Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: dreed on January 07, 2017, 09:22:06 am
-
Since every other forum seems to be for digital...
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.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm (http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm)
-
Unfortunately, it seems they intend to limit it - for stills - to the 135 format. I'd have imagined that it would have made more sense in 120 because then it would not be in contention with digital quite as much. I could imagine myself buying back into Hassy 500 territory, but fail to see why I'd want to use it smaller.
Also, considering the lack of labs, perhaps it might make sense if it is available as was Kodachrome, usually, with processing included, and processing done, obviously, by Kodak. Even better if they do it in Lausannne! Never had better Kodachrome processing than from there.
Home processing? Not on your life. I used to do colour processing as part of my early professional photographic experience; replenishment and processing are very stictly controlled, and you can't make sense of it in a small-run situation. If people try it at home and get duff results, they will automatically blame Kodak, when it's their own fault for being too ambitious.
-
Maybe they are treating this as a trial and will release 120 (and 220) in the future.
I agree though, it is weird that they are not making a 120 version. 135 is nice, but the quality is not so good, and really only serious people are going to want to use this film.
Insofar as processing it yourself, fuhgettaboutit. I remember reading with E-6 processing if you are off by 0.1 a degree in any of the solution, you can mess it up, and there are around 8 solutions.
-
Yuck.
IMHO, it wasn't very good the first time around.
Maybe Kodak should try something new with the old ?
-
Insofar as processing it yourself, fuhgettaboutit. I remember reading with E-6 processing if you are off by 0.1 a degree in any of the solution, you can mess it up, and there are around 8 solutions.
I can attest to that. I once tried processing a roll. I had pretty good temperature control --- for black and white. The results: Yuck!!!
-
On further thought, they might have done better reintroducing Kodachrome. But AFAIK, they had QC problems getting 120 processed, and its UK reintroducion in that format didn't last long. By then I'd gone totally Nikon and didn't get to use Kodachrome in my Hassies, though those who did claimed it was the equivalent of going up to 4x5. For me, Kodachrome's best quality, apart from no grain, was that it had very good latent image stability between exposure and processing, and wasn't visibly affected by sitting around in a yellow film bag on hot beaches. I write about the 64 ASA variety.
Incidentally, I discovered that scanning Kodachrome gave wonderful skin tones in black/white printing.
Oh those beautiful days... we thought they'd never end.
Rob C
-
Sounds like you may get your wish.
https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/
All I can add is... 120 please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
I remember shooting 120 Kodachrome in the late 80's/early 90's. Even then, due to the turn around time to send it off to get developed, it was not practical to use commercially. BUT!!!!! I still used it for personal work and art projects where there was an extended deadline, because the results were worth it.
With the resurgence of "film" photography in these spaces, and the abundance of cheap secondhand medium format gear, it is a match made in heaven.
-
To those asking why not Kodachrome or 120, a couple of observations.
- The E-6 processing needed for Ektachrome is already out there, to handle the Fujichrome films like Velvia that have stayed in production.
- Kodachrome processing requires a far larger scale facility: even while it existed, the USA was down to one Kodachrome developing plant while there were many E-6 processors.
- At the college where I teach, which has a strong visual arts program, I see lots of photography students using inexpensive 35mm format film cameras (for the almost exclusively B&W prints I see in student art shows), but I have not seen a single MF film camera in use. So though one might think that some of these darkroom printing fans would go for inexpensive second-hand MF gear, apparently very few do.
-
To those asking why not Kodachrome or 120, a couple of observations.
- The E-6 processing needed for Ektachrome is already out there, to handle the Fujichrome films like Velvia that have stayed in production.
- Kodachrome processing requires a far larger scale facility: even while it existed, the USA was down to one Kodachrome developing plant while there were many E-6 processors.
- At the college where I teach, which has a strong visual arts program, I see lots of photography students using inexpensive 35mm format film cameras (for the almost exclusively B&W prints I see in student art shows), but I have not seen a single MF film camera in use. So though one might think that some of these darkroom printing fans would go for inexpensive second-hand MF gear, apparently very few do.
