New Portra 400 Film

[David Luttmann]

Kodak is replacing its old Portra 400 NC/VC with a new Portra 400. Available in 35mm to 4x5.

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_professional_portra_400/

[Frank Petronio]

Ah so we lose the NC and VC flavors... not that it mattered that much. The other post mentioned that they won't make it in 8x10 though, that is truly bad news for available light shooters.

[David Luttmann]

Ah so we lose the NC and VC flavors... not that it mattered that much. The other post mentioned that they won't make it in 8x10 though, that is truly bad news for available light shooters.

True. That's why I mentioned the 35mm to 4x5 only. I just wish Fuji would do 400H in 4x5 though. :(

[SamReeves]

So is this No Color or Vivid Color rebranded?

[BetterSense]

Yet another product change that takes away color printing options. Soon I fear that we we will have one color negative film, and one, optimized-for-digital-anyway color paper.

[Oren Grad]

So is this No Color or Vivid Color rebranded?

In between - it's not a rebrand:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/400QA.jhtml?pq-path=2300875

[David Luttmann]

It's midway in saturation between VC and NC. Contrast is still low like NC.

[Brian C. Miller]

What about Ektar (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328)? According to the Kodak comparison scales (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/400QA.jhtml?pq-path=2300875), it is much more saturated than VC. Just two stops slower, and available in 8x10.

[Ben Syverson]

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh....

This is the worst news I've heard all year.

[Oren Grad]

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh....

This is the worst news I've heard all year.

At least they're already committed to coating it on a sheet film base, which leaves room to hope that the hurdle for getting them to cut some in 8x10 won't be quite so high.

[Ben Syverson]

What about Ektar (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328)? ... Just two stops slower, and available in 8x10.
Ektar is ISO 100, which I would rate at 50, vs ISO 400 which I rate at 200. So yes, it's just two stops, but ISO 50 is really tricky if you're not shooting landscapes on a bright sunny day. It's much harder for a portrait subject to hold still for 4 seconds instead of 1. Even if I'm using 160NC, I'll need to take another safety of every shot, which means my film & processing budget just doubled. And the shots still won't be as sharp as they'd be on 400.

[Frank Petronio]

I use 400 film for everything and now there is no fast color alternative. I suppose you could push it a stop and thin negs scan OK.... but it sucks.

Big color is too damn expensive anyway, they want >$5 a sheet for 5x7 Portra 160VC.

Oh shit, I guess this means no 5x7 color either....

[Ben Syverson]

Oh shit, I guess this means no 5x7 color either....
Yeah, what a disaster... I haven't had much luck pushing C41.

Guess it's time to sell a kidney and stockpile.

[sully75]

I use 400 film for everything and now there is no fast color alternative. I suppose you could push it a stop and thin negs scan OK.... but it sucks.

Big color is too damn expensive anyway, they want >$5 a sheet for 5x7 Portra 160VC.

Oh shit, I guess this means no 5x7 color either....

I'm confused...this is 400 film, isn't it?

[Frank Petronio]

Portra 400 is 400 ISO

Portra 160 is 160 ISO

In practice most people rate it a bit slower, like 200 and 100 respectively.

[SW Rick]

Portra 400 is 400 ISO

Portra 160 is 160 ISO

In practice most people rate it a bit slower, like 200 and 100 respectively.

Frank,

I'm confoosed- 400NC and 400VC were presumably then 200; why won't the new 400 also be 200, and thus no loss of speed vs. NC/VC? I didn't see anything re. Portra 800 in the announcement. But I'm not upwind... :)

Rick

[Ben Syverson]

I didn't see anything re. Portra 800 in the announcement. But I'm not upwind... :)
The point is that a 400 speed color film is no longer offered in a size above 4x5". No more 5x7, no more 8x10.

It's a huge loss.

[Bruce Watson]

Good on Kodak! They already had what is arguably the best color film ever made, but they aren't content to sit on their laurels. Where the bar is already impossibly high, they succeed in raising it still higher.

I'm serious here guys. This is *good* news. Kodak is still doing the R&D, still releasing new emulsions. Still pushing forward, making ever better films.

Y'all can really be a group of Gloomy Gus (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gus)es when you put your mind to it. This from a guy whose wife has been known to address him as her "little ray of darkness" so I know whereof I speak.

Change isn't always bad! Lighten the frell up already!

[David Luttmann]

Agreed Bruce. Ektar has proven incredible in 35mm through 4x5. This new 4x5 color film has kind of peaked my interest in trying some portraiture in color as opposed to staying in B&W.

[Ben Syverson]

Change isn't always bad! Lighten the frell up already!
Bruce, I am so confused by this message. How about we eliminate film altogether and then we'll see how chipper you are.

No more color 400 ISO 8x10" film = bad thing. There are just no two ways around it.

[Frank Petronio]

I doubt Kodak did much R&D with the new Portra 400, although it is undoubtedly the best film in it's class. Apparently the only film in its class now too.

But long ago Kodak figured out how to control each characteristic so it was simply a matter of changing the recipe slightly to hit a happy medium between NC and VC. The absolute performance doesn't appear likely to be better than the prior films, but it maybe a better "everyday" sort of film for most users, especially those who scan.

