# Kodak Brings Back a Classic with EKTACHROME Film



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 6, 2017)

```
<strong>Las Vegas, NV, Thursday, January 05, 2017 —</strong></p>
<p>To the delight of film enthusiasts across the globe, Eastman Kodak Company today announced plans to bring back one of its most iconic film stocks.  Over the next 12 months, Kodak will be working to reformulate and manufacture KODAK EKTACHROME Film for both motion picture and still photography applications.  Initial availability is expected in the fourth quarter of 2017.</p>
<p>KODAK EKTACHROME Film has a distinctive look that was the choice for generations of cinematographers before it was discontinued in 2012. The film is known for its extremely fine grain, clean colors, great tones and contrasts.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>“It is such a privilege to reintroduce KODAK EKTRACHROME Film to the cinematography community,” said Steven Overman, Kodak’s chief marketing officer and president of the Consumer and Film Division. “We are seeing a broad resurgence of excitement about capturing images on film. Kodak is committed to continuing to manufacture film as an irreplaceable medium for image creators to capture their artistic vision. We are proud to help bring back this classic.”</p>
<p>Kodak will produce EKTACHROME at its film factory in Rochester, N.Y., and will market and distribute the Super 8 motion picture film version of EKTACHROME Film directly.</p>
<p>Kodak Alaris, an independent company since 2013, also plans to offer a still format KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME Film for photographers in 135-36x format.  KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME Film is a color positive film, also known as “reversal,” “slide,” or “transparency” film. Unlike all of the other KODAK PROFESSIONAL Films available today, which are color negative films, EKTACHROME generates a positive image that can be viewed or projected once it is exposed and processed. This makes it ideal for high-resolution projection or presentations. It is also well suited for scanning and printing onto a range of professional-grade photographic media.  Availability is expected in the fourth quarter of 2017.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## sanj (Jan 6, 2017)

But but I do not have a film camera for stills.

And all labs in town are shut that process cine film. And no one rents out movie cameras that run film. 

Trouble!!!


----------



## rjrowing (Jan 6, 2017)

Buy a used one and develop yourself:

Either this way: http://www.filmomat.eu/
or this way: http://www.jobo.com/analog/4063-jobo-colorprocessor-cpe-3-?ecms_lang=EN


----------



## LDS (Jan 6, 2017)

sanj said:


> And all labs in town are shut that process cine film.



Here I found that in the 'last days of film' commercial labs could no longer deliver enough quality. Only the relatively few professional ones could deliver quality development (at higher prices, of course), but depending on where you live, they can be enough far away. Using courier services adds to the costs, of course. But if you're shooting film today you're not really looking for a cheap imaging solution.

Home processing is not cheap too, and usually more difficult for movie film.

Maybe Kodak will also sell Super8 film development included, like it did in the past.

Now, if they only could bring back Kodachrome too... ok, ok, I stop dreaming. It will be hard enough to find a decent niche for Ektachrome, projection and (expensive) scans are not really big selling points today, especially from 35mm stills, although reversal is easier to scan than negatives.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 6, 2017)

Sounds like a crowd-funding opportunity: a cheap, fully-automated film processing apparatus.


----------



## LDS (Jan 6, 2017)

rjrowing said:


> Buy a used one and develop yourself:
> Either this way: http://www.filmomat.eu/
> or this way: http://www.jobo.com/analog/4063-jobo-colorprocessor-cpe-3-?ecms_lang=EN



While E-6 films can be developed using a 3-bath process, better results are achieved with the original 6-bath process, which would work better with the larger and more expensive CPP3 processor, for example. Also temperature is more critical, thereby a better controlled processor system helps. Nice to see Jobo still makes its processor - which can also be used to develop prints.

The Filmomat fully automatic processing is cool, though, it also clean itself 

Shelf life and proper disposal of chemicals is still an issue, though.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 6, 2017)

Excellent news... I have tons of MF and 135 film cameras... Over the last 2 years I have shifted to shooting mostly film over digital. This film stock will be a welcome addition again...

