Ektar 100 in sheet?

[Hollis]

What chance is there that Kodak will offer their new Ektar 100 in sheet size (even just 4x5)?

When pigs fly?
Snowball in hell?

Any info would be appreciated


Hollis

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Slim to none, I'm guessing. But as long as we're wishing, can I have Readiloads?

I like Ektar 100 in 120 so much that I recently picked up a Super Graphic and an RH8 (6x9) Singer back for it. Going really wide is the sweet spot for 645 and I'm trying to determine where or if such a sweet spot exists for 6x9. I do have a Raptar 135mm that is super sharp except for slightly dodgy corners on 4x5-- it looks fantastic on 2-1/4 x 3-1/8.

Tonight I also just loaded a Grafmatic with Portra 160VC (inside a changing bag, no less) as this is no longer available in Readiloads. Because I moved last June and broke down my D/R and put it into storage, last week I paid a local lab $3.75/sheet to process 4x5 C41 and waited the better part of a week for it no less. Though another lab does my Quickload E6 sheet film processing for half that amount, and also does same day develop-only for an entire roll of Ektar 120 for $5. (I'm quickly warming up to the idea of shooting more roll film.)

[Duane Polcou]

I interviewed a Kodak rep at the PDN trade show in New York on Saturday specifically about Kodak films for an upcoming internet podcast on film photography. He told me that 35mm and 120 Ektar films are selling extremely well. When I asked him if we would see Ektar in 4x5 he replied

"I'm not going to promise anything but you never know"

[ljsegil]

Duane, did he make any mention of Kodak's new ridiculous minimum order of 30 boxes to purchase Portra 160NC in 5x7 sheet (50 sheet/box, so a minimum order of 1500 film sheets at a pop)? It certainly appears likely to keep the film away from the only consumers that might ever want to use it, and it seems to me to bode ill for the future of Kodak's commitment to C-41 sheet film in any form. Unless of course they are phasing it out to replace it with 5x7 Ektar 100 (yeah, right, in a pig's eye we might ever see such largess from Kodak). Methinks I will stock up on Portra 400 sheet in those formats that I use while Kodak still chooses to make it available to us, as I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling from their latest move, and Fuji does not offer anything comparable to Portra 400 in any sheet size, much less anything at all in 5x7 (why not?). Dark times, these, or at least from the perspective of a 5x7 C-41 fan, and an admitted admirer of the general excellence of Kodak products, when they choose to let us use them.
Larry

[Hollis]

Well, I think that anyone wishing for sizes other than 4x5 will be sorely out of luck in the coming years for most color emulsions. Film and large format shooting has been experiencing a nice resurgence lately, kind of a second backlash to digital, and I don't see it slowing down. The thing is, as it always has been, most people are going to pick up a 4x5 instead of larger sizes due to the availability of the equipment. How often do you see a 5x7 at a garage sale? Not very Im guessing whereas I saw I htink 3 or 4 Graflex bodies and assorted lenses at a couple different sales this last week. So, lets push for 4x5 sheet and if that happens, maybe they will make some 8x10 too.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

It's getting increasingly difficult to find C41 processing beyond 120. Too, I don't see there being much of a market for anything beyond 4x5 Readyloads nowadays, mostly for the inconvenience factor of loading holders in the dark. But sure, Kodak could throw their loyalists quite the juicy bone were they to make some sheet film Ektar available. (But they'd almost certainly be parasitizing their existing Portra VC sales to do so, unfortunately.)

Being that the substrate for large format films is necessarily thicker, whilst MF can be coated on really thin base to have more apparent sharpness, one wonders if the grain advantages to Ektar are lost when coated on a thicker more diffuse/diffractive material? (FWIW Portra is already purported to be higher resolving even in 120).

[Bruce Watson]

What will Ektar give me that's better than the current Portra films? To my way of thinking the bar is set pretty darn high by 160Portra VC/NC and 400PortraNC. I'm all for Ektar if it can indeed raise the bar. But does it?

[falth j]

Recently, I spoke with a Kodak customer service representative about sheet Kodak Ektar 100.

He mentioned that the future is unknown for this product size, but could be reinforced by interest and a strong demand to purchase.

His reply was to make your wishes to purchase this film known to your dealer, and to Kodak itself.

He was quick to point out that money spent by consumers, determines what products a company manufactures.

So he inferred, if you want Kodak products, don't expect a company to make them available if you're buying another companies products.

Need or demand is the mother of production buoyed by purchases ...

[BetterSense]

What will Ektar give me that's better than the current Portra films? To my way of thinking the bar is set pretty darn high by 160Portra VC/NC and 400PortraNC. I'm all for Ektar if it can indeed raise the bar. But does it?

I don't know, and I've never optically printed Ektar, but from scanning, I don't particularly care for its blues, especially light ones. Portra looks better to me.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm hoping that Ektar will have a bit of contrast and saturation boost which lands it
somwhere inbetween 160VC Portra and Astia chrome film. With chrome film you can
decrease contrast through masking (direct enlargement), but with neg films you can't
conveniently increase contrast. Neg films are my budget means of making color prints,
but often have an interesting hue palette of their own. I've shot a few rolls of Ektar,
but it may be awhile before I can print anything. I'd really doubt that this stuff ever
gets offered in sheets. C-41 processing is easy to get in this area, even in 8x10.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Drew, a couple of weeks back I shot Ektar 100 with a polarizer and was pleased to find it worked great for subtly saturating the sky and that it didn't block up like Ektar 25 of olde might have. And re: bumping contrast, back when I was into printing a boatload of RA4, there were several Kodak paper contrast grades (Ultra, Supra, Supra Endura, Portra). No more?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Bruce, I found Portra 160 VC doesn't scan well on some CCD scanners (my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400). Near as I can tell, the grain is being amplified via an interference pattern with the sensor AKA grain aliasing. This may not be anything you'd ever see if scanning LF sheet film at 2500 or 2800 dpi, however. It's a CCD fixed sensor array issue, also not likely to be a problem with a variable aperture PMT drum scanner like the Aztek/Howtek.

[Sean Galbraith]

I love Ektar 100 in 120 format and would love to have it in 4x5. Dare to dream.

[Matus Kalisky]

Just a more practical question - how do you scan this film? It seems that there is still no profile for it from SilverFast ...

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for the tip, Ivan. I just looked at an old Ektar 25 print and noted how the light
blue in the sky is distinctly cyan - same problem reported with the new film. But this
was printed at a lab. Hard to say how my own enlargers will do with the newer film,
since the colorheads are additive; but with Portra films the results have been excellent.

[Alan Davenport]

What chance is there that Kodak will offer their new Ektar 100 in sheet size (even just 4x5)?

When pigs fly?
Snowball in hell?

My guess is, probably about the time flying pigs have snowball fights in hell.