You can be sure it was a marketing decision....

[Mark Sampson]

According to the EK release, this new film uses technology derived from motion picture emulsions ('Vision'). That technology flow used to run the other way. And even though I give my EK b/w film a stop over the box speed, I've always found the Portra speed ratings to be right on. It's a shame about the 8x10 though.

[Arne Croell]

If you look at their technical data, it has finer grain than before, apparently midway between Portra 160 and the old Portra 400NC, compare the print grain indices in these two publications:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4040/e4040.pdf

[Daniel Stone]

this royally sucks monkey balls dudes...

no mo color neg 8x10 in 400 speed. seriously... if they can bring out ektar in 8x10, they for sure can make a run of this new stuff in 8x10 as well.

and price it lower too. that'd be nice...

-Dan

[dsphotog]

What Dan said!
Plus put more than 10 sheets in a box, too!

[cdholden]

this royally sucks monkey balls dudes...

-Dan

[Brian C. Miller]

It's much harder for a portrait subject to hold still for 4 seconds instead of 1.

What, you mean that you don't want to use strobes or hot lights that will deliver more light than the suface of the sun?? Your sign doesn't say, "Photography and Tanning Studio"? :p

Look at it this way: The reinvention of the Prokudin-Gorskii camera is going to be really cool! Nice studio camera for 8x10 portraiture, but kind of big since it will take three holders at a time. Of course, you'll be able to push B&W film quite a ways, and the color will be completely adjustable.

[Frank Petronio]

Ah yes, it was like the "RED" camera of its day ;-)

[sully75]

I wonder if they feel like with the finer grain that 8x10 is no longer necessary? Just a thought. Would be weird if they were making that decision for photographers.

[Oren Grad]

Guys, if you really want the stuff - and I'm very sympathetic, I've got quirky interests of my own and can easily imagine myself in your shoes - then get on the phone tomorrow to one of the LF specialist deaers and initiate an inquiry to Kodak about what it will take to get 8x10 ISO 400 color neg cut to special order, the way 5x7 color neg is supplied now.

If you're unwilling to do even that - and if you can't muster even occasionally a large enough chunk of aggregated demand to meet a $10K or $15K special order - then Kodak is making the right decision.

[Frank Petronio]

I was looking around the Kodak Pro site for a feedback or contact info and could not find one for the professional film, only their pro digital products.

How should one contact Kodak? Or is it impossible? I live in Rochester, I could take a camera over and shoot in the parking lot but, like the George Eastman House, I think they frown upon tripod-mounted cameras ;-)

[Oren Grad]

I was looking around the Kodak Pro site for a feedback or contact info and could not find one for the professional film, only their pro digital products.

How should one contact Kodak? Or is it impossible? I live in Rochester, I could take a camera over and shoot in the parking lot but, like the George Eastman House, I think they frown upon tripod-mounted cameras ;-)

The Kodak 800 line will get you through to technical support for anything. But they won't discuss special orders directly with consumers. You need to work through a dealer. Probably best to contact one of the small specialist LF dealers like Jeff Taugner or Rod Klukas who have done special film orders before, rather than trying to slog through the bureaucracy at a megadealer like B&H, for whom this would be just a nuisance.

[Ed Richards]

Oren is right. If they are coating it on sheet film stock, they can cut whatever you can pay for. If there is enough demand, you should be able to get an order together. I was just listening to a podcast by a retired Kodak film chemist talking about the nostalgia for Kodachrome. He said that if people actually bought all the Kodachrome they shot, it would still be in production. Is this the same problem - how many thousands of sheets of 8x10 color neg in 400 do you figure are shot each year? I am just glad there is 4x5. A cynic might even say that if you are shooting 8x10 portraits and stopping down, you might as well shoot Ektar 100 in 4x5. The only real reason to use 8x10 for color portraits these days is that super shallow DOF with your cranky old uncoated lenses. You do not want 8x10 detail unless you are really into pores.

[Ben Syverson]

If you're unwilling to do even that - and if you can't muster even occasionally a large enough chunk of aggregated demand to meet a $10K or $15K special order - then Kodak is making the right decision.
I would LOVE to see the reaction here if they had discontinued the 4x5 as well. When they finally do, 5 years down the line, I WILL be here to condescendingly lecture everyone about supply and demand.

Listen, I personally can afford to stockpile this stuff and/or go in on a special order of 8x10. But how this affects Ben Syverson is SO not the point.

The point is that this reduces the options available to normal, not-crazy people who want to experiment with 8x10, and thus marginalizes 8x10 (and 5x7, and 4x10, etc) even more.

And Ed: if 8x10 is overkill (I "do not want 8x10 detail?" Really?), then so is 4x5. We all might as well switch to DSLRs and shut down the forum. PS, I shoot 8x10 portraits but DON'T stop down, using modern lenses, and yes, I'm really into pores.

[Jan Pedersen]

I do very little portrait photo but i like to shot 400NC with my 8x10 when there's a scene that works in color instead of B&W.
With the disapearance of the 400NC i would now have to bring a 4x5 camera to, not practical at all.
A real shame that there obviously is no or little demand for 8x10 400Iso film.

I hope that we can make a special run sometime when the dust settle.

