An E100 sheet film tease

[Oren Grad]

Spotted on Canham Cameras' Facebook page - look for the exchange with Oscar Wong in the comments:

No, Kodak is not yet taking orders for Ektachrome in sheet film. Sheet film uses a different substrate than roll film. I know Kodak is planning on Ektachrome sheet film, but I would not expect to see any for 8-12 months at the soonest. ( I hope I am wrong and it is here sooner, but I doubt it. It took two years to get everything working for the 35mm)

https://www.facebook.com/131324393576850/photos/a.192731554102800/2439067739469159/?type=3&theater

[Drew Wiley]

Well, we all know that sheet film requires a different base; so an entire roll would have to be dedicated to it, before getting sliced up into specific sheet sizes. I sold all my remaining 8x10 Ektachrome after I switched over to Ektar. I loved E100G; but with no more Cibachrome, what would I do with it? I already have a mountain of 8x10 transparencies suitable for making internegatives from, or separation negs for DT printing. But realistically, just how many prints via that kind of route am I going to make per year? Just a few. And my favorite interneg film at this point in history is Porta 100. So you take a sheet of that at, say, 25 bucks per sheet with processing, plus at least one unsharp contrast mask on 8x10 TMX at 10 bucks apiece, plus the original Ektachrome 8x10 at possibly 25 bucks too, and that comes out at around $60 just to get to an RA4-compatible interneg, before the cost of printing even begins. Ouch! But at least visually, it sure does justice to the original, if you happen to be patient enough to fine-tune the process, or perhaps crazy enough. Someone will no doubt reply, why not just scan it, and then inkjet it, or whatever? The look just wouldn't be the same.

[Pere Casals]

These are fantastic news.

[Drew Wiley]

It's not news yet, Pere. Kinda like being on a desert island and seeing a ship way off in the distance. It might see you, or might not. And at the rate Kodak has been increasing their film prices, will it be even remotely affordable?

[Pere Casals]

It's not news yet, Pere. Kinda like being on a desert island and seeing a ship way off in the distance. It might see you, or might not. And at the rate Kodak has been increasing their film prices, will it be even remotely affordable?

Drew, in the EU we have Velvia 8x10 2x the price than in the USA. See Fotoimpex and Maco Direct compared with B&H and Adorama. It looks that Fuji is making a bet for moderation in the LF prices, in the USA at least, this may make kodak think a bit what they do.

It would be great if they set a prince making a bet for expanding the customer base. We'll see...

[Drew Wiley]

The bigger problem is that E6 processing is becoming scarcer in the meantime. Those big processing machines require steady daily volume to warrant the cost of keeping them replenished, or frankly, even on hand at all. Just this past year, in this area we lost both E6 and C41 processing in 8X10, and it's a major urban center with a lot of film photography still going on. Fuji is nearly out of the game, and with the total absence of a Kodak product, the remaining labs simply couldn't afford to lease the necessary space anymore. I could have had some of those big dip n dunk processors for free - but where would I put them? Fortunately, 4x5 can still be locally processed, both C41 and E6, but anything larger has to be sent out. Not a huge headache, really; but if it's dying out here, who will decide to quit next? So I hope that if Kodak does revive sheet Ektachrome, it happens quickly enough for an incentive to process it to remain. Volume users aren't going to want to do it themselves in something like a drum. And if there aren't volume users, there won't be any incentive to keep coating sheet film base. And if it isn't still done on stable Estar base, I'd have no use for it. But yeah, it would be great to see again. In the meantime, I'll test the roll film version when it's available. From the preliminary reports, it does seem to be identical to E100G.

[Oren Grad]

I expanded the quote so it's clear that the film base problem was understood when the Canham comment was posted on Facebook. It's nice to hear that Kodak is working on it, but I agree with Drew that for users it's not real until they're ready to introduce it. Lots can go wrong in the lab, the factory and/or the market between now and then.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm on Keith's contact list, so he routinely informs me when any special cut of Kodak film is being made. The problem at this point in life, is that a year or two here n' there missing a particular product category adds up a lot quicker than it did when I was younger. The clock is ticking. That's why is preemptively switched to color neg film and got through that learning curve. Of course, just shooting neg film and even RA4 printing is fairly simple. But doing it as well as I did Cibachrome took a running start; and I still trip on my shoelaces sometimes. Fortunately, the quality of Kodak's color neg sheet film is better than ever. Likewise, E100G was probably their best chrome film ever, though I certainly miss the special idiosyncratic hues the combination of ole Ektachrome 64 and Ciba gave. Once I start seriously printing dye transfer, I've only got enough matrix film to last five years or so - in other words, barely enough to get good at it. But by the time that phase is over, I might be stirring chemicals with a cane. I didn't even print color last year. Did shoot quite a bit of it. But after working so darn hard for nearly fifty years straight, I reckon I deserve to be allowed to print anything I wish; and at the moment, it all happens to black and white.

