Why doesn't Kodak make any more 100 speed color negative films other
than Gold ("Bright Sun, whatever)? Why did they cut out Royal Gold
100, Supra 100, etc?
Am I stuck with 200 as a minimum? Or should I be using Fuji Superia
Reala 100? My lab (Adorama) has better channels for Kodak. I do not
like how they handled Superia Xtra 400 or 800.
Gregory W. Blank - 30 Jul 2003 17:54 GMT
Consumer grade films? Portra 160 VC & NC are pro versions
which I always rate right at 100.
> Why doesn't Kodak make any more 100 speed color negative films other
> than Gold ("Bright Sun, whatever)? Why did they cut out Royal Gold
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Reala 100? My lab (Adorama) has better channels for Kodak. I do not
> like how they handled Superia Xtra 400 or 800.

Signature
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Considering eating out?; You may end up spending a fortune in cookies.
Polytone - 30 Jul 2003 18:52 GMT
I'm not aware of any Kodak Pro 100 neg films either.
> Consumer grade films? Portra 160 VC & NC are pro versions
> which I always rate right at 100.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Considering eating out?; You may end up spending a fortune in cookies.
Norman Worth - 30 Jul 2003 20:46 GMT
Kodak no longer lists any 100 speed color negative films except Gold 100 and
Portra 100T. It seems Kodak has consolidated its line of negative films,
discontinuing a large number of them. For Kodak, the "why" is almost always
either excess cost or low demand. The company has been in financial straits
the past few years, especially in the traditional photographic lines.
> Why doesn't Kodak make any more 100 speed color negative films other
> than Gold ("Bright Sun, whatever)? Why did they cut out Royal Gold
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Reala 100? My lab (Adorama) has better channels for Kodak. I do not
> like how they handled Superia Xtra 400 or 800.
Alan Browne - 31 Jul 2003 14:10 GMT
> Kodak no longer lists any 100 speed color negative films except Gold 100 and
> Portra 100T. It seems Kodak has consolidated its line of negative films,
> discontinuing a large number of them. For Kodak, the "why" is almost always
> either excess cost or low demand. The company has been in financial straits
> the past few years, especially in the traditional photographic lines.
$770M Net Earnings on Revenue of $12.8B isn't exactly stellar,
admitedly, but it is not "in financial straits". 92% of that is
non-digital. What is appalling is the loss of shareholders equity
(devalued to nearly 1/3 of its 1998 valuation).
Alan Browne - 31 Jul 2003 14:12 GMT
> Why doesn't Kodak make any more 100 speed color negative films other
> than Gold ("Bright Sun, whatever)? Why did they cut out Royal Gold
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Reala 100? My lab (Adorama) has better channels for Kodak. I do not
> like how they handled Superia Xtra 400 or 800.
Try Portra 160NC or VC and rate it at 100.
Here is an NC example (it's better than this, but photo.net's storage
quality sucks)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1512863&size=lg
Cheers,
Alan