[D. Bryant]

Oren is right. If they are coating it on sheet film stock, they can cut whatever you can pay for. If there is enough demand, you should be able to get an order together. I was just listening to a podcast by a retired Kodak film chemist talking about the nostalgia for Kodachrome. He said that if people actually bought all the Kodachrome they shot, it would still be in production. Is this the same problem - how many thousands of sheets of 8x10 color neg in 400 do you figure are shot each year? I am just glad there is 4x5. A cynic might even say that if you are shooting 8x10 portraits and stopping down, you might as well shoot Ektar 100 in 4x5. The only real reason to use 8x10 for color portraits these days is that super shallow DOF with your cranky old uncoated lenses. You do not want 8x10 detail unless you are really into pores.

Joel Meyerowitz - "Cape Light". That's what 8x10 color negative is for.

Don Bryant

[Ed Richards]

Ben,

I have no argument with folks who want to experiment with 8x10, but that is different from expecting a commercial manufacturer to make film for that experimentation. I am with Bruce - I am happy that Kodak is still making an 8x10 color film. Expecting them to make two seems a bit extreme. I am not sure why they are making two in 4x5 either - be interesting to see how long that lasts. I was delighted that Kodak brought out TMY-2.

But I am not a LF color shooter. I think LF is about black and white. I shoot digital for my color. Putting aside the cost, like most folks, there is no lab around so that there is also the time and trouble factor in sending off film. I did not expect Kodak to bring out a new black and white film, and I would not be surprised to see them discontinue sheet film altogether. But black and white is simple stuff that you can make in pre-WWI factories stuck in a time warp in what was central Europe, so I expect that I will be able to get some sort of blank and white sheet film for as long as I can shoot.

As for shooing digital and shutting down the forum, I think anyone shooting LF for the images, rather than for the fun of messing with the gear, should periodically re-evaluate whether they would get more good images with digital. I am trying to be open minded with my own work, and explore where digital might improve even my architecture work. For one example, multiple image HDR lets me capture some interior/exterior shots that are impossible with film - even if I could compress the range with processing, that would so compress the midtones that the image would not be as nice as the HDR.

[Oren Grad]

Ben, it *is* a substantial loss. I *agree* with you both about the value of 8x10 color and about the impact of losing the high-speed option.

What drives me bananas is stuff like this:

>> if they can bring out ektar in 8x10, they for sure can make a run of this new stuff in 8x10 as well <<

>> Plus put more than 10 sheets in a box, too! <<

Cue lecture about market realities.

[Ben Syverson]

Ed is right. I'm switching to HDR, and will only post the images to Twitter.

Image quality is so last century.

[Frank Petronio]

It's all a drive to reduce the number of SKUs because of some mis-guided goal set by some upper-middle manager who has no idea what the products actually are. It is indeed trivial to produce larger boxes or to cut odd sizes. If Kodak wanted to, they could follow the Impossible Project's lead and have a partner company sell the special pro sizes directly to customers, reducing inventory and distribution problems and keeping customers loyal and happy for another generation or demand finally falters... which doesn't seem to be the case in the foreseeable future.

It's 2010, I should be able to go onto a website connected to their warehouse and have whole plate or 7x17 film overnighted 24-7-365.

You can't tell me 8x10 and other large format film use has declined over the past 6-7 years. I bet it has increased.

[Frank Petronio]

BTW, Kodak promptly responded to my question about how to contact the pro film people with a real email address. They said:


Dear Frank,

Of course we want to hear from you and are sorry that you were unable to find our e-mail address on our website. I am doing some checking now into how we can make our contact information more accessible on the website.

In the interim, please let me know in what way we may be of assistance. We look forward to hearing from you.

So let Kodak know what you think:

Kodak Professional Traditional <kprotraditional@kodak.com>

[Brian C. Miller]

It's 2010, I should be able to go onto a website connected to their warehouse and have whole plate or 7x17 film overnighted 24-7-365.

Yeah, cut by robo lasers and packaged into custom ReadyLoads. And I wanna pony and a flying car! I got to the 21st century and all I got was this lousy mainframe on a Dick Tracy cell phone and I can't get coverage.

Here's the amount of 8x10 I have shot in color: zero.
Here's the amount of 4x5 I have shot in color: under 40.
I have no clue how much color I've shot on 120 or 220.

Cue Oren's lecture on market reality.

The film companies follow the market. The majority of the consumer market has gone digital. The film market (as freaking huge as it still is) is propped up by the motion picture industry.

Now, how many of you guys enlarge from 8x10? No, seriously. 16x20 or better. How about 30x40? I just started a poll (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=66632), so go vote. 8x10 is important for a reason, other than we're all nuts to use it.

[PViapiano]

Joel Meyerowitz - "Cape Light". That's what 8x10 color negative is for.

Don Bryant

Amen, brother...

[BennehBoy]

Might be worth a quick show of hands regarding who is actually shooting 8x10 colour neg and in what volumes...

In the last 12 months I've shot 40 sheets of NEW C41 FUJI 160S, zero Kodak C41 - because IT COSTS A FRIGGING FORTUNE in the UK, 170 GPB plus for a box of 10 sheets of 400NC.