Two things:
1. yes, there was only one plant left during the closing down period, and that made sense within the circumstances. However, there were numeroius plants internationally before that decision, and I used two methods, in that for trips for UK clients I'd return to London, drive to and spend the night in Hemel Hempstead where Kodak did a 24hr Pro turnaround service. For non-pro work, i.e. personal, and sans time constraints, though I was actually based in Spain, I sent my Kodachrome to Switzerland because I found it a far cleaner service than Madrid seemed able to provide. The cost, to me, was identical;
2. I wouldn't base my viability numbers on students. Usually - who knows about the US, though - they were a pretty impecunious bunch and so the smaller the format the cheaper the better! However, for anyone contemplatinmg MF film, it's not primarily going to be about cost, but quality expectations (note expectations, not always fact!). For older guys with functioning memory, it's probably not so much a quality issue but more about cherished equipment.
Unexpectedly, this brings me to a third point I hadn't thought about when I began: as I mentioned earlier, much of the pleasure of MF is derived from the use of the machines themselves and, with the same photographers also quite likely to be using decent digital cameras too, there isn't really all that need for very expensive, dedicated 120 scanners unless very large printing is desired. Even with my modest 12mp D700 I have made very pleasing copies of 120 film with an old 2.8/105mm Nikkor micro that sit perfectly happily in the website along with 135 format scans and straight digital captures.
I do think, however, that Kodak has to be very clever with pricing: make it too exclusive and the pleasure of reusing old stuff can rapidly turn to loss of enthusiasm! It's the tools, not so much the medium, I think.
Rob C
-
I know a few people caught up in the trend of shooting film... they are all using it in old MF cameras that make satisfying kerPlonk sounds when you press the button. The one whose work I like best uses Tmax, but another is into all sorts of colour... she loves finding expired rolls and cross-processing, for the randomness of the results. Another friend who used to run a minilab and sold his Hassy a few years back rolls his eyes and mumbles about good photography not being a random process. Another loves using the old Est German Wolwo??? slide film, which was the eastern block Kodachrome and died once the real deal started slipping through the iron curtain. Apparently it gives good results on a very specific colour palette over a very narrow exposure range... he is English, none of those who had to use it in the past have any interest. Nostalgia works like that, I guess.
Whatever works for your passions, I say.
i've never heard anyone pining for ekta though...
-
Seems Kodak may have plans to revive Kodachrome too. :o If it does happen, and if they use the same development process, maybe my unprocessed K200 from NYC in early 2002 will finally make it to the proper end of its life cycle.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/01/11/the-return-of-an-icon-will-kodak-bring-back-kodachrome
-Dave-
-
Seems Kodak may have plans to revive Kodachrome too. :o If it does happen, and if they use the same development process, maybe my unprocessed K200 from NYC in early 2002 will finally make it to the proper end of its life cycle.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/01/11/the-return-of-an-icon-will-kodak-bring-back-kodachrome
-Dave-
I can see a 500 Series make sense...
(Of course, that would make my gear-oriented self-flagellation fears real once more; maybe not exactly what I needed right now.)
;-)
Rob
-
I used to shoot film (often E100VS) but only in 135 format. Please suggest some inexpensive second-hand MF gear for studio portrait work, I'd be willing to give it a try.
-
I used to shoot film (often E100VS) but only in 135 format. Please suggest some inexpensive second-hand MF gear for studio portrait work, I'd be willing to give it a try.
The announcement only talks about 135 and Super-8 movie, no 120
-
I know. But other films still exist in 120 format :-). I would probably try B/W first because I can still get that developed locally, unlike E6 films.
-
I know. But other films still exist in 120 format :-). I would probably try B/W first because I can still get that developed locally, unlike E6 films.
In that case, save your money and don't bother doing it at all. Unless you do your own D&P you will never know how well or otherwise you expose. That single factor will influence your end result far more than you may appreciate.
Not being flip, just honest.
Rob
-
Fair enough. Money saved :-)
-
Fair enough. Money saved :-)
But hey, that's not to imply that you should not do an easy conversion of the bathroom, simple matter of sticking Velcro to the sides of the window frame, then having a piece of blackout material made to which set of edges you sew the other part of the Velcro strip. You just stick the blackout mask to the window as needed. Wait for a few minutes to make sure your eyes have adjusted to darkness, and then check for light leaks. Processing B/W film is not rocket science: you only need to be able to repeat the process accurately each time to ensure you have cut out variables which will mess up any best intentions if you let them sneak in.
You don't have to print wet; once you've discovered what a properly exposed and developed negative looks lilke, you're ready to go! Either you can scan - if you want to bother - or do what I eventually did with the few 120 trannies I had left: copy them via a digital camera and process in the computer as normal. It's a trip worth trying if you do it properly.
-
You don't even need to black-out your bathroom. Once I bought a film scanner, I only had a dark-bag for loading the reels and dropping them into a daylight tank.
