I get those nightmares when I dream of my bank...
With new films like Kodak Ektar 100 being released, is film back on the up?
-
A
- Thread starter ted_smith
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
-
For Sale Beautiful Tenba Messenger Bag
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
On a different note, and to come back to the original topic of the thread, I hate to see hat the new Kodak film is only marketed in 35mm format. Why not, a least, also in 120?
As I am an amateur (advanced, perhaps, knowledgeable, sometimes, but an amateur) I have usually been in situations where I can simply choose which medium I want to shoot with. Those decisions are driven by expediency (which camera do I have with me at the moment) inspiration (this certain kind of day might look good if I shot with 'X') or selection of equipment (I only have a long telephoto useable on my digital body, not any film body I own). I have never had to turn around images within 24 hours, or in a certain format to meet a client's wishes, or to transmit over the internet to meet a deadline.
I have been shooting in both mediums (digital and film) for about eight months now on a regular basis. And, with that very limited experience, if I needed to shoot color, right now, I'd shoot digital and print on an inkjet. If I was shooting b&w, I'd shoot film and print in a traditional darkroom.
Lots of people succeed at it the other way 'round.
B&W digital images, shot in color and then translated into B&W in Photoshop or Lightroom just don't look right to me. Maybe I don't know what I'm doing, maybe this is a function of my inexperience and my expectations, but in print form, they just don't look right.
However, if I was on assignment at a football game, or in Iraq or Israel with a deadline of tomorrow morning, and the output was newspapers or the web, why wouldn't I shoot digital?
So, I guess I fall into the camp of 'different tools for different jobs.'
I find that curious as well. With all the work to make a new film, why wouldn't you make it available as possible? I'm sure there is a good reason.
It's the volume of sales needed to produce a master roll. 120 film can't be cut from the same roll as 35mm. The film is actually a spin off from all the work to produce a new Cine film, as is the new Tmax 400.
Ian
Ian
This is what I've been saying for quite a while now. I expect if one were to trend the per capita sales of tubes of paint and canvas over the years one would find that the "hobby" sales offset the loss of "pro" sales by several orders of magnitude.
That said, I don't think film developing at home, which does required a bit more attention that screwing the caps back on the paint tubes, will become quite as widespread as hobby painting became after it moved from the pros to the masses, but I do think it will survive nicely.
As someone pointed out in another thread some weeks back, we really have to consider all silver based imaging as alternative process now. The mainstream is what's happening in the big "image" markets, the print and news media. I dare say that all the gross receipts from ever single pro wedding and portrait photographer in the world added together doesn't match the image budget of the major print media outlets. But people still go to art galleries and still buy Grumbacher paint, so they'll still buy film and supplies. And as you said, probably from the same art supply store. My wife loves Jerry's Art-o-rama, but they don't sell film yet.
I've also mentioned in some other threads that I think if Ilford, who now distributes Paterson's products in some markets at least, were to "package" a whole kit along with a good how-to DVD I think they could begin the process of invading the art stores. You could leave out the paper, just a two reel tank, some packets of chemicals, maybe even measured out for single use so there's no "storage" problem, and half a dozen rolls of Delta 100. Maybe throw in a "practice" roll of plain backing uncoated, or something defective and marked as so on the cassette.
Scanners are ubiquitous these days, so the buyer can "get" an image without a full darkroom. And if someone catches the bug, they'll do the rest of the research themselves to make wet prints. If not, then they can give the stuff to their cousin, who might catch the bug.
I think the real problem of moving photography to the art world like this is access. Although you and I know exactly where to go to get basic supplies for this, the average consumer standing in an arts and crafts store does not. If it's all together in one box for them, they'll be able to reorder or purchase refills from the art store based on the stuff they find in the kit.
After all, had you told me 40 years ago that the Estes rocket engines I ordered out of the back of comic books were going to be hanging on peg hook in Michael's or J.C Moore I wouldn't have believed you, but they're there if you look. And I also dare say that more model rockets are bought by people our age than by kids. I never see kids there. But I run into gray haired guys like me all the time.
MB
They probably don't want to compete with their own 160VC in the larger formats. This film is probably supposed to be bought by young amateurs who want a garish look, yet have no idea how to get it themselves via manual analog methods, and have never even heard of a medium format camera.