I've shot approximately 40 sheets of expired E64T in the same timeframe.

I wonder how many of those shooting here are shooting new film bought in the last year.

[Sascha Welter]

You can't tell me 8x10 and other large format film use has declined over the past 6-7 years. I bet it has increased.

I very much doubt that. In 2004 my father's studio was still producing in the Ektachrome + Polaroid world. They used more film in a good week than most people here in a year. The lab used to send them a box of champagne for xmas. They spend the film+pola+dev money on the leasing for the digital sensors now.

I would agree on a guess that large format is picking up again in the last 1-2 years.

As for the original discussion: Given that Ektar 100 was 135+120 only in the beginning, it might well be that 8x10 will arrive at a later point.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah, cut by robo lasers and packaged into custom ReadyLoads.

Actually, yeah, exactly. We're talking about cutting from a larger sheet. I get paper cut down all the time. You can't tell me their film cutting dies got dull. The out-of-pocket for Kodak consists of labeling. Their biggest bug-a-boo is inventory and distribution because they're stuck in their old methods. If they sold direct and maintain contact, like the Impossible Project does online, they could tell us to pre-order our 8x10 Portra 400 in advance of the July 2011 run for example.


In 2004 my father's studio was still producing in the Ektachrome + Polaroid world

He must have been one of the last... Stateside I can't remember seeing a commercial 8x10 job (that wasn't "art") in this decade.

[John NYC]

Ben,

As for shooing digital and shutting down the forum, I think anyone shooting LF for the images, rather than for the fun of messing with the gear, should periodically re-evaluate whether they would get more good images with digital.

I am shooting 8x10 color E6 at night for my current project. Digital can't even come close to what it does. Not even close. I tried test shots first with a DSLR as a comparison to make sure I wasn't going to be spending $10K on my current project over the next few years for nothing. I've also seen others' very well done MF digital back night shots and they just have a completely different look than 8x10, a look which I do not prefer.

I am also planning on enlarging some of my 8x10 (night and otherwise) images to 4x5 feet in size but need to keep critical detail there. Again, digital is going to fall down on that.

The point of my taking up LF is not to be "messing with the gear," but to be getting results -- in color -- you still can't get with digital.

I don't use 400NC in 8x10. I use 160NC (and E100G). However, it is a loss. No two ways about it. And it probably is a sign that 160NC is not far behind in being discontinued.

[Sascha Welter]

He must have been one of the last... Stateside I can't remember seeing a commercial 8x10 job (that wasn't "art") in this decade.

They were doing 4x5", not 8x10", sorry for the confusion. I think he was one of the later ones to switch, but not the last. He retired now anyway, sold the business.

[Ben Syverson]

According to Robert Shanebrook's wonderful book Making Kodak Film (http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/), Kodak has a fully automated 4x5 cutter. Anything larger needs to be cut, notched and packaged by hand. So that may help explain why 4x5 was the cutoff.

[Frank Petronio]

Well I guess the other way to look at it is that you could pop for the remaining stash of 8x10 Portra 400NC in the system right now, toss it in the fridge, use it over the next six to eight years before the emulsion starts to lift off the base (worse case scenario with old color neg) and by 2018 who knows what the state of processing it will be anyway?

[f64-60]

I would like to introduce myself to this forum as this is my first post. I have worked in photography and cinematography all my life and I'm now retired. I've seen and witnessed the explosion of digital technology and the shrinking of chemical based technology. I worked in the medical and scientific fields doing medical school teaching films and videos of surgical procedures, and research. I've also had a lot of experience with architectual photography. Kodak is hurting, big time! And like most businesses in the USA their main goal is not to support artists but to make a profit for their stockholders. If supporting artists is profitable then they will be there. They discontinued the finest small format color film and processing in the world, Kodachrome and they will do the same for the rest of their product line if it not profitable. If they don't like the way the game is played then they will take their ball, go home and devote their energies to something profitable, like chemicals or fabrics, agriculture or God knows what. They have lost most X-Ray to diigital. They are loosing most motion picture as Hollywood convert to RED digital cameras and cinemas convert to the Texas Instruments DLP and 3D projection. Their competition is out to hammer the nails in the coffin of Eastman Kodak. I fully expect them to discontinue my favorite black and white film Tri-X. If they can figure out a way to put less silver in film, IMHO, they will do it. :D James

[David Aimone]

inthefix,

Depressing but probably true... Thanks for the perspective (I think).

If it isn't worth production for a large company like Kodak, perhaps they could sell that production area to a smaller company with lower overhead. Either Kodak really is trying to support the film photographers by keeping what they can in production, or they are trying to have it both ways by selling only the products with a large enough profit margin to make it worth their while. Who can blame them?

But a smaller company could possibly produce these limited products at a lower cost to themselves? Maybe. Perhaps it's time for Kodak, like Polaroid, to "$#IT or get off the can" and decide if they want to remain in the film business at all...

We have microbreweries. Why not microfilmaries?

my 2 cents as a film newcomer, FWIW...

[BetterSense]

We have microbreweries. Why not microfilmaries?


I could brew beer in my kitchen. I could not make film in my kitchen. Like it or not, film, especially color film, is not something easy to make. Notice how it took some decades, with great research and development investment, to appear on the market, and it wasn't as good as it is now, either.

