak is still playing the film market. I wish them the best of luck. It could be good for the rest of us. I won't be buying any unless they offer it in formats larger than 35mm, but I am a happy minority. Thanks for the link! >> http://tinyurl.com/6coc29 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks for the link! It seems to me that Kodak made a film something like this in the past but I can't remember what it was called. This is not an oblique reference to Kodachrome but to another product. Whether it will be available in sizes other than 35mm depends on what Kodak's market research shows the potential market to be. I agree that the fact that they are sill making new products for the film market is a hopeful sign. Perhaps the digital inroad on film has reached its limit.  Signature-- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >>> http://tinyurl.com/6coc29 >>> high saturation and ultra-vivid colour, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > products for the film market is a hopeful sign. Perhaps the > digital inroad on film has reached its limit. They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at a photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said never. He said that Vericolor whatever was sharp enough for that. I assume that Ektar 100 is just the color version of TMax 100, but who knows? Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 20:50:01 up 34 days, 2:56, 4 users, load average: 4.00, 4.02, 4.07 > They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at a > photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said never. He > said that Vericolor whatever was sharp enough for that. IMHO Ektar 25mm was the best color film ever made. The results were as good as Kodachrome and by the time it came out Kodachrome had to be "sent away" for processing, while any one hour lab could process Ektar 25. Kodak claimed that the technology behind Ektar 25 was incorporated into their later ISO 100 color negative film and has found its way into all of their current offerings. It may be so, but none of them had the "look". Even in 35mm Ektar 25 never sold enough to a viable product, which is why it never made it to larger formats. Wasn't there also an Ektar 100? I seem to remember it existed, but did not look as good. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM > > They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at a > > photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said never. He [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM No, only Ektar 25, but it was available in 120. >> They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at a >> photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said never. He [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Geoff. I loved Ektar 25. I will buy the 100 for my "new" Nikon F as soon as it is available. If it comes out in 120/220 I will buy some for my Pentzx 6x7 SignatureMichael > >> They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at a > >> photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said never. He [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > -- > Michael I visited one of the Kodak stands at Photokina Wednesday. I asked if they planned to supply Ektar 100 in roll film. The first person I asked assured me that of course they did, and if I went to speak to their expert she would give me a roll. It was an offer I could not refuse. She immediately gave me a roll of 35mm. I thanked her and kept the roll, but said that what I really wanted was to know if the film would be available in roll film, specifically 120 or 220. She said, it certainly would not. She seemed to be a German speaker with significant trouble with English, so I take that answer as less than apodictic certainty and subject to confirmation. She, at least, was quite sure of her answer and did indeed seem to know quite a bit about Kodak's films. >> On 2008-09-10 00:59:02 -0400, g...@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) > said: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > quite sure of her answer and did indeed seem to know quite a bit about > Kodak's films. When I checked Kodak's website a week or so ago it listed Ektar 100, claimed it was a direct (but faster) descendant of Ektar 25, and listed 35mm as the only format. But it did not EXCLUDE 120/220 as a future product. SignatureMichael Michael <adunc79617@mypacks.net> schrieb: >> She immediately gave me a roll of 35mm. I thanked her and >> kept the roll, but said that what I really wanted was to know if the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> quite sure of her answer and did indeed seem to know quite a bit about >> Kodak's films. I guess I spoke to the same representative - in German. She knew what she was talking about. >When I checked Kodak's website a week or so ago it listed Ektar 100, >claimed it was a direct (but faster) descendant of Ektar 25, and listed >35mm as the only format. The lady at the Kodak film booth told me that this Ektar 100 is a derivative of their current cine film stock and thus not available in size 120 or bigger. The sample films they handed out in Cologne are pre-production, made under a large hurry and the final film in mass production may in fact not be identical to the "Photokina Ektar". The hurry was so big that they didn´t have the time to finish large prints taken with Ektar 100 - all they were able to show to me