My first test roll is probably waiting to be picked up as I type. I'm sure it is a good film, but as I said before, totally unnecessary, and just a ploy to appeal to a small number of young amateurs for whom film is hip, yet who want the sharpness and saturation to which they are accustomed from shooting digital point and shoots.
My first test roll is probably waiting to be picked up as I type. I'm sure it is a good film, but as I said before, totally unnecessary, and just a ploy to appeal to a small number of young amateurs for whom film is hip, yet who want the sharpness and saturation to which they are accustomed from shooting digital point and shoots.
Last edited by a moderator:
As to quality, your statement is true for 35mm, but not for the larger formats. (Although the very expensive, super-large sensors for MF bodies arguably can compete with MF film.) As for versatility, it's debatable. It depends a lot on what you are doing. Digital has a real advantage for the professional in workflow. It's fast and easy to manipulate for publication. Most of the manipulation advantages can be realized with film by scanning with very little loss in quality, but at a considerable sacrifice in speed and convenience. A real advantage for film is the permanent physical image, not subject the deterioration and format changes of digital media.
So I guess that's why Kodak are marketing it as a Professional film then
Calling something "Professional" is different than marketing it to professionals.
If they were marketing it to pros, it would 1. be available in all formats, and 2. be something notably different than what is already there (160VC). The pro market does not shoot 35mm any more, and did not even do so all that much back when film was the only medium.
Kodak is suffering not only from sheer idiocy by introducing the product in the first place, but from schizoid disorder by marketing it to pros while at the same time making it available in 35mm only. I think using the world "Pro" is just a lazy way to make the film have more appeal to the amateur market, rather than a true quest for professional users.
Last edited by a moderator:
What about those select PJs with their Leicas? 
What about those select PJs with their Leicas?
There are two or three of them, and they all use b/w 400 films.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kodachrome was mainly marketed & sold to Professionals (in recent years) & that's only available in one format now. There are a number of Professional photo journalists shooting only 35mm, but an awful lot of it, this film is aimed at them as a replacement for Kodachrome.
One could ask why your posting on this Forum then.
I shoot both film & digital for personal work & professionally, I'm fully aware of the pro's & cons but I still prefer to shoot film when I can. Maybe I'm eccentric but I'm not a Luddite either.
Can I claim my free T-shirt now for my 5,000th post
Ian
"Kodachrome was mainly marketed & sold to Professionals (in recent years) & that's only available in one format now. There are a number of Professional photo journalists shooting only 35mm, but an awful lot of it, this film is aimed at them as a replacement for Kodachrome."
What is the number? A dozen? Maybe? And NONE of them are NEWS photographers. If they are doing it at all, it is features for weeklies and monthlies, or personal projects...and these people are already established photographers. These people exist, but their volume of use is low, is my point...Compared to thousands who shoot what their boss tells them to shoot, take their check and are happy, because they care more about being journalists (being professional witnesses, telling stories and imparting information) and paying the bills, not what medium they use. The notion that there is a sustainable professional market for this film is quaint, but absurd! It is made for amateurs who want bright colors, "like digital".
What is the number? A dozen? Maybe? And NONE of them are NEWS photographers. If they are doing it at all, it is features for weeklies and monthlies, or personal projects...and these people are already established photographers. These people exist, but their volume of use is low, is my point...Compared to thousands who shoot what their boss tells them to shoot, take their check and are happy, because they care more about being journalists (being professional witnesses, telling stories and imparting information) and paying the bills, not what medium they use. The notion that there is a sustainable professional market for this film is quaint, but absurd! It is made for amateurs who want bright colors, "like digital".
Last edited by a moderator:
Well National Geographic alone has far more than a dozen photographers still shooting Kodachrome
Around the world it there will be quite a significant band of photo-journalists still shooting colour films, but they shoot disproportionally large quantities compared to any amateur.
The sustainable professional market that brought this film to the market place is called the Cinema, vast quantities of negative film are shot & processed every day.
The new Ektar 100 is aimed at the whole still market for high quality 35mm colour films, we only have your word for it that - It is made for amateurs who want bright colors, "like digital". In another post you call it "a garish look" and then say your waiting to see the results of your first test roll. Also you say "I'm sure it is a good film". . . . . . . .