As mentioned previously, I can imagine that B&W film could be made in a fairly small facility, but color seems like quite a leap in complexity. Ilford only makes B&W, afterall.

[Ed Richards]

David,

Listen to the podcasts on Analog Photography Radio about the making of film, esp. color film. Kodak's film lines are like paper mills - they can only make big batches of film because the line is so long and the process is so complex to startup and run. They did make some changes a while back according to one ex-employee that allow smaller runs - but smaller by their standards is a huge run by anyone else. At least the way Kodak does it, color does not lend itself to small runs. No small company could support the capital cost of the machine, and even if Kodak gave it to them, their cost of production would be much higher because they would have no way to keep the experts needed employed between runs. From the interview, it appears that the motion picture film business is what is keeping the other film businesses going, which is not encouraging. The problem appears to be not just individual lines of film, but having enough overall film business to keep the staff and the line working. They have closed all the other coating facilities as a way of dealing with this. Large format color film may just become one more technology we cannot buy because there is not enough of a market for it, no matter how good it is. I think the potential salvation will be building up new LF photographers in Asia who want to work in color.

As I mentioned earlier, black and white is a different issue because it is so easy to coat, and because LF is so forgiving. In fact, there appear to be LF photographers who actually prefer outdated b&w film formulations.:-)

[Brian C. Miller]

We have microbreweries. Why not microfilmaries?

Well, we do have microfilmaries. Wet plate and dry plate, coat your own. Could it be done for color? If you don't mind the defects, the answer is yes.

But here's something to think about: in France, the Autochrome machinery was retired and placed into storage. Some time ago, it was taken out of storage and people tried to make it work again. They haven't succeeded yet. This is a process that used dyed potato starch flour and normal B&W gelatin. How basic is that?

The only real (sans color film) avenue for color in 8x10 is tricolor photography. I was just looking at the B+W filter data last night for this, and with the right camera it would make Kodachrome look tame.

[David Aimone]

All very interesting information in this thread. Amazing how color film chemistry is so complicated in this high-tech world. Like recreating a Stadivarius—just can't replicate that varnish.

Necessity is the mother of invention? I guess if there's enough LF need in the future, and the big companies drop color, perhaps someone will figure out a new approach (or rediscover an old one) in time.

We'll see...

Back to b&w and the velvia in my fridge for now!




But here's something to think about: in France, the Autochrome machinery was retired and placed into storage. Some time ago, it was taken out of storage and people tried to make it work again. They haven't succeeded yet. This is a process that used dyed potato starch flour and normal B&W gelatin. How basic is that?

The only real (sans color film) avenue for color in 8x10 is tricolor photography. I was just looking at the B+W filter data last night for this, and with the right camera it would make Kodachrome look tame.

[John NYC]

According to Robert Shanebrook's wonderful book Making Kodak Film (http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/), Kodak has a fully automated 4x5 cutter. Anything larger needs to be cut, notched and packaged by hand. So that may help explain why 4x5 was the cutoff.

I've got a copy and I've really been enjoying it. It has had one bad side effect for me. I used to be optimistic that someone would eventually take over producing color film with Kodak's plant when Kodak gives up. Now that I see how MASSIVE the production process is, I do not feel that it would ever happen.

[SamReeves]

It's midway in saturation between VC and NC. Contrast is still low like NC.

That sucks. I tried a few sheets of 400 NO COLOR, and it was like having Gerber for dinner. No taste at all.

Where's Fudgee when you need them?

[Bruce Watson]

How about we eliminate film altogether and then we'll see how chipper you are.

We can't know how close we actually are to that day. But we can judge based on what's happening in the motion picture industry. There is no doubt that day is coming.

I'm happy because that day isn't this day. So should be every film user.


No more color 400 ISO 8x10" film = bad thing. There are just no two ways around it.

What's a bad thing is no film at all. What this change means is that there's not enough demand for Kodak to continue to stock 400Portra in 10x8. Just like they don't stock 11x7. You can still work through a dealer and put together a special order. The 7x5 people did this a year or so ago to buy TMY-2. No reason the 10x8 people can't do the same thing to buy 400Portra.

What you've lost is convenience. Not film. And I think this is way better than loosing the film itself. Why don't you?

[Rick Moore]

The only real (sans color film) avenue for color in 8x10 is tricolor photography. I was just looking at the B+W filter data last night for this, and with the right camera it would make Kodachrome look tame.

This is part of the reason one-shot cameras with working pellicles are very much in demand these days. I believe Sandy King has one.

The original Kodacolor process, not related to the Kodacolor negative materials, existed before Kodachrome. It used a tri-color filter over the lens of a movie camera, loaded with BW film that had a lenticular pattern embossed into the film base. A similar filter over the projection lens reversed the process. The film went into the camera backwards so that it was exposed through the base. The lens had to be wide-open for the three stripes of the filter to work correctly.

This process was available for the home movie market. I have a wind-up Kodak 16mm movie camera and a Victor projector with the attachments for the original Kodacolor. I have ten or fifteen rolls of movies shot with this outfit by my grandparents in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

Polaroid's 35mm PolaChrome process used a similar lenticular screen and filter built into the film.

