Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What happened to Ektar film?(Mr. Pytlak or anyone?)

This is topic What happened to Ektar film?(Mr. Pytlak or anyone?) in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001973

Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 02-27-2001, 04:02 AM:

I am wondering what happened to Kodak's
Ektar film. Is there another Kodak brand
that is being used in it's place?
Maybe Mr. Pytlak should explain this.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2001, 12:19 PM:

KODAK EKTAR 25 Film was introduced in 1988. It was replaced by KODAK ROYAL GOLD 25 Film:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e40/e40Contents.shtml

The technology has been improved even more with the new Kodak Royal Gold line of films:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/35mm/films/royalGoldFilms.shtml

For the finest grain in a consumer camera negative film, the Kodak Royal Gold 100 film would be your choice today.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Rick McCluney (Member # 642) on 02-27-2001, 02:39 PM:

John,
I take it that the Royal Gold 25 is no longer available. I used it a few years ago and loved the detail and warmth in the pictures it produced. I have not seen it in a some time.
Rick

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2001, 02:45 PM:

Try the KODAK ROYAL GOLD 100. Very similar quality at a higher speed.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2001, 05:54 PM:

There is also a relatively new Ektachrome available that is also quite warm. Can't remember the number for it though, perhaps John does. I have shot it in 4X5 and gotten great results, but it is also available in 120 and 35mm as far as I know. It does not have the typical Ektachrome blue tint to it.(John, Don't get mad here) Also if you want really saturated colors and extreme fine grain try Fuji Velvia. Its ASA of 50 and resolving power are remarkable. One can make outstanding Ilfochrome prints from Velvia transparencys when its all done right! Ilfochrome prints also do not fade like conventional color prints do. The dyes are already in the emulsion layers, not created chemically during processing.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-27-2001, 06:27 PM:

Hey as long as we're on this topic...
Astrophotographers around the world just loved Kodak PPF 400. It was pretty much the "standard", then Kodak discontinued it. People were buying up all they could get their hands on and storing it in the fridge. (I bought 120 rolls in the 120 format) Is there anything that is close to PPF400. Some are using E200 with a two stop push or hypering it. It's sort of a mystery as to why kodak stopped producing this popular film

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2001, 08:20 PM:

Greg: Have you tried the new KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA Film?:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/portraIndex.shtml

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-27-2001, 09:53 PM:

Apparently, the point of Velvia is that it provides something approaching the Kodachrome look, but can be processed by anyone who can do E6 work. It's also available as a motion-picture stock (yes, 35mm reversal!) and is occasionally used for commercials and music videos. Apparently, it can't really be printed, so it's only useful for work that will end up on tape.

Personally, I'm a Kodachrome fan for the most part, but I have also been happy with the Ektachrome 400 asa stock for slides and Royal Gold 100 for when I need prints (like for the photos I've taken for the picture gallery here, since I don't have access to a slide scanner).

Last weekend, I shot some Tmax 3200 for the first time in a couple of years. I'd forgotten how great this is for B&W work with available light. Check out the exposure latitude in these pictures (click on the links below)...this was a pretty poorly lit nightclub type of place, with several stops' worth of difference in the light from one part of the stage to another. I shot these with a slowish zoom lens at f 3.5, 1/60 and the film was processed at 3200...I have another roll that was pushed to 6400, but I haven't scanned any of the pictures yet. These scans aren't that great, but they give some idea of what can be done with 3200 asa film.

picture 1 - small (30k)

picture 1 - large (240k)

picture 2 - small (26k)

picture 2 - large (290k)

(This is getting way off topic...)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2001, 10:41 PM:

Scott,
Indeed Velvia has the highest resolving power of all the transparency films out there, including Kodachrome! I do allot of landscapes and it is really a great film for that. I can make grainless 30 X 40 Ilfochromes from them that look remarkable.
I love Kodachrome but unfortunately since Kodak stopped processing it the quality is pretty much touch and go. At least thats been my experience with the last dozen rolls or so. Perhaps you know of a good lab for it. Nothing around here so it has to be sent out. Also the new Kodachrome seems to have a more muted color than the old stuff did. The T-Max stuff looks great. What developer did you use?
John,
I have a bunch of the Porta here . I've shot it and its nice. Again the colors seem toned down a bit, but it is a very pleasing film.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-28-2001, 06:59 AM:

Scott: Great shots, by "unavailable light". Many times you can get really detailed images , even when the light is so dim that it's hard to see well enough to focus. Did you process the negs in T-Max developer?
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j86/j86.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f32/f32d.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f32/f32e.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/p150/p150a.shtml

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-28-2001, 07:13 AM:

Mark, Scott:

Have you tried all of the KODAK ELITE Chrome films? Many prefer them to the competition:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/film/exEliteMain.shtml

Here's information on the KODACHROME films:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/film/exKodaMain.shtml

And here's a link to the line of KODAK professional reversal films:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.shtml