There are still many great developers here in the states if you want to go this route but I personally develop all of my own film (BW, C41 and E6). I use a JOBO unit or hand develop small batches. Temp control is not an issue if you have the right tools. Having a PhD in Molecular and Cell bio made using water baths a no-brainer. Ebay a good used 12L VWR water bath and your done, 38.8 is easy as pie and C41/E6 easier than BW Chemical storage simple... booze flasks and squeeze out the air, your chems will last years. Waste is not a huge issue as most of the chems have had the really nasty stuff swapped out. Silver is your only real issue and our local WM takes it for free.

Film and digital... choice is good !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Pookie (Jan 6, 2017)

LDS said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > And all labs in town are shut that process cine film.
> ...



Film has been slowly building and coming back over the last 3-4 years in the wedding/portraiture industry. Even amateurs are starting to shoot more film. I think this news announcement really highlights this trend.

I don't know where you live but here in the states there are many good options for development. With courier service your at about 15-20$ a roll. With self-dev I'm at 2-3 dollars a roll. In 2017 I'll be offering film only shoots to my wedding packages and actually made more money shooting film in 2016 with the gigs done in MF. Don't know where your getting your info for on the film selling point... as a wedding photographer I've seen more interest in shooting film than digital here in this market now days. I'm booked for the next 7 months and 70% is FILM !!!! I'm more than happy to oblige as the digital only photographers are left in the dust. 

Oh, and the biggest surprise in event shooting is INSTANT film... I take a Polaroid 600SE with Instax wide to wedding receptions and make a killing. Every shoot I go to I take more and more packs and sell out every time. People love getting pics instantly. A pack cost me 12$/20 images and I sell them for 5$ a shot. It's INSTANT cash. 

Kodachrome !!!! Your ARE dreaming... that ain't going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## LDS (Jan 6, 2017)

Pookie said:


> Film has been slowly building and coming back over the last 3-4 years in the wedding/portraiture industry. Even amateurs are starting to shoot more film. I think this news announcement really highlights this trend.



But isn't that a market better suited for negative films like the Kodak Portra or Fujicolor Pro? But do you thn digitize the films, or print them on chemical paper as well?

I'm just happy anyway if Kodak reintroduce Ektachrome because it was what I used to shoot with (besides Kodachrome...)



Pookie said:


> I don't know where you live but here in the states there are many good options for development.



I live in Italy, not far from Milano, where some good labs can still be found (thanks to the fashion and art markets). As said, however, they are not cheap. If you can make the right money from your photos, of course it doesn't matter. For amateurs, it may start to become expensive, especially for those who live far away from a good lab.

I learnt developing E-6 films many years ago helping a family friend who worked as a photographer, he was using a Jobo processor too, but he always pointed out the shelf life of chemicals (as a student, I couldn't afford mine own color darkroom then to test). Can you really achieve years of conservation? Well, you have the right background, I never liked chemistry too much... but I'd like to get back again to develop film, if it becomes a sustainable niche.



Pookie said:


> Don't know where your getting your info for on the film selling point... as a wedding photographer I've seen more interest in shooting film than digital here in this market now days.



I was pointing out what Kodak said in its statement. It doesn't look to me commercial projections and scans for print could be really selling point for reversal films today. Hi-res digital projectors, big screen and fully digital workflows in most cases work better. But there are of course reason to shoot reversal film today.



Pookie said:


> Oh, and the biggest surprise in event shooting is INSTANT film... I take a Polaroid 600SE with Instax wide to wedding receptions and make a killing.



I'm not surprised at all, such cameras are welcome in any kind of party/event.



Pookie said:


> Kodachrome !!!! Your ARE dreaming... that ain't going to happen anytime soon.



I know, I known...


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm

Makes my large stack of135 get smaller all the time. Generally my 2nd body to my 5D3 is a Canon Elan 7En and I occasionally do a clone image with the same lens, especially landscape shots on a tripod. It's interesting to see the differences and similarities.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 6, 2017)

slclick said:


> http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm
> 
> Makes my large stack of135 get smaller all the time. Generally my 2nd body to my 5D3 is a Canon Elan 7En and I occasionally do a clone image with the same lens, especially landscape shots on a tripod. It's interesting to see the differences and similarities.