In both the Kodacolor and Polaroid processes, the main problem I saw was the loss of light inherent in the lenticular screen and filters. However, if current color materials are going to disappear, as it looks like they will, these processes, as well as AutoChrome (same principle) may offer an alternative. Although no one seems to be able to produce potato starch particles of sufficient quality to reproduce AutoChrome, there do exist small, hand-driven embossing machines that could emboss a lenticular lens pattern into the base of a sheet of 8x10 BW film.


--
Rick

[Ben Syverson]

What you've lost is convenience. Not film. And I think this is way better than loosing the film itself. Why don't you?
We did lose a film (400NC), and 400 will not be available retail. Every time we lose a film without a replacement, it hurts LF as a whole.

Kodak discontinued a film I use all the time, and you literally wrote "This is good news."

You're just thankful they didn't discontinue every film? When someone screws you, there is absolutely no need to thank them for not screwing you harder.

[Armin Seeholzer]

This is very bad news I do not often need the 400 ASA Film in 8x10 but sometimes its the only chance for example in windy conditions!

Cheers Armin

[Daniel Stone]

hey guys,

sent off an email to Kodak last night, and got this back this morning:



" Hi Dan,

Thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel about the replacement of the Kodak Professional Portra 400NC and 400VC Films with the NEW Kodak Professional Portra 400 Film.

We do agree that the majority of film today is scanned, and we took the opportunity to optimize this new film specifically for that purpose and produced a finer grain film with the lower contrast for improved image detail retention.

With respect to availability of this film in 8x10 and/or 5x7, unfortunately, the demand for 5x7 in color negative, as well as 8x10 in 400 specifically, has not been enough for us to offer these sizes on an ongoing basis. However, you might check with your dealer(s) of Kodak Professional products, like B&H Photo (800-947-9980) and Badger Graphics (ph. 920-766-9332), for them to work with their Kodak Professional Account Representative to see if they can put a special order together. The minimum order is generally about $15,000 worth of a particular product.

Please let us know if you have future questions on this or other of our Kodak Professional products.

Sincerely,
Peter V.
Kodak Professional
Technical Support
800-242-2424 ext. 19 "


-Dan

[Ben Syverson]

Well, it sounds like a lot, but $15,000 is only 150 boxes of 400 NC, which was $99.

[Frank Petronio]

1500 shots, one National Geographic story, one Guggenheim grant....

[John NYC]

When I asked about 8x10 Portra 160NC and E100G in the context of the multi-year project I am doing with those films, here was the response below.

By the way, I must commend Kodak for communicating clearly and quickly on these issues with us. If this were Fuji, it would be a totally different story.

"Dear John,

Thank you for contacting us for information as to the availability of Kodak Professional E100G and Portra 160NC Films in 8x10.

Although we hope to continue to offer these films in 8x10 and other sizes for years to come, nfortunately, we cannot guarantee their continued availability over a 3 year horizon. The best advice would be to get what you need for your project now and freeze it.

We wish you the best of luck on your project and please let us know if you have future questions on these or other of our Kodak Professional products.

Sincerely,

Peter V.
Kodak Professional
Technical Support
800-242-2424 ext. 19"

[Ben Syverson]

Sigh.

[Sirius Glass]

Tonight, I finished fixing the cloth shutter on my 1928 4x5 Graflex Model D and with the 1953 4x5 Speed Graphic I am ready to kick ass only to find that Kodak has deleted 4x5 Portra VC 400. I cannot find any to buy and no one is able to take orders! Help! I want to buy a stock pile to keep if from the hoarders.

Steve

[Oren Grad]

Tonight, I finished fixing the cloth shutter on my 1928 4x5 Graflex Model D and with the 1953 4x5 Speed Graphic I am ready to kick ass only to find that Kodak has deleted 4x5 Portra VC 400. I cannot find any to buy and no one is able to take orders! Help! I want to buy a stock pile to keep if from the hoarders.

Steve

Steve, have you used the product before? My Sept 2006 and Feb 2009 Kodak data sheets for the Portra films don't show 400VC as being offered in sheet form, only 160NC/VC and 400NC.

[Sirius Glass]

Steve, have you used the product before? My Sept 2006 and Feb 2009 Kodak data sheets for the Portra films don't show 400VC as being offered in sheet form, only 160NC/VC and 400NC.

No, not in 4x5. When UC 400 was discontinued I bought all the 120 UC 400 I could find and a lot of UC 400 135 at a discount. I put it in the freezer to keep it. Since I just started shooting 4x5, I wanted to buy up as much 4x5 VC as I could. I want to keep it from the hoarders. ;)

Steve

[Tim Gray]

I don't think 400VC was available in 4x5.

[Frank Petronio]

No such thing as 400VC

[sully75]

I was pondering this a bit last night and I have to say, if they were really interested in saving money and getting out of film, they would have just stayed with what they had. It seems like they must have a reason for introducing two new films this year that are not just reiterations of old products but actually have new features. That must be pretty costly (design costs, packaging, not to mention formulation).

Whether that ultimately is what photographers want I guess remains to be seen but it would seem like they want to stay in the game.

8x10 does seem a loss. I don't think I'll probably ever end up shooting it but it would be nice to have the option.