Finally, information on the "Color Abuzz" reversal film for motion-pictures, used in many commercial and music video shoots and some features:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/reversal/5285.shtml

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-28-2001, 07:26 AM:

Greg:

As an astronomy buff, you might appreciate the following links:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/p150/p150Contents.s html
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/government/ias/
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.shtml#086

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-28-2001, 08:42 AM:

Thanks John I'll check out those links. I did try the KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA on a vacation to Death Valley. I found the color a little subdued, at least on the kind I tried.
I still have close to 100 rolls of PPF. So I'm set for a while.
Here's a few of my humble efforts from last year http://users.silverlink.net/~mueller/astrophotos.htm
It's almost time to get out and start shooting again

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-28-2001, 09:19 AM:

Thanks John for the tip on the Elite Chrome. I'll get a few rolls for my next trip out. It would be nice if there was a film like Velvia but with a bit faster speed! I have never like any of the other Fuji products too well as the greens always seem to go towards lime green a tad bit too much.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-28-2001, 09:28 AM:

I believe that it was Tmax developer, but I'm not 100% sure. I haven't been shooting much B&W lately, and it's not really cost effective to process it myself in small quantities.

Mark - I think that part of the "issue" with Fuji is that most of the US labs aren't as familiar with it as they are with Kodak, and so they don't do quite as good a job with processing it. I don't know that for a fact, but I've seen a fair amount of evidence that supports it.

That said, I'm not a big fan of the Fuji color negative films, but they do have some nice high-speed E6 reversal films, although I'm generally happy enough with Ektachrome 400 that I don't have much use for anything faster. I do want to try Velvia sometime soon, though.

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 02-28-2001, 12:46 PM:

Scott, Nice B&W work. Are the microphones
those guys are using in the photo old vintage Shure 55's? (Elvis Presley style)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-28-2001, 06:52 PM:

Scott,
Definately give Velvia a try. I think you will be very impressed with it, but be ready for some wide aperture shots, and or long exposures. I ahve a number of my prints hanging in my office, taken with both 4X5 and 6X9, and they are literally grainless. I guarantee that you will be blown away by the resolving power. I'll try to get some of my transparencys scanned and put up links to them. The main problem is that they generate around 75 meg files and it takes a zip disk for each file.
Mark

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-28-2001, 08:55 PM:

Mark,

Have you tried the new Provia 100F yet? It's even finer-grained than Velvia AND at 100 ISO. The colors aren't quite as saturated, but it also produces beautiful Ilfochromes.

I continue to use Kodachrome in my old Stereo Realist--no other film looks quite "right" in that format.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-16-2001, 09:27 AM:

Jeff -- I think the microphones are the newer Shure models that use the SM48 capsule in the 55-style housing, but I'm not sure. The band in that picture was going for the '50s aesthetic and did a pretty good job of achieving that look.

In case anyone cares, here are some of the better pics from the roll of Tmax that was pushed to 6400. They actually look a lot _less_ grainy because there was less need for underexposure correction in printing. This week, I have a couple of rolls that are being pushed to 12500 ASA (!), so I'll see how that looks. Not sure if anyone cares about this thread anymore, but I figured I'd go ahead and post the pics in case anyone was dying to know what Tmax pushed to 6400 asa looks like. There's a lot of shadow detail in the original pics that isn't captured in the scans, unfortunately.

picture #3 small (15k)
picture #3 large (197k)
picture #4 small (19k)
picture #4 large (250k)
picture #5 small (23k)
picture #5 large (346k)
picture #6 small (29k)
picture #6 large (387k)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-16-2001, 10:58 AM:

Scott: Really good photos. How did you meter the light level to decide your exposure? With all that black area behind the band, a reflected light meter could easily be fooled.

What developer and processing conditions did you use to achieve the "push"?
http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/global/en/professional/webCatalog.pl?product=KODAK+T-MAX+P3200+Professional+Film+(TMZ)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-16-2001, 05:11 PM:

John -- I'm honestly not sure on the developer, since I didn't do it myself. The local semi-pro camera shop does a better job and charges less than it would cost me to do it. I'm assuming that they used Tmax or Tmax RT developer and just extended the development time, as the instructions indicate. The prints were on "Kodak Professional Paper," but I'm not sure which type.

I admit that I just used the center-weighted meter in my camera for these shots. I couldn't really walk onto the stage with an incident meter, nor could I get someone else to hold up a grey card for me.

It was hard enough to sneak the camera into the venue. (It turns out that they do allow cameras, but I didn't know that when I entered.)

The hardest part was getting decent prints made. I went through a couple of sets of prints on most of these pictures. When they are printed on a machine, the density measurement appears to indicate overall underexposure, and the machine tries to over-compensate for this, yielding muddy grey areas which should have appeared black. I had to have most of these hand-printed by someone who understood that they are _supposed_ to look that way...