were a few offset printed snapshots and inkjet prints. :-/ Gruss, Roman Signature"An MDCCCXII/Mémorable par la campagne contre les Russes/ Sous le préfectura de Jules Doazan." "Vu et approuvé par nous commandant russe de la ville de Coblentz/ le 1er janvier 1814." >When I checked Kodak's website a week or so ago it listed Ektar 100, >claimed it was a direct (but faster) descendant of Ektar 25, and listed >35mm as the only format. For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk. The high grain CN film that superceded Ektar was called Royal Gold. It was pricy and came in ISOs of 25, 100, 400 and 1000 (maybe 200, too). I shot it when I could afford it. JJ > For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to > the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk. That makes you a "teenager" by most of our standards. Old enough to remember when film was still the only way to go, but too young to remember it at it's peak. You're probably too young to remember the days you could walk into a drugstore and pick the film you wanted based on grain, contrast, and speed. A well stocked camera store could literally have 10 or more different black and white films each with its own "look". > The high grain CN film that superceded Ektar was called Royal Gold. It > was pricy and came in ISOs of 25, 100, 400 and 1000 (maybe 200, too). > I shot it when I could afford it. Royal Gold was just another color film, which incorporated "Ektar technology" but was nothing like it. If Ektar had the look of Kodachrome, Royal Gold had the look of Kodacolor. Ektar came in 25,100 and 1000 (or something like that, I havent' had my coffee yet), but the 25 was "special". It was the designed to be the closest thing to Kodachrome 25 in a negative film. IMHO it was the closest film made to K25 ever made. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM >> For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to >> the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > speed. A well stocked camera store could literally have 10 or more > different black and white films each with its own "look". I guess I should start thinking of myself as an old-timer. I remember when D-76 and such came in metal cans, when Sodium Sulphite and stuff came in glass bottles, when you could get any of these things from Fishkin Brothers in a near-by town (now out of business), when you had a choice of two good photo labs in the next town (now both out of business) that would process C-22, C-41, K-12, K-14 (I think it was) as well as black and white, and so on. Now if I do not process myself, I have to go to a drug-store who send it out somewhere for so-so color negative processing -- that or nothing. Now I must get my film and hardware from B&H, Calumet, and Lens and Repro, which are fine outfits but more inconvenient. Even Zone VI is pretty much gone -- luckily I do not need any more hardware. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 06:05:01 up 22 days, 7:07, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.18, 4.11 > I guess I should start thinking of myself as an old-timer. I remember > when D-76 and such came in metal cans Ha, I live in Turku, Finland, and we have a store here that sells D-76 in metal cans, and pretty close to 10 different kinds of B&W films in 135 and 120 sizes. I can remember them because the last time I saw them was Tuesday. Does that make me old? :) >> I guess I should start thinking of myself as an old-timer. I remember >> when D-76 and such came in metal cans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 135 and 120 sizes. I can remember them because the last time I saw > them was Tuesday. Does that make me old? :) Yes; at least, honorarily old. It also makes your photo store old. I think Kodak stopped putting developers in metal cans in the very early 1970s, so your stuff, if Kodak, is very old. Since they were sealed in cans, they may still be good. I forgot: the film came in metal cans with a screw-cap on them, with a trace of rubber-like compound where the cap touched the top of the can. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:30:01 up 22 days, 8:32, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.29, 4.72 > I forgot: the film came in metal cans with a screw-cap on them, with a trace > of rubber-like compound where the cap touched the top of the can. You forgot the most important part. You could open the cassettes by banging them on a table, and then re-use them. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM >> I forgot: the film came in metal cans with a screw-cap on them, with a >> trace of rubber-like compound where the cap touched the top of the can. > > You forgot the most important part. You could open the cassettes by > banging them on a table, and then re-use them. I am not that old. The ones from Kodak that I remember were always crimped on, so you had to remove them with a "church key." I do remember doing that with Ilford film, though. I have a bunch of plastic cassettes with a screw-on cap that I reload. But I do not shoot a lot of 35mm anymore. And I load sheet film holders by hand. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 08:45:01 up 22 days, 9:47, 3 users, load average: 4.39, 4.25, 4.25 > Yes; at least, honorarily old. It also makes your photo store old. I > think Kodak stopped putting developers in metal cans in the very early > 1970s, so your stuff, if Kodak, is very old. Since they were sealed in > cans, they may still be good. Actually I went there just 15 mins ago to get some Optima 400 (220) film developed and asked about the D-76. I took a look at the can and while I could not find any dates on it, I got some hints. It was made in Paris; it's 5L instead of the 3.8L, so it's certainly a made for Europe-version. It had the phone number of Kodak Finland on it, and it was in the newer phone number format what we started using some time in the 90's. So I would assume it's made in the 1990's or it could be even newer. The salesperson said she's been working at that store for 15 years and during that time they've always had D-76 in those metal cans. This different versions for each continent thing is funny; there's supposedly an European version of HC-110 that's already somewhat diluted, but I've never seen it. Just the regular strong syrup in 1L bottles. Nice stuff, that. > > Yes; at least, honorarily old. It also makes your photo store old. I > > think Kodak stopped putting developers in metal cans in the very early > > 1970s, so your stuff, if Kodak, is very old. Since they were sealed in > > cans, they may still be good. > Actually I went there just 15 mins ago to get some Optima 400 (220) > film developed and asked about the D-76. I took a look at the can and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > store for 15 years and during that time they've always had D-76 in > those metal cans. As far as i can tell from the cans of D-76 sitting on my shelf (also made in Paris), there's numbers stamped on the bottom which i would read as maonth and year as production as mine read 0495 and 0897, so April 1995 and August 1997. > This different versions for each continent thing is funny; there's supposedly > an European version of HC-110 that's already somewhat diluted, but I've never > seen it. Just the regular strong syrup in 1L bottles. Nice stuff, that. Well, i can understand that with the cans, as most europeans aren't used to quarts and gallons but rather to litres, so a can to make 5L seems just more convenient to me than one to make a gallon or one quart or something like that. As long as the dilution needed stays the same, i wouldn't care. Yours, Florian > > I guess I should start thinking of myself as an old-timer. I remember > > when D-76 and such came in metal cans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 135 and 120 sizes. I can remember them because the last time I saw > them was Tuesday. Does that make me old? :) Probably just the stuff you are looking at.....although with the cold weather there, certainly usable. With global warming you might want to start making use of it :) SignatureReality is a picture perfected and never looking back. >> For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to >> the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Geoff. I agree with you. Ektar was the finest print film I've ever used. I still can't decide if Kodachrome 25 (first called Kodachrome II) was a step up or a step down from the venerable ASA 10 Kodachrome. SignatureMichael > They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at > a photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said > never. He said that Vericolor whatever was sharp enough for that. I am confused. I thought Vericolor sheet film was discontinued. I have a box of some Vericolor once used to make transparencies of negatives. It's so out of date I wonder why I let it take space in the deep freeze. >> They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at >> a photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > negatives. It's so out of date I wonder why I let it take space in the > deep freeze. I think he was referring to Ektar 25 when it was first made, in the late 1980's. Further web searching turned up that Ektar was made in 25, a 100 (100 or 125), and 1000. At least the 25 was available in 35mm, 120, and to "a few" 4x5. This was from a discussion in 2005 on web forum, anyone have any hard facts? Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM >> They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at >> a photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said >> never. He said that Vericolor whatever was sharp enough for that. > > I am confused. I thought Vericolor sheet film was discontinued. No doubt, but not when Ektar 25 was introduced. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:30:01 up 34 days, 17:36, 4 users, load average: 4.42, 4.48, 4.52 >>> http://tinyurl.com/6coc29 >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -- Portra 160 VC Prof ?? (There was also Ektachrome E100VS Prof for transparencies). Malcolm >> http://tinyurl.com/6coc29 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks for the link! Not exactly a competitor to Velvia. Velvia is a slide film. SignatureMichael >> So Kodak is still playing the film market. I wish them the best of >> luck. It could be good for the rest of us. I won't be buying any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not exactly a competitor to Velvia. Velvia is a slide film. Ah! Thank you for the correction. I hope they make it in 120. > http://tinyurl.com/6coc29 Ektar was a name Kodak used for CN film back in the 1980's it was a very nice saturated color negative film. Not over the top saturated. I guess they decided to reuse the name. SignatureReality is a picture perfected and never looking back. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.