[David Luttmann]

No such thing as 400VC

Really? You should let Kodak know. They'll be surprised :D

[John NYC]

I was pondering this a bit last night and I have to say, if they were really interested in saving money and getting out of film, they would have just stayed with what they had. It seems like they must have a reason for introducing two new films this year that are not just reiterations of old products but actually have new features. That must be pretty costly (design costs, packaging, not to mention formulation).

Whether that ultimately is what photographers want I guess remains to be seen but it would seem like they want to stay in the game.


I think -- but do not know for sure -- that their motivation is to reduce production costs; i.e., profit margins. Reducing costs is the only thing you can do to become more profitable in a business that is not growing. So, like Ektar, I'm betting this film has some synergies to their motion picture film production processes, thereby saving money. I'm pretty sure the old Portra did not.

That is also why I am afraid for all their current films. I'm betting that they will get rid of all their old color films over the next year or three and then consolidate on two or three new lines that can be made more economically...

...and then they will eventually give up all together once even more people stop shooting film and even those lines become unprofitable.

[MikeSeb]

People, the whining here is deafening! :) Yes, we're all disappointed that we've had a net loss of one emulsion (basically). Yes, we all wish it weren't so. But would we prefer that Kodak keep making unprofitable products and die in the process; or do what it has to do to stay alive to make at least some products? Unlike all of us, Kodak hasn't the luxury of wishing fantasy into reality, and ginning up customers from cattle hooves so it can continue to offer a half dozen 8x10 emulsions no one is buying.

There really needs to be a dose of reality around here. I look forward to shooting the new stuff. In the highly unlikely event that it's the worst sh*t ever to occupy a holder, and completely unusable, we can then come back and resume the gripe-fest.

It's rather silly to personalize Kodak's business moves; it adds nothing to the discussion here. Kodak's not trying to personally "screw" anyone; they're trying to do what they do and stay alive. Kodak's only duty is to profitably serve its customers and maximize return for its shareholders. That's best done by making the finest products it can, while making a profit. I've personally NEVER, not once, encountered a single roll or sheet of defective or unsatisfactory Kodak film, in forty years of shooting the stuff. I'm willing to cut Kodak some slack as it fights for its corporate life.

Someone here seemed (if I read it correctly) to be a bit put out by the motion-picture-film tie in with Kodak's still films. Well, we should all be very happy that Kodak is cross-pollinating and consolidating between its motion-picture and still lines, because movie film is what's keeping the whole outfit afloat. And Kodak has re-scaled its film manufacturing processes to enable it to make film profitably at a much smaller scale; why do you think they've shut plants worldwide and moved all film production into a single newer Rochester building; and incorporated Vision technologies from MP products into their still films? They're looking for every advantage that scale and consolidation can deliver.

But even so, making film is still hard, and even harder to do economically in a worldwide market that's declined by orders of magnitude. And anyone who has read Making Kodak Film (a terrifically interesting book BTW) can figure out why just chopping out a few boxes of 8x10 isn't economically feasible.

As for Kodak spinning off its film manufacture---that thought is also probably a fantasy. Who'd invest the capital in such a venture? And where would the talent come from? It's not like people are going to university to become film-manufacture engineers anymore. Anyone can rebuild or revive a coating machine with blueprints and enough capital. But Kodak's greatest contribution to analog film manufacture is the pool of human talent it accumulated and nurtured over the decades---guys like Ron Mowry and Bob Shanebrook---and the institutional memory contained in all those brains. Someone else drew an analogy with the failure to revive the Autochrome process; why do you think that happened? Loss of knowledge. Same reason the average medieval European was poorer, hungrier, sicker, and dirtier than the average Roman of the early empire (to oversimplify a bit.)

If anyone cares, s/he can visit my blog (linked in my signature) for further rank speculation passing as analysis. I look for one or both 160 films to also go away (I wish not, but....) and for the new Portra to be introduced for larger-than-4x5 once Kodak has tested the waters with smaller sizes---just as it did with Ektar 100. Especially if it withdraws one or both of the 160 Portras (whichever one sells more poorly), it would make more economic sense to "replace" it with the new Portra in the larger sizes. I'm not wishing for this outcome, mind you; I'm trying to envision a way EK might serve 8x10 shooters and still keep its shirt. To have Ektar 100, Portra 400, and maybe one of the 160 films (either NC or its middle-of-the road successor) available in 8x10 would be, while no one's dream, at least doable.

Given the state of film sales worldwide, there should be widespread relief that Kodak has introduced a NEW film that promises to be quite good.

BTW, my only relationship with Kodak is as a satisfied customer.

[Frank Petronio]

400VC in sheet I meant!

You could probably build a website debunking half my bullshit though, sometimes I tell people 2+2=5 just for fun ;-)

[Brian C. Miller]

People, the whining here is deafening! :)

Agreed! There aren't 30 people in the world spending $500 per year for 8x10 Portra 400 film. Or even 150 people buying one lousy box per year. Period. That number would be sufficient for an 8x10 order. If you want it that bad, go over to Canham's Kodak order page (http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html) and plunk down your money. Kodak is the only company selling any 8x10 color film. So stop complaining!