-
You don't even need to black-out your bathroom. Once I bought a film scanner, I only had a dark-bag for loading the reels and dropping them into a daylight tank.
True; never had one of those bags, never felt happy with the idea of working away with my hands locked into a space! Doesn't feel Nature's way... ;-) (Hell's teeth, I even have fights with rubber kitchen gloves: they seldom seem to last me more than two weeks before the left hand - always the left hand - springs a leak in the same space: right between the fingers. Some, those two-toned horrors, seem to fold themselves at the colour separation as they are being used, and slowly, bit by bit, the top section ends up around the fingers. Domesticity is not my forte.)
When I had darkrooms, I used to like to spread the tanks, lids and reels etc. out in a standard pattern and, that way, I could find every single item simply by reaching to where I knew it had to be.
However, and this really harks back to another thread where I attempted to subdivide photography into component parts where each has its specific thrill as part of the whole, there were many times when after I thought I'd had a particularly good session with somebody and worked with interesting clothes etc. (not always my lot - had to shoot some horrors, too) I lost interest the moment the girl left the building studio and I would have been happy, client reactions aside, just to have closed the doors and gone home. I didn't dislike darkroom work, was pretty hot at it largely due to my early traning in the industrial unit where my trip began, but anything after the shoot that day was going to be an anticlimax; I had no interest in seeing the prints, the thrill for the day was gone. Other times, I just got on with it without any specific emotional pressures. In the end, I did nothing but colour trannies, and that was the best period of all. I was spared the digital experience and all the extra work that has brough to pro life. How beautiful the alternative of seeing you stuff on a big lightbox, where all you had to do was choose what you felt you wanted to show the clients and then simply do that, and then send in your invoice.
I realised some time ago that I really wouldn't have fitted in with the contemporary ways, with monitor-watchers adding their several tuppences all the time you're trying to get something going in front of you... I would probably have either frozen, or just exploded and alienated another client. Different times, different people and expectations.
Rob
-
No Fudgy Chrome for you, eh, Rob?
Edmund
I can see a 500 Series make sense...
(Of course, that would make my gear-oriented self-flagellation fears real once more; maybe not exactly what I needed right now.)
;-)
Rob
-
My experience with Ektachrome is that it fades more quickly than Kodachrome, a fact that was very significant for me because I was using both films many years before scanners became available. I now regret having used Ektachrome.
Now that scanners are available, durability of film image quality for new rolls is probably not an issue if the new film is always scanned. However, the really interesting issue is why some people seem to place so much importance on the emotion of nostalgia for technological products.
Nostalgia for a previous lifestyle in a previous era is understandable, as is nostalgia for a lost friend or family member. But nostalgia for an old, obsolete and inefficient piece of technology seems a bit strange to me. Could the Ford motor company make a profit by reintroducing the Model-T with it's inefficient fuel consumption, slow speed, poor handling and uncomfortable ride? ;)
-
No Fudgy Chrome for you, eh, Rob?
Edmund
Two minds: I was told to use it when I was still doing stock 'atmospherics' because it gave the violence that attracted holiday brochure people; I was also told to switch to 6x7 and, when I did, I discovered that it made no difference at all, and that the whole business was being rapidly undermined by digital which made film users uncompetitive. You know where that led us. On the other hand, Fudgy had one benefit I discovered much later: I did some tests with it with a girl and, as colour, it was a pink mess. Years and years later, when I bought a scanner, I remembered the test and scanned one such 'pink' image, and it worked our rather well as b/white, in much the way as did most of my Kodachromes which I'd been led to believe would be unscannable, but which, however, as they didn't know that, just went right on ahead and did quite nicely after all. I think I can find the Velvia:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/1064888_orig.jpg)
Nikon F2. All the 135 Velvia has been used up, but I still have a brick of it in 120.
Rob
-
My experience with Ektachrome is that it fades more quickly than Kodachrome, a fact that was very significant for me because I was using both films many years before scanners became available. I now regret having used Ektachrome.
Now that scanners are available, durability of film image quality for new rolls is probably not an issue if the new film is always scanned. However, the really interesting issue is why some people seem to place so much importance on the emotion of nostalgia for technological products.