I used the earlier Ektar 25, that was a superb film but it's slow speed made it impractical. When it reaches here I'll try the new Ektar, it might tempt me back to using 35mm more frequently.
Ian
Around the world it there will be quite a significant band of photo-journalists still shooting colour films, but they shoot disproportionally large quantities compared to any amateur.
The sustainable professional market that brought this film to the market place is called the Cinema, vast quantities of negative film are shot & processed every day.
The new Ektar 100 is aimed at the whole still market for high quality 35mm colour films, we only have your word for it that - It is made for amateurs who want bright colors, "like digital". In another post you call it "a garish look" and then say your waiting to see the results of your first test roll. Also you say "I'm sure it is a good film". . . . . . . .
I used the earlier Ektar 25, that was a superb film but it's slow speed made it impractical. When it reaches here I'll try the new Ektar, it might tempt me back to using 35mm more frequently.
Ian
Well National Geographic alone has far more than a dozen photographers still shooting Kodachrome
Around the world it there will be quite a significant band of photo-journalists still shooting colour films, but they shoot disproportionally large quantities compared to any amateur.
The sustainable professional market that brought this film to the market place is called the Cinema, vast quantities of negative film are shot & processed every day.
The new Ektar 100 is aimed at the whole still market for high quality 35mm colour films, we only have your word for it that - It is made for amateurs who want bright colors, "like digital". In another post you call it "a garish look" and then say your waiting to see the results of your first test roll. Also you say "I'm sure it is a good film". . . . . . . .
I used the earlier Ektar 25, that was a superb film but it's slow speed made it impractical. When it reaches here I'll try the new Ektar, it might tempt me back to using 35mm more frequently.
Ian
I used the word "garish" to disparagingly describe the look the average Joe wants, not because I think the film is garish. As I said, I am about to get my first look-see.
I agree that the film might be just the ticket for some people, including some of the "pros" who shoot 35. The small number of N. Geo. shooters who use film cannot make it profitable for Kodak, however. The idea that "journalists" are keeping any film alive is crazy. That is my point.
Additionally, these shooters are in the group I mentioned: feature photographers for weeklies and monthlies, not news photographers. News photographers shoot way more shots than feature photographers do, as they are far more pressed for time and product, and have to provide coverage of an event far differently than a feature shooter does. News photographers are held much more tightly to the concepts of coverage, safeties, formula, and subjectivity than are N. Geo. shooters. The number of rolls of film shot at a single professional U.S. football game in the film days would be more than a N. Geo. shooter would likely shoot on an entire assignment lasting weeks or months...and it would all be 400, 800, and 1600 film, not K64, K200, or anything 100. The point of this paragraph is to say that those "pros" who do use 35mm film can't make up for those who do not do so any more. The amateur market is going to have to buy into this film big time for it to take off. I hope they do, as any income is good income, but I am a pessimist.
Last edited by a moderator:
A B&W film discovery kit, would help, especially if the manufacturer papered the arts colleges and universities with them. Such a kit would consist of, a small tank, plastic 35mm/120 adjustable reel, several rolls of film, an instructional DVD, a set of film clips and all comes in fancy changing bag. For a reasonable price say $39.99.
If it were Ilford I would say a roll each of PanF, Delta 100, Delta 400 and Delta 3200 and a practise roll. Chemistries would be in capsule form, so the kits do not require DG shipping. With enough chemistries to do 5 rolls. Capsules for developer, fixer, etc would be different colours, so that they can not be confused.
Preparing chemistries would be as simple as get some warm water, pull apart the capsule and dump the powder in, stir and let sit for 30 minutes. Replacement chemistry kits would be made available as a separate product.
Places like Michaels would also be good for such kits, in other words you go after the artist and crafters markets.
I have always suspected as much. I always bought the amateur versions when shooting professionally. I could get them in a lot more places, even in smaller towns with no professional stores. They kept better, which was important because I was on the road a lot. Sometimes they were more appealing. Verichrome pan, for example, was a real favorite.
I think it is somewhat different now because the amateurs can use the same tools, can publish on the web, and a lot of them sell pictures by moonlight. For a very long time, though, amateurs couldn't seem to recognize that photography, for a professional, was actually a J-O-B, not a paid vacation. They thought it was glamorous.