I for one am quite interested in reading more about 'the differences and similarities' you've observed.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

josephandrews222 said:



> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm
> ...



In a word? Contrast. Of course I'm comparing a finished (SOC) product vs a pre PP RAW where the contrast etc are open for manipulation. Now, I'm coming from a film background where usually I'm controlling the contrast via enlarger filters but surrendering to a lab these days. So it is very interesting to me how each emulsion conveys grain and contrast. My two favorite films are Delta 400 for contrasty images and T Max 100 for smooth tones, even portraiture.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 6, 2017)

Pookie said:


> Excellent news...



Just curious, what are the advantages of film over digital? How does the image quality compare?


----------



## Berowne (Jan 6, 2017)

This is good news, I made thousands of slides and my (analog) Leicas are still alive.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent news...
> ...


There are no true advantages but some enjoy the craft, the control, the reminiscing, the smell. Why do anything retro, classic or vintage? The drives are many and vary from shooter to shooter but for me the process was the enjoyable part. The control, the trial and error. It's far more hands on working with analog and a lab than a keyboard. There are solutions, and temperatures to adjust and consider, every film/paper variety works a little differently....


It's playtime!


----------



## Berowne (Jan 6, 2017)

slclick said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



Film is not superior, it is different. Shooting Slides is - at least for me - most demanding, simply because you cannot change anything in the resulting Picture. It must be perfect in the Moment when you take it, or it is worthless. Slides dont forgive any mistake.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

Berowne said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...



Unless you scan them for PP


----------



## LDS (Jan 6, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Just curious, what are the advantages of film over digital? How does the image quality compare?



What is "image quality"? Some Bernard Plossu carbon prints (made by Atelier Fresson) could cause severe spasms to those used to discuss IQ down to the digital sub-pixel level. What about Sarah Moon use of old imaging techniques as well?

Films and analog prints are just different imaging techniques - which you may find useful, appealing, or not. But besides scientific imaging, and maybe most documentary/news imaging needs, "image quality" is an ineffable concept...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2017)

Pookie said:


> Having a PhD in Molecular and Cell bio ..... no-brainer.



A molecular biologist is a bright young person who knows no chemistry. A cell biologist is a bright young person who knows no chemistry or biochemistry.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jan 7, 2017)

I shot slide film exclusively (except for a few rolls of bw) from around 1990-2010 (in other words two decades). Kodak E100G was my favorite and it looks like this will be a reinvention of that. The main reason for using slide (positive) instead of print (negative) was to shoot for publication, as that is what they required (not that I got published very often, but occasionally). Now that digital is the de facto medium for this, I see little use for slide film. As someone has already said, print film is preferable for portrait and wedding, which is where film is still being used. Just within the last month I traded in my film body because in spite of the nostalgia I realized I would never use it again.

Of course I have no problem with Kodak producing slide film again (Fuji btw never stopped), I am just not sure if there is a market to sustain it. I guess there must be or they would not be doing it.


----------



## symmar22 (Jan 7, 2017)

That's excellent news, the choice in slide film has been so reduced lately, that I was expecting E6 to disappear soon. If Kodak brings back a chrome fllm, that will force Fuji to keep going and maybe Agfa to increase it's product range.

Hopefully they will do more formats in the future, at least 120 and 4x5 where Fuji has 100% market share. I still have a small stock of Kodak 4x5 taht I keep frozen, but it won't last forever, and having worked with slide since the late eighties, my choice was always for Kodak's subtle colours.

I hope they will bring back something with the colour balance of the EPP, that was IMO the best slide film of all times.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2017)

while i am happy for the few slide shooters left, i really do not believe there is more demand for ektachrome cine or stills film than in 2012 whrn production was stopped due to lack of demand. sometimes i really wonder how/what kond of shareholders allow such corporate follies. 

myself i shot almost exclusively KB slides from the 70ies to 90ies - mostly kodachrome and some ektachrome. for a number of reasons i have not scanned my stock of 15.000 slides (yet). once in a blue moon we take out our still working slide projector and watch some images from our youth on a sort of magic time machine trip. wish i could have captured those images in digital form and have them on my PC ready at all times and without taking up hals a cupboard of storage space ... 