Nostalgia for a previous lifestyle in a previous era is understandable, as is nostalgia for a lost friend or family member. But nostalgia for an old, obsolete and inefficient piece of technology seems a bit strange to me. Could the Ford motor company make a profit by reintroducing the Model-T with it's inefficient fuel consumption, slow speed, poor handling and uncomfortable ride? ;)
Probably not, but a new '59 Cadillac Coupe de Ville with modern mechanicals very well might! Not a car made since, at whatever price, has the pure impact. I remember seeing one on German plates driving through (filling?) a narrow street in the tiny fishing village of Mallorca's Porto Petro, top down, driver and young family inside the thing: impressive! Stuff Ferrari, Porsche, all of those idiot speed machines: '59 had style! Mercedes S Class? Really? Sierra on steroids.
https://www.google.es/search?q=cadillac+coupe+deville+1959&rlz=1C2PRFE_enES586ES586&biw=1212&bih=885&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQj6_2_sjRAhUKuBQKHT-vDogQsAQIIw
Regarding the photoworld, for me it's more about the cameras (especially 500 C versions) than the film, and you can't enjoy them again without the film, can you? I still have a pristine F3 but it lies locked away... why spend money on film when I have no commercial justification for it? That the same would probably apply to 120 is true, but perhaps the motivation to play might be stronger...
The real motivation would have been a Hassy 500 Series with a 6x6 digital back that I could have afforded. No, I won't be holding my breath.
Your experience with fading comparisons is on the money; but it also depends: the truth seems to be that Extachrome fades more quickly when stored correctly than does Kodachrome stored correctly, but that the Kodachrome is more adversely affected by exposure to light. A bit of a circle, then. Don't check out your Kodachromes too often!
Rob
-
I realised some time ago that I really wouldn't have fitted in with the contemporary ways, with monitor-watchers adding their several tuppences all the time
I spent 8 years sitting on the research ethics committee of a large hospital, and so I became interested in the psychology of reviewers. There are several studies that show that as you improve the quality of submissions, the reviewers will become more fastidious, down to debating the use of commas in the patient information sheet.
It seems this happens because the reviewers want to feel useful, and to feel they have contributed something, even though we weren't paid. So if you create a paid position called, eg "Art Director", which has nominal authority over another position called "photographer"... the AD will feel a need to contribute and to, well, direct, no matter how good the material being produced by the photographer. It's actually a major achievement in self confidence to say "no, this is fine, there is nothing useful I can add." In particular, it demands confidence in the security of one's position, which is something modern management tries to avoid: keep the employees insecure so they'll work harder... although probably not better.
All of which means that the major attraction of Kodachrome, of being a definitive an unalterable product, disappears as soon as it is scanned and available for import to Photoshop :(
-
Probably not, but a new '59 Cadillac Coupe de Ville with modern mechanicals very well might! Not a car made since, at whatever price, has the pure impact. I remember seeing one on German plates driving through (filling?) a narrow street in the tiny fishing village of Mallorca's Porto Petro, top down, driver and young family inside the thing: impressive! Stuff Ferrari, Porsche, all of those idiot speed machines: '59 had style! Mercedes S Class? Really? Sierra on steroids.
https://www.google.es/search?q=cadillac+coupe+deville+1959&rlz=1C2PRFE_enES586ES586&biw=1212&bih=885&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQj6_2_sjRAhUKuBQKHT-vDogQsAQIIw
I'm not into cars as objects of art, Rob. Most cars look to me like weird aliens from outer space. ;)
As with cameras, I expect cars to be functional and efficient in accordance with my purposes. I want my car to be fuel-efficient, durable, good value price-wise, easy to operate, and designed to meet my needs. Appearance is not the main consideration, but is of some consideration.
Regarding the photoworld, for me it's more about the cameras (especially 500 C versions) than the film, and you can't enjoy them again without the film, can you? I still have a pristine F3 but it lies locked away... why spend money on film when I have no commercial justification for it? That the same would probably apply to 120 is true, but perhaps the motivation to play might be stronger...
Hhmm! Can't say the emotional experience of handling the camera is significant for me, except with regard to the ease of handling and the number of useful features. If the situation was that modern digital cameras were heavier and more cumbersome and more time-consuming to use, I might have a nostalgia for those lightweight, super-fast, film-cameras of a previous era. But the opposite appears to be the case. For a while I used Medium Format cameras around the time that digital cameras were taking off and second hand MF cameras were cheap because professionals were moving to digital.
However, as soon as Canon produced a reasonable quality DSLR, the 6mp D60, I felt no reason to continue using my MF film equipment, which was heavy, cumbersome and expensive in terms of film costs and development.
Your experience with fading comparisons is on the money; but it also depends: the truth seems to be that Extachrome fades more quickly when stored correctly than does Kodachrome stored correctly, but that the Kodachrome is more adversely affected by exposure to light. A bit of a circle, then. Don't check out your Kodachromes too often!