There was a lot I liked about my job, but glamorous? Hardly.
Well, for what it's worth...
I got my roll back. Sadly, I am unimpressed if not disgusted. They claim something like "the sharpest film available" right on the box. I got 5x7s made from the entire filmstrip, at healthy expense, as I was expecting something stellar and wanted to examine more closely than normal. None of them are even close to what I would call sharp, compared to 4x6 pix I normally get from the same lab on Press 800. OK, I said. They *are* 5x7s, and they are not quality optical prints. I'll look at the film under an 8x loupe. They are a little bit better under the loupe, but nowhere near the sharpness of Reala or even an amateur 100 film. They *are* quite grain free, but far from sharp. The 5x7 prints look about as sharp as some of my 8x12s from Reala. If you could apply the Perceptol-on-a-400 film look to a color film, that would be the best way I could think of to describe it. This is with my main camera/lens, which produces perfectly sharp pix. Shots were taken handheld at fast shutters ('250 minimum, and usually '500 and '1000) and apertures usually in the f/4 to f/8 range.
On the good side, it seemed to correct very cleanly on the one shot I took under fluorescents.
The film base is the same unique color as Ektar 25...another film I have found to be found grain free, but not particularly sharp.
The colors on the neg and on the prints are not anything special. Reala negs seem more saturated.
I need to try one more roll. Something must be haywire with this one......
I got my roll back. Sadly, I am unimpressed if not disgusted. They claim something like "the sharpest film available" right on the box. I got 5x7s made from the entire filmstrip, at healthy expense, as I was expecting something stellar and wanted to examine more closely than normal. None of them are even close to what I would call sharp, compared to 4x6 pix I normally get from the same lab on Press 800. OK, I said. They *are* 5x7s, and they are not quality optical prints. I'll look at the film under an 8x loupe. They are a little bit better under the loupe, but nowhere near the sharpness of Reala or even an amateur 100 film. They *are* quite grain free, but far from sharp. The 5x7 prints look about as sharp as some of my 8x12s from Reala. If you could apply the Perceptol-on-a-400 film look to a color film, that would be the best way I could think of to describe it. This is with my main camera/lens, which produces perfectly sharp pix. Shots were taken handheld at fast shutters ('250 minimum, and usually '500 and '1000) and apertures usually in the f/4 to f/8 range.
On the good side, it seemed to correct very cleanly on the one shot I took under fluorescents.
The film base is the same unique color as Ektar 25...another film I have found to be found grain free, but not particularly sharp.
The colors on the neg and on the prints are not anything special. Reala negs seem more saturated.
I need to try one more roll. Something must be haywire with this one......
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize you used high shutter speeds on this roll, but if you're going to test another roll for sharpness, wouldn't a tripod make sense?
Can I claim my free T-shirt now for my 5,000th post
Ian
Well done mate - that's one significant contribution to the forums for sure! Many of those posts have been for my benefit, so thanks!
ABSOLUTELY NOT. If I was going to shoot a subject that required a tripod, I would not be using 35mm, so that would be a worthless test. The conditions in which I shot were very standard for me, and I always get sharp pix even with 800 film. Even the lens itself should be providing better optical quality with the 100 film, as the apertures used do not cause as much diffraction. I am going to try some RA prints myself, then another roll. Maybe I got bad processing.
Last edited by a moderator:
My gut feel is to agree with you. But the subtle differences between films appeal to different people. If Kodak feels it has found a niche, maybe it's justified.
Speaking of these things, however, Kodak has another high quality, very high saturation, ISO 100 film - Kodak Gold 100. Just because it's marketed as an "amateur" film doesn't mean it is not a professional quality film. I think its colors are a bit overblown, but then I like 160NC, too. The Gold series of films have undergone most of the same improvements in emulsion making as Kodak's Professional series. It would be interesting to see a comparison and some commentary on the differences between Gold 100 and Ektar 100.
Very true about analog...and even the sensors in digital cameras are analog...something most people don't realize.
The output is digital. I think that's what we're comparing.
(I don't mind these pedantic discussions though. I tend to initiate a few myself.)
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |