Kodak kills Ektachromes

[Scammed Public]

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-03-02 00:01 , Scammed Public wrote:
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml

Damn. I like those films.

OTOH I've got about 20 rolls (35mm & 120) in the freezer that have been
there for a couple - three years so I guess I'm not helping.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public <rande...@gmail.com> said:

> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even sadder
to consider that this might have bee one of the last potentially
salvageable Kodak assets.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Michael]

On 2012-03-02 23:17:28 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2012-03-02 00:01 , Scammed Public wrote:
>> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml
>
> Damn. I like those films.
>
> OTOH I've got about 20 rolls (35mm & 120) in the freezer that have been
> there for a couple - three years so I guess I'm not helping.

Is that ALL the Ektachromes? Or did they leave any still in production.
Sorry, I never could keep track of Ektachromes after they split
Ektachrome and EliteChrome.
--
Michael

[Bruce]

Salvageable? Why?

Fujifilm long ago cleaned up in the worldwide E6 market thanks to a
selection of emulsions that made the Ektachrome offerings look
decidedly ordinary.

Kodak failed to invest in improving Ektachrome, just as it failed to
invest in improving Kodachrome, just as it ... [long list of failures]
After decades of underinvestment, there was nothing left to salvage.

And that may be the epitaph for the whole company, not just the
division marketing Ektachrome film.

[Noons]

Michael wrote,on my timestamp of 3/03/2012 6:46 PM:


> Is that ALL the Ektachromes? Or did they leave any still in production. Sorry, I
> never could keep track of Ektachromes after they split Ektachrome and EliteChrome.

ALL slide film from Kodak is now gone.
Good riddance, too...

[Alan Browne]

Per the site, these three are discontinued:
KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME E100G Film
KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME E100VS Film
KODAK PROFESSIONAL ELITE Chrome Extra Color 100 Film

I haven't used much Elite Chrome since the early 2000's. And that was
200 EI'd @ 320 and pushed. I may have a roll or 2 left (35mm).

AFAICT from the site, the two Ekta's were the only Ekta's in production.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
necessary to let the remaining ones survive.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>> Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
>> sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
>> potentially salvageable Kodak assets.
>
>But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
>realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
>necessary to let the remaining ones survive.

In this case, it is also a question of getting rid of an uncompetitive
product. Ektachrome was a leader in the 1970s and 80s but inexorably
lost its way thereafter.

[Michael]

On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public <rande...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml
>>
>> Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.
>>
>> Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
>> sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
>> potentially salvageable Kodak assets.
>
> But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
> realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
> necessary to let the remaining ones survive.

But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers notwithstanding. When
the market thins out by losing its best players, something is wrong.

Sorry, Velvia fans.
--
Michael

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Michael wrote:

> But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
> the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers notwithstanding. When
> the market thins out by losing its best players, something is wrong.

It all depends upon the market. Eventually someone will realize that Bayer
sensor digital cameras are lacking something and there will be a move
back to color film.

Not on the scale it was say in the 1980's when everyone had a Japanese
35mm SLR. (You could get a Canon AE1-P for $105 at K-Mart), but hopefully
enough that a small film manufacturer will make some really good film.

It does not have to be Kodachrome with its many layers and long involved
processing, with modern technology an "Ektachome" type film can be
made close enough that no one would miss it.

It never ceases to amaze me, how many wonderful photographs were taken
with an ASA 10 film, 3 and 4 element lenses, no light meters and 1930's
film technology.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

[Andrew Reilly]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:39:04 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> It never ceases to amaze me, how many wonderful photographs were taken
> with an ASA 10 film, 3 and 4 element lenses, no light meters and 1930's
> film technology.

Many people still take great photos with plastic lenses, one aperture and
two shutter speeds, tuning exposure with luck and ISO selection.

Being there is a significant element of success...

My F3 died yesterday[*], propelled to the tiled floor by an energetic
dog. Not sure whether to replace it or abandon film at last. I'm in
mourning.

[*] All seems OK except the mirror seems to have come adrift on one
side. Fixable?

Cheers,

--
Andrew

[David Dyer-Bennet]

The market decided 15 years ago that it preferred Fuji slide films. The
fact that not everybody agreed doesn't change it.

Also the Kodachrome processing was slow and uncertain, which ruled it
out for professional use.

Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
that lovely neutral tone.

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
>that lovely neutral tone.

Yes, me too. I adored the results I got Agfachrome CT18, which was a
DIN 18 (ASA 50) slide film. The results were just slightly on the
cool side so I used a 1A skylight filter most of the time.

I was never quite as impressed with its eventual successor, CT21 which
seemed to lose quite a lot of saturation for a one stop advantage at
DIN 21 (ASA 100).

We thought that ASA 50 was quite fast for slide film given that the
market leader was ASA 25 Kodachrome II. Ektachrome offered a little
more speed at ASA 64. High Speed High Speed Ektachrome offered ASA
160 but was grainy, contrasty and lacked saturation.

Finally, there was GAF 500 (ASA 500) sold by 3M but made in Italy by
Ansco with grain the size of pebbles and a truly hideous colour cast.
Trying to remove the colour cast meant using colour correction filters
that robbed too much light, rather negating the point of using the
film, so it was best to leave it as it was and make a feature of it.

;-)

[Michael]

On 2012-03-06 16:03:32 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

> Michael <adunc...@mypacks.net> writes:
>
>> On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:
>>
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public <rande...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml
>>>>
>>>> Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
>>>> sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
>>>> potentially salvageable Kodak assets.
>>>
>>> But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
>>> realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
>>> necessary to let the remaining ones survive.
>>
>> But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
>> the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers
>> notwithstanding. When the market thins out by losing its best players,
>> something is wrong.
>
> The market decided 15 years ago that it preferred Fuji slide films. The
> fact that not everybody agreed doesn't change it.
>
> Also the Kodachrome processing was slow and uncertain, which ruled it
> out for professional use.
>
> Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
> that lovely neutral tone.

Kodachrome processing uncertain? Difficult and involved but uncertain?
Kodak did it well even in the Kodalux era. So did Dwayne. In the end it
was only Dwayne. Ruled out for professional use? Have you read the
numerous tributes to Kodachrome written by the pros at the time of its
demise? Remember the Afghan girl photo for National Geo? That was
Kodachrome.
--
Michael

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
>>that lovely neutral tone.
>
>
> Yes, me too. I adored the results I got Agfachrome CT18, which was a
> DIN 18 (ASA 50) slide film. The results were just slightly on the
> cool side so I used a 1A skylight filter most of the time.

Yep, that's the one. I mostly exposed it at EI 64.

> I was never quite as impressed with its eventual successor, CT21 which
> seemed to lose quite a lot of saturation for a one stop advantage at
> DIN 21 (ASA 100).

And I'd mostly moved on to Kodak films by then.

> We thought that ASA 50 was quite fast for slide film given that the
> market leader was ASA 25 Kodachrome II. Ektachrome offered a little
> more speed at ASA 64. High Speed High Speed Ektachrome offered ASA
> 160 but was grainy, contrasty and lacked saturation.

I never did take to Kodachrome 64; just wasn't the same thing.

> Finally, there was GAF 500 (ASA 500) sold by 3M but made in Italy by
> Ansco with grain the size of pebbles and a truly hideous colour cast.
> Trying to remove the colour cast meant using colour correction filters
> that robbed too much light, rather negating the point of using the
> film, so it was best to leave it as it was and make a feature of it.

Man, I'd forgotten that. I did use 3M 640T quite a bit -- hideous
enough.

I was always annoyed that with very few exceptions, high-speed color
films were daylight balanced. I *never* needed high-speed color films
in daylight, it was always under artificial illumination indoors, which
then meant tungsten. I never did figure out who they thought the market
was that needed ISO 1600 dayligyht film.

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Finally, there was GAF 500 (ASA 500) sold by 3M but made in Italy by
>> Ansco with grain the size of pebbles and a truly hideous colour cast.
>> Trying to remove the colour cast meant using colour correction filters
>> that robbed too much light, rather negating the point of using the
>> film, so it was best to leave it as it was and make a feature of it.
>
>Man, I'd forgotten that. I did use 3M 640T quite a bit -- hideous
>enough.
>
>I was always annoyed that with very few exceptions, high-speed color
>films were daylight balanced. I *never* needed high-speed color films
>in daylight, it was always under artificial illumination indoors, which
>then meant tungsten.

Yes, it was very frustrating.

>I never did figure out who they thought the market

>was that needed ISO 1600 daylight film.


Me neither.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Bruce wrote:

>
>
>>I never did figure out who they thought the market
>>was that needed ISO 1600 daylight film.
>
>
> Me neither.
>

Because daylight film shot under tungsten lighting produces a nice "warm"
feeling, but tungsten film shot under daylight is unusable.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I've read a lot of professional photographers writing about how they
gave it up because processing was slow and unreliable (by their
standards). E-6 is 3-hour standard service in any big city (1-hour
rush); K-14 was taking them over a week, and wasn't as reliable.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> writes:

> Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>I never did figure out who they thought the market
>>>was that needed ISO 1600 daylight film.
>>
>>
>> Me neither.
>
> Because daylight film shot under tungsten lighting produces a nice "warm"
> feeling, but tungsten film shot under daylight is unusable.