on the other hand ... mainly to see how well canon eye control AF works, i purchased a canon EOS 30 (elan 7E) in excellent condition for 40 euro a year ago and have just finished the first roll of ilford HP5 bw film. will take it to one of the 2 last labs (pro) left in my city today to develop & scan. curious to see results, but ready for some disappointment. probably mostly low contrast grey soup, although i tried to shoot mainly high contrast b&w motive scenes. we'll see. 

also backed "Ferrania / 100 years of analogue film" on kickstarter. those sympathetically crazy italians are way delayed but still beabering away and may just succeed in getting their first batch of ferrania color reversal film (slide) made some time this year. if and when that happens i will shoot my reward rolls with great respect and will do a little series of images in italian national colors - green / white / red.


----------



## Berowne (Jan 7, 2017)

There are many questions. I think it well be a Relaunch of the Kodak E100G. At least in Germany, there is a professional Lab in Stuttgart "Studio 13", they are pretty good in all analog processing. The Prices are hefty. A Fuji Velvia 50 costs 15€ in Germany and another Lab, "Prolab" charges ca 6€ for E6-Development. Then you Need the slide Frames. If you will do film-development by your own, an automatic processing unit is absolut necessary for slides. (Jobo - ca 1200€). Foto Brenner offers chemicals for E6-process 50€ the kit enough for 30 films, but these are no original chemicals. At least for Fuji you cannot use it, may result in wrong Colors! 

B&H offers nearly everything you Need. Seems to be more expensive. A slide processing mailer for E6 by B&H costs 10$. 

Is there any analog SLR in production except Nikon F6? I think not. There are of Course masses of used gear. If Kodak will be back in the slide-market I consider to purchase a used Film-EOS. I wonder how modern lenses will do on Film.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jan 7, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> I shot slide film exclusively (except for a few rolls of bw) from around 1990-2010 (in other words two decades). Kodak E100G was my favorite and it looks like this will be a reinvention of that. The main reason for using slide (positive) instead of print (negative) was to shoot for publication, as that is what they required (not that I got published very often, but occasionally). Now that digital is the de facto medium for this, I see little use for slide film. As someone has already said, print film is preferable for portrait and wedding, which is where film is still being used. Just within the last month I traded in my film body because in spite of the nostalgia I realized I would never use it again.
> 
> Of course I have no problem with Kodak producing slide film again (Fuji btw never stopped), I am just not sure if there is a market to sustain it. I guess there must be or they would not be doing it.


I shot slide film extensively (along with a lot of black and white, especially in the early years) from the late 1970s well into the 21st century, a span of nearly three decades. My work, both editorial and commercial, was nearly always for publication, so transparencies were almost the universal rule. Thus, I always considered color negative to be the bastard stepchild of the film family, devoid of sharpness, saturation and the "look", and to be used only as a last resort.
Maybe it's because I taught myself to deal with the limited color and contrast latitudes in these materials that I developed this disdain for color neg and considered the portrait and wedding guys to have things a little soft. As a photojournalist dating back to college days and later picking up the advertising work, I shot Kodachrome (later Velvia) when there was good light and Ektachrome when there was not, in the process learning to push the ASA (the old ISO equivalent) to the "astronomical" to 1000 or so. It always seemed a challenge to get things just right out of the camera, but, when they were, they were great.
I'm looking forward to get my hands on the Ektachrome. Guess I will now keep my last film body around.


----------



## LDS (Jan 7, 2017)

symmar22 said:


> Hopefully they will do more formats in the future, at least 120 and 4x5 where Fuji has 100% market share.



It looks still film will be mostly a by-product of motion picture film.

From what I read, it is (Eastman) "Kodak" that wants to bring back Ektachrome film because it looks some directors would like to use it - and it's also betting on Super8 again (some arts institute like it as an introductory media to learn filming), where a reversal film would avoid the "print" stage and may be easier to scan.

"Kodak Alaris", the spin off that now sells the still products, and also shares some of the Rochester facility, may also sell it in 135 format. Other formats availability may depend on how the film is actually manufactured - i.e. if 35mm film is produced in 70mm stripes and then cut and perforated, delivering 120 would be easier, if it is made directly in 35mm stripes a different production line would be needed, and for larger formats as well.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Having a PhD in Molecular and Cell bio ..... no-brainer.
> ...



What a joke... you're either a liberal arts major taking orders at McDonalds or you got your degree at DeVry 

I'm guessing no degree at all because biochemistry is a main aspect of both subjects... Physical chemistry and thermodynamics are crucial to these interdisciplinary subjects. Tell me how PCR and DNA structure related? Why Van der Waals force is important in cell biology? Or how crystallography was deciphered and why a molecular biologist needs to understand that? Why Michaelis–Menten kinetics is important for enzymatics? All of which has to do with molecular and cellular biology... when you're dying of cancer and their about to give you a new drug you better hope all the PI's that developed that drug knew more than a little something about both chemistry and biology.

Stick with bird pictures my friend it makes you sound a little less ridiculous...


----------



## Pookie (Jan 7, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent news...
> ...



I'd agree, there are no advantages of film over digital... there is a definitive difference though. Currently MF format film has great quality IMO and I also shoot with a Pentax 645z. Better? That depends on your needs. I own both and I use both. I develop my own film because I like to, I like the challenge and I like making my own images. It's kind of like asking if a stick shift is better than an automatic... if it were so cut and dry based on a spreadsheet, you might never have a choice now days.

After many years shooting weddings and portraits for clients and being asked to make their images look a certain way, I've found that what many are asking for is a film look. To prove this point, look at how many companies out there make a living with presets based on film types. VSCO being a huge one. Why does a camera phone have Instagram with hundreds of filters mimicking film? This is what the masses love, what they want and there is a real reason why this thrives.

I've been asked many times to make a digital image look like a film image but have never been asked to make a film image to look like a digital. To that end I just started shooting film, the real deal... and more and more people ask for it these days. I'm not one to say film is better or digital supreme... I like both and shoot both. As I said initially, choice is good.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 7, 2017)

LDS said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Film has been slowly building and coming back over the last 3-4 years in the wedding/portraiture industry. Even amateurs are starting to shoot more film. I think this news announcement really highlights this trend.
> ...



I print in a darkroom and scan... depends on the needs. 

Chems can be saved easily and not too hard to figure out. Most of the info in literature comes from people that really don't understand chemistry. Years in the University made this quite easy for me and I like it.

This might be cine industry driven but stills are making it a reality for everyone... just look at CineStill and there continuing success. Once you get over the remjet prob (either mechanically or chemically) it's all good.

And yes, my film Leicas are singing with this news. My absolute favorite EDC, this M6 goes everywhere...



and I use it for pleasure and work...


----------



## Cochese (Jan 10, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Sounds like a crowd-funding opportunity: a cheap, fully-automated film processing apparatus.



Interestingly, Kodak did announce the desire to bring Kodachrome back. 
Enjoy. https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/


----------



## Pippan (Jan 10, 2017)

Interestingly, Kodak did announce the desire to bring Kodachrome back. 
Enjoy. https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/
[/quote]

Really hope so. I found a box with a half dozen exposed but undeveloped rolls I must have misplaced well over a decade ago. Probably of my kids. AFAIK there's now nowhere in the world that can process them.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 10, 2017)

I shot transparency and negative film professionally for many years.
I also owned a commercial processing lab for 20+years.

Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
Home processing of C-41 films will easily yield negatives that will print well.

Home processing of E-6 film is a dog's dinner of variability starting with the chemistry available at retail.
I cannot tell you how many people would come into the lab and ask what was happening with their home slide processing. Their color varied wildly despite their pride in temperature control and processing technique.

Then we would get people in who would test a photo setup on chrome and process with us (a Kodak certified Q-lab) and then shoot a big job and process it with retail chems from the camera shop. Needless to say the images were wildly different from their tests.

As a student I was convinced of the superiority of transparency over negative film. However, once I learned to print Type-R, Cibachrome and Type-C prints I saw the inhernet superiority of negative film over transparency in its ability to render contrasty scenes well. 