I didn't know that. You're not joking are you? If what you claim is true, then I suppose the advantage of Ektachrome applies to situations of frequent and continuous slide shows. Right?
-
The real motivation would have been a Hassy 500 Series with a 6x6 digital back
A Romanian photogrpher friend likes playing with film in her Pentacon 6
http://www.crinaprida.com/3808568-the-medium-format-film
...and then an Australian friend (who used to work in a camera store but became a fireman to escape the customers) was on holiday in Austria last month and found one for a few hundred euros... but someone stole his wallet before he could do anything silly.
-
A Romanian photogrpher friend likes playing with film in her Pentacon 6
http://www.crinaprida.com/3808568-the-medium-format-film
...and then an Australian friend (who used to work in a camera store but became a fireman to escape the customers) was on holiday in Austria last month and found one for a few hundred euros... but someone stole his wallet before he could do anything silly.
Re Aussie pal: was it a fire sale that led to this?
Re Crina; doesn't she know it's not about 6x6, but that it's about two little triangular indents down the left side of the negative/tranny? It's what always frustrated HC-B: he coudn't play that game honestly with his weaponry of choice.
Rob
-
Hmmm... I guess Kodak didn't learn from their first bankruptcy or buy-out or what ever it was that caused its demise.
Let see, we'll finally have a use for those slide trays and projectors we threw out years ago. And quick - buy some shares in Dust Off! and whomever is making loupes these days.
Really?! Kodak is bringing back an industry-standard* albeit third-rate film (behind Provia/Velvia and Kodachrome) that scans poorly c.f. negs and few people can even view now as the equipment was obsolete a decade ago.
99% of the time I'm a positivist. Not this time.
*industry-standard because it could be processed faster than Kodachrome and its was American-made, not Japanese – at least that's what I'm told by those using it. Personally, having tried them all for over 20 years, I much preferred Provia/Velvia.
-
Reviewer's advice: Don't bury the lede :)
Edmund
I spent 8 years sitting on the research ethics committee of a large hospital, and so I became interested in the psychology of reviewers. There are several studies that show that as you improve the quality of submissions, the reviewers will become more fastidious, down to debating the use of commas in the patient information sheet.
It seems this happens because the reviewers want to feel useful, and to feel they have contributed something, even though we weren't paid. So if you create a paid position called, eg "Art Director", which has nominal authority over another position called "photographer"... the AD will feel a need to contribute and to, well, direct, no matter how good the material being produced by the photographer. It's actually a major achievement in self confidence to say "no, this is fine, there is nothing useful I can add." In particular, it demands confidence in the security of one's position, which is something modern management tries to avoid: keep the employees insecure so they'll work harder... although probably not better.
All of which means that the major attraction of Kodachrome, of being a definitive an unalterable product, disappears as soon as it is scanned and available for import to Photoshop :(
-
Hmmm... I guess Kodak didn't learn from their first bankruptcy or buy-out or what ever it was that caused its demise.
Let see, we'll finally have a use for those slide trays and projectors we threw out years ago. And quick - buy some shares in Dust Off! and whomever is making loupes these days.
Really?! Kodak is bringing back an industry-standard* albeit third-rate film (behind Provia/Velvia and Kodachrome) that scans poorly c.f. negs and few people can even view now as the equipment was obsolete a decade ago.
99% of the time I'm a positivist. Not this time.
*industry-standard because it could be processed faster than Kodachrome and its was American-made, not Japanese – at least that's what I'm told by those using it. Personally, having tried them all for over 20 years, I much preferred Provia/Velvia.
Me too. I used a Hassy V with Fujichrome 1600 and an 80mm as a travel camera for years. Much better than bluebox bluefeeling bluetack.
Edmund
-
1st attached pic: typical Ektachrome (probably ASA 50) c. 1962 from my dad's "archive."
2nd attached pic: typical Kodachrome (probably ASA 25) c. 1964 from same.
-Dave-
-
1st attached pic: typical Ektachrome (probably ASA 50) c. 1962 from my dad's "archive."
2nd attached pic: typical Kodachrome (probably ASA 25) c. 1964 from same.
-Dave-
Some Kodak moments last longer :)
-
Some Kodak moments last longer :)
Don't knock 'em! They provided amazing signposts showing people exactly where to stand in order to make the iconic photograph of everywhere! Now that's service across brands: they never checked you to see if you had loaded Ilford.
Rob