Matt, is this true that Eastman Kodak is using Estar base for Portra and Ektar color film???
As someone who spends more time on this forum than I would care to admit I am acutely aware of the situation unfortunately. However until the labeling of the package ditches the Kodak logo I do still believe it is their (Kodak TM/C with a circle around it/R or whatever) problem. As a consumer (I'm not a lab, I'm not a photofinisher, I have no Kodak Alaris account or whatever, I just buy their junk at Freestyle) I look at the big yellow Kodak logo and I buy their product and I use it as they advertise/advise it and it does not work as expected and I could be upset. And most people probably end their journey there. But as a photographer who cares about how my pictures come out I understand that I should test any materials that I use in my process.
All of this to say, I think Kodak is doing a disservice to customers by not holding up certain standards to their suppliers and distributors. But I think this delves further into a topic that isn't covered on this particular post. For this post, I think anyone that is doing any sort of work that they consider valuable they should test their materials and make sure it lives up to their expectations and either find a way to make it work or move to a product that works the way it's intended to without all of the fuss. That's an individual choice and commitment that each user has to make, but the fact that they need to waste $15 for developer and a tank full of film to come to that conclusion is a shame, and all of the business of Kodak selling rights to whoever and blah blah blah that led us here is a damned shame. I just want to use the stuff and move on, but instead I'm here on a forum...
Back off topic really quick though (did I ever really get on topic?)!!! I've found my way through this mess because I care about the process more than most people who casually engage with photography, but I fear Kodak is doing more harm by allowing a product to be sold with their logo on it than they would be by canning the entire operation until they find a way to make it simple. accurate, dependable, and according to their own data sheets which should be the end all be all of questioning. Whether it's x y or z that's selling the stuff.
All of this to say, I think Kodak is doing a disservice to customers by not holding up certain standards to their suppliers and distributors.
Actually, Kodak certified PSI manufacturing process and facilities as meeting their quality standards. It's on their website. Unfortunately, sometimes subjective factors are at play. Maybe they hired a European exchange student as an intern and he confused pounds with kilos
We are now coating our Professional Color Negative Films (Portra / EKTAR) on 0.10 mm (3.94 mil) KODAK ESTAR.
@mshchem ,
You may want to copy these posts respecting the official news about the shift to Estar base to the Industry News thread about the Eastman Kodak scheduled temporary shut down - because I'm sure there are connections.
Why do you think it's related to the shutdown? They've shifted all 35mm colour negative film to Estar prior to the shutdown.
They've been perforating and cutting Estar-based film on "unoptimised" equipment for years now. I really hope the shutdown and upgrade was about something else than transitioning the last couple of remaining emulsions to Estar.
I believe if they cared about it they would have done some testing and released updated information.
For what it's worth, I did develop a handfull of films in the most recent version of XTOL (CAT 105 8338) in the last two weeks,
using the times given by the old Kodak data sheet (or, if there were discrepancies, like with Delta 400 - the Ilford page calls for 11,5 mins @20°C, 1:1 for EI 400 - XTOL sheet only calls for 10,5 mins - then I opted for the longer time).
Negatives of all films are definitely quite thin.
Negatives of all films are definitely quite thin.
..not sure!What's going on?
Is the XTOL you're using from the recent (PSI) production?with some XTOL I mixed up a couple months ago
First time using XTOL at all.Can I ask if you mean thinner than negatives that you developed in previous or other versions of Xtol pre PSI or is this the first time you have used any Xtol at all and you have concluded that at the correct Kodak times for Xtol the negatives were thin compared to other developers you have used?
Is the XTOL you're using from the recent (PSI) production?
..not sure!
Is the XTOL you're using from the recent (PSI) production?
First time using XTOL at all.
I have used the times from the Kodak Alaris data sheet for the first rolls (one T-Max, Tri-X, HP5 and Delta 400 each), second round I was actually using the longer times published by Ilford (7,5min vs. 7min in stock, 11,5min vs. 10,5 in 1:1 @20°C) for the Delta 400, still too thin.
Yes, for the most part.Thanks, can I assume that with other developers you can use the film manufacturers' times
Afraid to say I don't wet-print at the moment as I don't have the space, so just scan the negatives.what problems when printing those thin negatives do the thinner negs give you and finally, are you able to adjust print exposure and /or contrast to produce perfectly satisfactory prints?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?