For all the praise of transparency film for its "accuracy" those same people then enthuse about its deep saturation that has only a passing acquaintance with accuracy.

In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.

If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.


----------



## slclick (Jan 10, 2017)

For years I would shoot C-41 and take it to Costco to get negs made, they charged me $1.00 and it took one hour. Then I would scan with decent results. But the Kodak mask on the C-41! It takes quite a bit of trial and error to work around. Ilford doesn't have that same orange hue so it's closer to a b/w like Tri X and has greater latitude.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 11, 2017)

I always had difficulty developing Ektachrome at home, I ended up with a greenish tinge, and for color slides, that's bad. I've sold all my developing apparatus, but have many film cameras, as well as 8mm and super 8. 

I expect developing to be mail-in, so it will be expensive, just the cost of mail 2 ways will be ~$5.20


----------



## slclick (Jan 11, 2017)

Ilford charges $17.00 per roll of film which gives you a CD of medium quality scans + $6.95 for shipping. ~ .67 an image for a 36 exp roll. Not horrible but not as 'free' as digital.



*Free....right.


----------



## Zeidora (Jan 11, 2017)

Interesting, no 4x5" option on the Ektachromes. Pretty much the only game still surviving is Fuji Provia and Velvia. Re pros/cons negative/positive, you match the capture medium to the scene. That is one of the nice things about sheet film, you take it one sheet at a time. Use your spot meter to get contrast, pre-visualize final print, select the desired tonal range, and chose film type accordingly.

Also shot Kodachrome and E6 for many years, but for 35 mm I don't foresee of getting back into it. For 4x5, there is no half way decent (or affordable) digital option, so here film rules.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 11, 2017)

Of all the film I've processed Ektachrome wa the very best to be Xprocessed. I love the contrast and slight saturation boost, unlike fuji that goes a bit extreme. Never had any issues processing E6 but I've met many who have issues processing even BW and are scared sh*&less to even try C41... many just couldn't follow temps/protocols and most can't figure out the chemistry. I prefer C41 and E6 over BW these days, it's just easier. I'd guess 70% is C41 and 25% isd E6, rarely shoot BW that much now days.

Regardless, I'll be buying a case of this when it comes out and crossing most of it as I do with my expired Ektachrome. Looking forward to this release!!!


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 11, 2017)

Good luck to Kodak. Personally, I gave up on E6 last year when shipping restrictions stopped most chemicals being sent outside of continental US or EU - I've had to cross process my last few rolls. I would have been more interested in some Vision 3 film without the Remjet layer. Maybe that will come one day.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 11, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.


I wonder if the success of Instax is the driver here. When you look at Amazon's most popular camera items, it is dominated by Instax. https://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo

And that's been the case for at least the last three years. 

And it is the same everywhere. Locally, all the department stores, camera shops and supermarkets move a lot of Instax products and film. And reading Fuji media releases, you get the impression it is a real global phenomenon with no signs of slowing. People love it. If you go to an 18th or 21st birthday party, it is the only camera you'll likely see.

I can imagine Kodak wanting just a small piece of the sales pie. But like I think you are alluding to, the sort of people who enjoy and shoot instax aren't going to start buying Kodachrome.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 11, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Just curious, what are the advantages of film over digital? How does the image quality compare?



Slide film isn't about image quality. Instead, it is about inviting close family and friends over for a slide night. Lots of beer, pizza, a rattling old slide projector, and a handful of carefully selected images to show. It is just a fun experience that digital struggles to match.

(My new years' resolution was to stay away from film threads....oh, well, maybe I'll have better luck next year.)


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 11, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> I shot transparency and negative film professionally for many years.
> I also owned a commercial processing lab for 20+years.
> 
> Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
> ...



+1000. AMEN!


----------



## slclick (Jan 11, 2017)

Some folks enjoy the journey more or as much as the destination. YMMV


----------



## LDS (Jan 11, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
> Home processing of C-41 films will easily yield negatives that will print well.