Daylight film shot under household incandescent is hideous. I don't
think much of anybody left it unfiltered or unadjusted.

[Bruce]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:

>> David Dyer-Bennett wrote:
>>>I never did figure out who they thought the market
>>>was that needed ISO 1600 daylight film.
>>
>>
>> Me neither.
>>
>
>Because daylight film shot under tungsten lighting produces a nice "warm"
>feeling

No, it is hideously over-warm.

>but tungsten film shot under daylight is unusable.

No more unusable than daylight film shot under tungsten lighting.

I realise tastes vary, but ...

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>I've read a lot of professional photographers writing about how they
>gave it up because processing was slow and unreliable (by their
>standards). E-6 is 3-hour standard service in any big city (1-hour
>rush); K-14 was taking them over a week, and wasn't as reliable.

Towards the end, perhaps. But I recall the days when Kodachrome was
processed in London and the service was very fast - if you mailed it
on a Monday you got it back in the mail on a Wednesday. If you hand
delivered it on a Monday it came back in the mail on Tuesday.

I can even recall the address:
29 Deer Park Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 3UG.

It is etched on my mind having sent so many films there in yellow and
red mailers. ;-)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>I've read a lot of professional photographers writing about how they
>>gave it up because processing was slow and unreliable (by their
>>standards). E-6 is 3-hour standard service in any big city (1-hour
>>rush); K-14 was taking them over a week, and wasn't as reliable.
>
>
> Towards the end, perhaps. But I recall the days when Kodachrome was
> processed in London and the service was very fast - if you mailed it
> on a Monday you got it back in the mail on a Wednesday. If you hand
> delivered it on a Monday it came back in the mail on Tuesday.

I used it some, in London (on visits), in that period. But even that is
24 hours instead of 3 hours .

> I can even recall the address:
> 29 Deer Park Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 3UG.

Yikes. But I remember the address of my favorite restaurant in Chicago,
that closed more than a decade ago, so I can't actually complain you're
wasting brain cells :-). (I've never lived in Chicago. It was at 2218
N. Lincoln.)

> It is etched on my mind having sent so many films there in yellow and
> red mailers. ;-)

Sure.

[RobertL]

On Mar 6, 4:03 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> Michael <adunc79...@mypacks.net> writes:
> > On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:
>
> >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>

> >>> On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>>>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalInd...

>
> >>> Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.
>
> >>> Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
> >>> sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
> >>> potentially salvageable Kodak assets.
>
> >> But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
> >> realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
> >> necessary to let the remaining ones survive.
>
> > But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
> > the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers
> > notwithstanding. When the market thins out by losing its best players,
> > something is wrong.
>
> The market decided 15 years ago that it preferred Fuji slide films.  The
> fact that not everybody agreed doesn't change it.
>
> Also the Kodachrome processing was slow and uncertain, which ruled it
> out for professional use.

Except, AIUI, for archival purposes - because it's colours were the
most stable long term (and aged predictably) it was routinely used
for documenting paintings etc.

Robert

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Very good dark storage, poorer than Ektachrome in light resistance. So
your slides are fine until you project them :-). (That's still useful,
you just have to remember it and be careful.)

[Annika1980]

On Mar 2, 6:17 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:

> On 2012-03-02 00:01 , Scammed Public wrote:
>

> >http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalInd...

>
> Damn.  I like those films.
>
> OTOH I've got about 20 rolls (35mm & 120) in the freezer that have been
> there for a couple - three years so I guess I'm not helping.

Alan Browne died and found himself in front of a huge freezer filled
with Kodachrome and Ektar 25. He said, "So this is Heaven?"

He heard a voice from the darkness saying,
"1. There is no way to develop these any more.
2. This isn't Heaven."

[Michael]

On 2012-03-07 15:59:27 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

<snip>

>
> Very good dark storage, poorer than Ektachrome in light resistance. So
> your slides are fine until you project them :-). (That's still useful,
> you just have to remember it and be careful.)

But awesome for home movies. Each frame is projected for a fraction of
a second, so you can watch movies again and again and again (more than
you ever would want to) over many years and the colors remain. I have
my Dad's old 16mm Kodachrome from the 1950s and 1960s to prove it.
--
Michael

[Noons]

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 9/03/2012 4:44 AM:


>> OTOH I've got about 20 rolls (35mm& 120) in the freezer that have been

>> there for a couple - three years so I guess I'm not helping.
>
> Alan Browne died and found himself in front of a huge freezer filled
> with Kodachrome and Ektar 25. He said, "So this is Heaven?"
>
> He heard a voice from the darkness saying,
> "1. There is no way to develop these any more.
> 2. This isn't Heaven."
>
>

LOL!
Clearly, those "pearly gates" haven't heard of alternative processing...