[Pere Casals]

Of course any lacking manufacturing step prevents having the product, but as they are coating 35mm and Super 8 Ektachrome then they have 99% of the job done for sheets. Coating on another base is a joke compared with the hundreds of complicated operations to have the chem ready, Making Kodak Film book illustrates that.

IMHO in part we have Ektachrome back thanks to cinematography. Today movie film shooting is experimenting an extraordinary prestige. It happend that people that remained analog (for good reasons) where the damn elite in the business, being a key stone Spielberg, not more and not less. His cinematographer Kamiński is like a machinegunner that places every bullet in a target. That kind of people have made such a pool of impressive things with film that his work will be praised for sure in the centuries to come, http://www.peterhogenson.com/blog/2017/7/10/black-and-white-cinematography-schindlers-list. (please whatch that video)

I suspect that sinergy with cinematography was a key factor. They have Vision 3 Super-8 (requiring special chem), they need a camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFOzPVuDHAM, they need the camera to be sold in a certain ammount, so they need a reversal film for the camera, beacuse Vision 3 is negative film and not as many people would know what to do with it. And what would help having enough sells for the emulsion to be profitable is still photography. IMHO Super 8 was a key contribution factor in the game.

The de-extinction of Ektachrome is a little miracle. Who would say it ??? IMHO we all should be grateful to all people that pushed hard for this resurrection. Just a petition to Kodak, I'd ask for a commercial policy tending to expand market in the long term. The most difficult thing was made by Kamiński and his friends, this time Kodak should be at the same level.

186538

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for that, Pere. But sheet film, esp 8x10 or larger sizes (and heaven help 5x7 users) is a much smaller niche, and does indeed require special coating runs. The secret seems to be someone like Keith Canham who can build up advance orders sufficient to tip the scales in favor of Kodak making a particular size cut. But that requires patience on our part. It can take quite a few months for some requests to be fulfilled by Kodak. And really big users might take up most of a single cut, then stockpile it, which in turn causes much longer delays for casuals users of that particular film format. It's a trickier proposition than black and white sheet film, which stores better.

[Pere Casals]

esp 8x10 or larger sizes (and heaven help 5x7 users) is a much smaller niche, and does indeed require special coating runs.

Drew, they cut 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 from same roll, Kodak usually made 50 inches x 2000 feet rolls.

You may rip a 50" roll in five 10" strips or ten 5" strips.

You can cut the 5" strips in 7" sheets or 4" sheets... ...or form a 10" strip they can cut all !! making two sheets in the 10" width.

5x7" is never a problem, you only need a Paper Guillotine, only 1" is lost from a 8x10", and it can be used for calibrations and drop tests, for total convenience we can use a IR night vision "ninja" toy to see while we cut.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, thank you, I know that, Pere. But there is a minimum quantity of boxes necessary for each particular cut, due to the hassle of resetting the machinery involved. Since 5x7 and 11x14 are far less popular than 4x5 and 8x10, it might take a very long wait to get these sizes, unless you have the finances to leverage an entire minimum order yourself. As far as cutting down 8x10 to 5x7, yes, I'm well aware of that too, and even once made a very nice calibrated cutter to do it, but eventually gave it away. I love the proportion of 5x7; but when it comes to film registration for the kinds of color printing I was involved in, it can be done much more accurately on full 8x10, while 4x5 was a more convenient size for backpacking and mountaineering purposes, and can just be picked up at the local camera store, if necessary. The selection of 5x7 film in this country, particularly color, has always been scant.

[Pere Casals]

But there is a minimum quantity of boxes necessary for each particular cut, due to the hassle of resetting the machinery involved.

This is not the problem, once per year ilford even cuts the ulf size you want. A single man may cut and package 100 8x10 boxes in a day that are $15,000 worth ex-factory.

It's about bureocracy, marketing etc. Nor kodak and nor distributors won't handle a reference that is not make a $ volume per time unit, or it can expire in the shelf.

But IMHO if they coat on sheet base then there is no reason to to offer 8x10, propably they have a machine that takes a 10" strip and it also has a switch with 45, 57 and 81 positions.

[Drew Wiley]

Go make argument with them, Pere. It won't get you anywhere. The people and machinery dedicated to film is just a tiny fraction of what it once was. And if they can't figure out how to make money doing this, they simply aren't going to do it. Maybe some more efficient form of distribution could be devised, creating a softer landing for end-users, financially. But that might not be easy either. There has to be incentive there too. Then there's the nightmare of currency fluctuations. You can't hoard film as long as gold.

[Pere Casals]

Go make argument with them, Pere. It won't get you anywhere.

Yes, I guess that ilford's main drive to cut custom ulf is about making customers happy to deserve their loyalty. IMHO Kodak has still to "connect" with the new market's nature. Present users are not the kind of consumers they had in the past.