True



Normalnorm said:


> Home processing of E-6 film is a dog's dinner of variability starting with the chemistry available at retail.
> I cannot tell you how many people would come into the lab and ask what was happening with their home slide processing. Their color varied wildly despite their pride in temperature control and processing technique.



You got a filter effect here. Of course those who couldn't process E-6 properly asked for advice. Those who could, didn't. Not everybody has the same DIY skills and knowledge (despite what they tell). Frankly, knowing myself, I wouldn't attempt to develop it without a processor.

Do you mean Kodak, Fuji and others were selling bad chemicals? And "retail shop" means little - there are large retail shop from which many pros buy from too, and others who have just non-pro customers. You got very different results from labs too, and some labs were inconsistent too (especially for consumer processing), probably depending on what side of the bed the technicians got up that morning... or if you were lucky your films were processed when chemicals were still good enough.



Normalnorm said:


> As a student I was convinced of the superiority of transparency over negative film. However, once I learned to print Type-R, Cibachrome and Type-C prints I saw the inhernet superiority of negative film over transparency in its ability to render contrasty scenes well.



If one was truly superior, the other would have had no market. Both had their inherent advantages and disadvantages. For example negatives were harder to scan, so the press industry preferred transparencies until digital. Some photographers too for their own reasons.



Normalnorm said:


> For all the praise of transparency film for its "accuracy" those same people then enthuse about its deep saturation that has only a passing acquaintance with accuracy.



Not everybody was looking for "scientific accuracy" - and after all negatives didn't had that either, just the print stage allows for changes. For many "accuracy" meant you got consistent results from the same batch of film. Thereby you could test and know what you would have got.

Anyway Franco Fontana used to duplicate his Kodachromes directly onto another Kodachrome to reach the saturation his photographic style required. If you are a commercial photographer in other sectors, you have different requirements. 



Normalnorm said:


> In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.



Oh well, Lomography build a whole business around it. But it is not true the process is "largely uncontrollable".


----------



## Pookie (Jan 11, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > If that is important to you I could also recommend that other process: Instax.
> ...



Let's hope this is true... I shoot Instax Wide on a converted Polaroid 600SE. Full exposure control and MF quality images with great DOF. It is a instant money maker at wedding receptions. I've felt a little guilty charging 5$ per shot but always sell out. Even when people have a Instax camera the Polaroid produces much better images. Leica's Sofort may finally give you a bit more latitude over the exposure that Fuji cams don't have and that might change the game. It unfortunate that it's an f/12.7 lens so maybe the Polaroid still kicks any instant camera offerings for now.

My true hope is this resurgence of film and instant film will bring back Fujifilm 100C and 3000B, dearly miss that film. Only have 1 much coveted case of 100C left and it's expiring this year  Impossible and the New55 just are not comparable but they are commendable in their efforts.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 11, 2017)

LDS said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, when talk about using film today we are talking about paying a lot of money to achieve a result that emulates a random JPG file with color, contrast and crossover issues created by the process that is largely uncontrollable by the photographer.
> ...



It's funny how many people I run across that say they did this and that with film, ran a development lab or worked years in a dark room but then come up with utter nonsense like that statement. No wonder why this guy "ran" a lab and doesn't anymore... with that statement you could figure out the quality of his work. Like film was/is a complete mystery producing wide ranges of results. When just not that many years ago it was used at the highest level in commerce and daily use. It's not like analog photography has been around for many years as we all know now that it was just a prelude to digital :

Any real developer, professional developer would scoff at that statement... check out Richard Photo Lab or The Find Lab. It's not a uncontrollable process or at least it shouldn't be when you know what you're doing.

Lomography ?!?!?! What? Ilford... Fujifilm... Kodak... all of them are just uncontrollable messes and products.


----------



## Berowne (Jan 11, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> I shot transparency and negative film professionally for many years.
> I also owned a commercial processing lab for 20+years.
> 
> Film processing for negative film is far more forgiving than E-6 process.
> ...



Most of it true. I never ever considered to process slides at home, too expensive, too critical. But with appropriate equipment (automatic Processors like that from Jobo), original chemicals (especially in the case of Fuji-Films) and enough experience nothing should go wrong. 

Of Course, slides are demanding. But this is the very reason to use these films. You have to master it and if you can, the results are most satisfying, at least for me. In contrast, the reason, why I did not use color-negative-film was the usually bad Quality of the prints. If only Kodak will bring back the Kodakchrome!


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 12, 2017)

Pookie said:


> It's funny how many people I run across that say they did this and that with film, ran a development lab or worked years in a dark room....


Throughout most of the 80's and 90's, my understanding of photographic techniques was fairly limited. When I took film in to be developed, I accepted that the way they came back was the way it was meant to be. I just didn't know any better. One of the reasons I shot slide film was because the photos came out the way they I wanted them to. With negative film, the photos came out the way the processing machine wanted them to - with widely varying exposures, which typically weren't what I wanted.

Skip to now, where there is a lot more information available, and I'm in full control of the process from developing, digitizing and printing, I really enjoy shooting colour negative film. And when you consider colour negative films' exposure latitude, and the fact that it is almost impossible to blow highlights or get a bad exposure, I agree with what you are saying - it is the opposite of "uncontrollable".


----------



## LDS (Jan 12, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> With negative film, the photos came out the way the processing machine wanted them to - with widely varying exposures, which typically weren't what I wanted.



Printing has never been a "one step" process, despite Kodak wanting people to believe so, with its "you press the button, we do the rest" motto. It made sense for the larger consumer market (and eventually ******* Kodak when the button became digital), but good prints require conscious decisions by the photographer (and the technician), based on each image aim, and proofs.

A technician alone with thousand of prints to make, or, worse, an automated machine, could only produce average results based on some standard average parameters. The mass production of prints for the consumer market worked that way. Of course any image that deviated enough from those parameters could have been "ruined" by "corrections" to exposure, filtering, etc. - even when the process was well within the parameters (which not always happened).

More demanding users (professionals, very advanced amateurs, arts students, etc.) needed and need to take advantage of labs that offers tailored printing, which means making proofs and then decide what to print and how, but is more expensive and not available at every print shop - and after that's how often prints from digital images are made too. Very high quality labs like Grieger in Düsseldorf became an important part in the success of photographers like Gursky (albeit they filed for insolvency last November too...)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 17, 2017)

With no way to use it in a mirrorless ILC camera? Stupid kodak.


----------



## LDS (Jan 18, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> With no way to use it in a mirrorless ILC camera? Stupid kodak.



You can surely use it in any mirrorless film camera - like rangefinders. and even those without a rangefinder.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 18, 2017)

LDS said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > With no way to use it in a mirrorless ILC camera? Stupid kodak.
> ...



Yah, bad joke.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2017)

LDS said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > With no way to use it in a mirrorless ILC camera? Stupid kodak.
> ...



Yes but how many of them offer dual film slots? You know, the must have feature demanded in even a 6D MkII nowadays.

And when and why did dual card slots become an 'essential' basic feature for anybody to take a body seriously?

Stupid old film cameras.


----------



## LDS (Jan 18, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> Yah, bad joke.



We also can't complain about lack of 4K. AFAIK "La La Land" has been shot on film...


----------



## LDS (Jan 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes but how many of them offer dual film slots? You know, the must have feature demanded in even a 6D MkII nowadays.



Well, film has less inclination to die in the middle of a shooting... especially since you can't really reuse it - just in some situations you needed to learn to change film quickly - the worst were very noisy rewinder engines when it was automated. Some older camera used a take-up spool which didn't need rewinding.

But someone patented the "dual film camera" in 1951: https://www.google.com/patents/US2546540

May that's because Canon never made a dual film camera


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2017)

LDS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but how many of them offer dual film slots? You know, the must have feature demanded in even a 6D MkII nowadays.
> ...



I had a lot more film 'issues' than I have ever had with digital, even on;y using one slot in a two card slot camera. 

I well remember doing the film dance of sending rolls from the same shoot in different batches so they never all went through the machines together in case there was a roller causing scratches.


----------