[SergeyT]

...Just this past year, in this area we lost both E6 and C41 processing in 8X10
Not quite, the E6 is still there : http://oscarsphotolab.com/film-processing/

[Oren Grad]

Yes, I guess that ilford's main drive to cut custom ulf is about making customers happy to deserve their loyalty.

The Ilford special cut program almost died in 2007, on its second go-round, because of low demand. It took a special decision by the ownership/management team to keep it going:

Current ILFORD ULF Make 'The Solution' (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/current-ilford-ulf-make-the-solution.27317/)

Don't ever take this stuff for granted.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Sergey. I'd have to call them to see if that website is up to date. I know there was an attempt to keep 8x10 E6 going forward; but even that website shows no C41, which I currently use. Makes no difference - the time and expense just crossing the Bridge into SF would be more than a USPS Express box sending the film somewhere else, like the LA area. I've explained the problem before. Real estate is so valuable here that all kinds of viable services are losing their leases, simply so industrial buildings can be leveled and ultra-pricey condos or techie office quarters built in their place. It's an epidemic. I was offered all the machinery of one of the best equipped labs of all for downright free - maybe a couple million dollars worth! But where on earth would I put it? And why, at my age, would I want to mess with high volumes of unhealthy chemicals? Even the eco or haz business permits are very expensive to get. I'm content with my personal darkroom. So nearly all that gear was outright thrown away. The owner is well into his 70's and rich as heck anyway, has gosh knows how many businesses still going, and might as well enjoy his grandchildren while he still can.

[Pere Casals]

The Ilford special cut program almost died in 2007, on its second go-round, because of low demand. It took a special decision by the ownership/management team to keep it going:
Current ILFORD ULF Make 'The Solution' (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/current-ilford-ulf-make-the-solution.27317/)
Don't ever take this stuff for granted.

Of course, and to note that ilford pushed that in really harsh times. 2004 bankruptcy, 2005 leveraged buyout, 2006 IIRC selling the real state, 2007 integrating the Kentmere's crashed structure. But they also conquered the heart of many people from wanting to serve customers.

We'll see what happens with Ektachrome, but for the moment they are conquering the heart of many shooters that love film. Present users are not regular consumers, they are enthusiasts, and having a great slide film back...

[Drew Wiley]

Having had to wrangle with the corporate bean counter mentality for several decades, I can assertively state that most of the people in top marketing positions couldn't run a hot dog stand without going broke. First of all, they'd want to get rid of the pickles and relish, to cut costs, then the ketchup, and then finally expect customers to bring their own buns. Then when they finally got the cost of their hot dog down to 59 cents, serving it cold, and not a single customer in sight, they'd stare across the street at the guy with a hot dog stand and line of twenty people behind it, each waiting to get a six dollar hot dog with a choice of eighteen home-made relishes and condiments. When times get tight, put your best foot forward, and not the worst. You need something special in terms of product or service, that stands out from your competition. But all the marketing MBA's know how to do is look over their shoulder, and copy whatever stupid idea already bankrupted somebody else. Sure glad I'm out of the game.

[Tin Can]

I may as well try them with some E6. It's even in SF!

Soon


Not quite, the E6 is still there : http://oscarsphotolab.com/film-processing/

[chassis]

Thanks Oren. I'm in for 4x5 if it comes to market.

[m00dawg]

Mentioned on the Sunny 16 (https://sunny16.podbean.com/e/ep-135-hop-on-the-hot-scoops-express/) podcast. Seems like this might be real!

[Tin Can]

Mentioned on the Sunny 16 (https://sunny16.podbean.com/e/ep-135-hop-on-the-hot-scoops-express/) podcast. Seems like this might be real!

Nothing but babble until 5.00 minute mark

[Shailendra]

Don’t know how accurate this is but...

https://kosmofoto.com/2019/01/ektachrome-120-could-be-released-by-april/?fbclid=IwAR0zFowweKY8aU1o0RkaT8l0XqdvMaBsdXph6KjdIywZ_3QE-W5UJ-Gq6Ck

[Oren Grad]

Threads merged.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm always a bit skeptical of timeline rumors from dealers trying to drum up sales in advance. Wait n' see.

[Drew Wiley]

Here we are a year later, but now it's confirmed that 4x5 E100 is due for production "next year" - probably meaning late next year. But that's OK. So I went out a bought a roll of 35mm for critical color testing : color temp meter, filters, MacBeth Chart n'all, plus plenty leftover frames for general field experimentation. Why now? It's ideal lighting conditions for a litmus test - overcast, gloomy, and wet - exactly the kind of situation where Ektar color neg struggles, even filter-balanced, but where certain previous chrome films performed well. Otherwise, I have no use for 35mm shots; but they should give a good idea of the color characteristics of upcoming sheet film.

[Duolab123]

I was out in today's warm, 54°F winter day. Shot a fresh roll of Velvia with a Hassleblad, beautiful, came home let the machine warm up, got some lovely shots. 10 bucks for a roll of film, $225 for 5 liters of Fuji Pro6 chemistry. Jobo machine.

I fell for a Fujifilm X-Pro 3 camera, cool as hell, surprised me . The Velvia film simulation is astonishing similar to the real thing. The Provia setting, I'm not sure yet.

I would think long and hard if I was Kodak Alaris before ordering a run of Ektachrome sheet film. KA is trying to unload the film business, I wonder if any thing will happen with the sale up in the air.

I'm an enthusiast, thus my clinging to reversal and color negative film and printing.

How do professionals make any money shooting large format reversal film???

[Drew Wiley]

Some people just like better things. Sheet film does a lot of things digital can't. I happen to greatly prefer true optical prints, whether color or black and white. If enough people think the same way, there will be enough demand to sustain a niche E6 film market, which is apparently now expanding. Commercial work can take that direction too. The most stable portrait gallery in this area works on the niche premise itself - only real film, only real darkroom prints. There are also a remarkable number of thriving niche restaurants. They don't serve million and millions like the Golden Arches venue, which happens to do rather poorly around here. There are far better burger joints doing quite well. So it all depends on the demographic opportunities and willingness to risk doing things differently from the herd. I will admit the dominant mantra of commercial work today if that everyone wants it yesterday, and they also want to hover over you like vulture when editing digital frames. So, in that respect, it's mighty fine era NOT to do commercial photography anymore. I had an inside track that allowed me to do high quality work and charge per print rather than per job. That sometimes also spun off into personal print sales, or visa versa. Regardless, either way, every shot had to being worthy of being seriously framed - another source of profit to me, since I did all of that custom too. I don't give a damn what is hypothetically possible digitally, in terms of aping film. I sure as heck can see the difference. Even the new Natl Geo magazine images look like crap since digital with all its blatant trickery took over. That's not really the fault of the technology itself, but of the usual "let-it-all-hang-out" new toy mentality, devoid of tasteful restraint.

[Duolab123]

I'm on your side. Digital sensors are so small that even a full frame DSLR looks weird, like a cell phone camera, thus the popularity of f 1.4 lenses.
I have 5 enlargers setup, I am inept at Photoshop. I love black and white fiber printing, and color negative printing. The few little inkjet prints I've made from my little Fuji camera are charming as can be, straight prints, no adjustment post processing. Most digital work is so flogged with PS it's just nonsense.

People here don't have money. Thus not much film left professionally. I just bought 25 rolls of Velvia 120, I love film.

[SergeyT]

>> Even the new Natl Geo magazine images look like crap since digital with all its blatant trickery took over. That's not really the fault of the technology itself, but of the usual "let-it-all-hang-out" new toy mentality, devoid of tasteful restraint.

Not to disagree with the above assessment but to make it less biased I wish there was a method to measure all the crap that was and still being produced on and with film since film was invented.
Some of it even comes prepackaged nowadays : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1394369-REG/psychedelic_196924_psychedelic_blue_400_iso.html

[Drew Wiley]

I agree. New toy syndrome came along long before digital photography. I remember when Cibachrome first came out, and galleries wanted every picture to be a Ciba with something bright red dominant in it, just like Natl Geo decades before wanted someone in a red sweater or red swimsuit in each published shot. Now it's gotta be some artsy "cobweb inside the lens" digital app.

[Tin Can]

Isn’t all color subjective per viewer?

Many are colorblind

The biggest abomination I can still see is old movies converted from B&W to ‘color’

I really like B&W movies even modern flics issued in digital B&W often converted from color


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black-and-white_films_produced_since_1970

[Tin Can]

Oddly the Tonight Show just showed B&W music video with B&W Kaleidoscope effects...

Synchronicity vive’!

[m00dawg]

Pre-orders for sheets are available on FPP's store: https://filmphotographystore.com/collections/kodak-ektachrome-film/products/4x5-sheet-film-kodak-ektachrome-e100-10-sheet-box

Currently cheaper than Portra 400 (I would guess it won't stay like that).

[goamules]

Just got my second roll back. Stupidly trusted an unCLA'd Leica IIIf, so many shots were bad. Canon 35/2 lens:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49204343237_8699860ea5_c.jpg

First roll, I rescanned because The Darkroom had weird colors. Nokton 50/1.5:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48785798952_718028d30f_c.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

Just got my test roll back. Seems to be true 5500K "daylight" balanced, finer-grained than any previous Ektachrome. As they claim, white whites; in other words, damn little latitude at the top end (a doubtful "improvement" in my mind). No recip correction needed 10 sec or under. Clean color balance, but not as neutral as Astia.