[MikeSeb]

Frank, I don't think 400VC's been available in 4x5 for several years, if ever.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah actually I got out of 8x10 because I couldn't afford to shoot 8x10 Portra 400NC... it was just such a freaking perfect film though.

So count as one of the whiners who won't step up.

However, Gorski or someone in that league could buy an order. And whatever people buy now will last for several years past the expiration date. Like I said, who knows where C41 processing will be in 2020, it could be... an alternative process!

[David Luttmann]

400VC in sheet I meant!

You could probably build a website debunking half my bullshit though, sometimes I tell people 2+2=5 just for fun ;-)

I love your posts Frank. And I loved the spread in VC....congrats! Oh, and yes, no 4x5.

[David Luttmann]

Yeah actually I got out of 8x10 because I couldn't afford to shoot 8x10 Portra 400NC... it was just such a freaking perfect film though.

So count as one of the whiners who won't step up.

However, Gorski or someone in that league could buy an order. And whatever people buy now will last for several years past the expiration date. Like I said, who knows where C41 processing will be in 2020, it could be... an alternative process!

Wow....then I'll finally get to say I'm doing Alt Processes :eek:

[sanking]

Wow....then I'll finally get to say I'm doing Alt Processes :eek:

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s I participated on a forum on alternative printing. Back then digital printing was considered an alternative printing process, and silver printing the norm.

Today silver printing is fast becoming an alternative process. Kodak quite making it years ago. Can color film be far behind?

Sandy

[feppe]

No, not in 4x5. When UC 400 was discontinued I bought all the 120 UC 400 I could find and a lot of UC 400 135 at a discount. I put it in the freezer to keep it. Since I just started shooting 4x5, I wanted to buy up as much 4x5 VC as I could. I want to keep it from the hoarders. ;)
[emphasis mine]

Isn't that the definition of a hoarder? :p

[John NYC]

To have Ektar 100, Portra 400, and maybe one of the 160 films (either NC or its middle-of-the road successor) available in 8x10 would be, while no one's dream, at least doable.

Portra 400 is not going to be offered in 8x10.

[Sirius Glass]

[emphasis mine]

Isn't that the definition of a hoarder? :p

Everyone else who stashed film is a hoarder. I am a conservationist who keeps the stashed film from the hoarders! :p

Steve

[Gary L. Quay]

I haven't had much to say on this forum lately. Someone else always says what I have to say before I do. This is still the case here, but this time I'm going to say it anyway.

I do what I can to keep buying and using film, but just like aging, it's a losing battle. I will always have an affinity for Kodak, because I've used so many of thier products over the years, from lenses to cameras to film and paper, and because I used to live in their neck of the woods. But they keep on getting rid of emulsions that I use, like E100SW and now Portra 400VC. I suspect that the 160 will be next, and we'll see the end of 8x10 there as well, except for special orders. I'm just glad that they keep producing film, and new emulsions. There's something about shooting 8x10 color, though. The contact prints are absolutely stunning. You really don't get the impact when they're scanned and put onto a web site, but when you hold one in your hands, they are a sight to behold.

I feel like a fossil. Folks are putting up images on Flickr that astound the senses, all produced with flashy, new digital cameras, while I keep on plugging away with my ancient ones. I love the darkroom and the process, and the way film sees the world, but I'm seriously thinking about taking up painting.

--Gary

[mcfactor]

I'm with Ben, there is only 1 8x10 400 color film being made and now that is being discontinued. That IS a big deal. And as soon as the current stock is exhausted, I will front whatever money is necessary for a special order of Portra. It can go right next to my stash on Fuji 160s 8x10.

[Sirius Glass]

I'm with Ben, there is only 1 8x10 400 color film being made and now that is being discontinued. That IS a big deal. And as soon as the current stock is exhausted, I will front whatever money is necessary for a special order of Portra. It can go right next to my stash on Fuji 160s 8x10.

I recommend that you buy up all the existing stock you can and freeze it, if you like the present production. It is vital that you, in the words of Janus Joplin, "Get It While You Can" and keep it from the hoarders! Be a film conservationist! ;)

Steve

[Ben Syverson]

I've got a copy and I've really been enjoying it. It has had one bad side effect for me. I used to be optimistic that someone would eventually take over producing color film with Kodak's plant when Kodak gives up. Now that I see how MASSIVE the production process is, I do not feel that it would ever happen.
John, it's funny you should say that -- I had the exact same reaction. B&W emulsions are pretty easy to make, so I'm not concerned with B&W film going away. But if Kodak and Fuji stop making color film, it's gone. I don't think a "boutique" operation could it.

[MikeSeb]

Portra 400 is not going to be offered in 8x10.

At least not at first. I was speculating based on Kodak's behavior with Ektar's introduction. It was not released in sheet sizes until some time after the roll films arrived, as you know. Perhaps this was a planned staged introduction; maybe it was simply testing the waters with a new emulsion prior to adding sheet-film sizes.

Extrapolating from this behavior, it seems plausible that Kodak might do the same in 8x10 with new Portra 400, especially since they're already introducing 4x5 from the start.

It's too early, I think, to mourn the death of all 400 color-neg emulsions; but I'd certainly stock up on VC or NC if I anticipated doing an 8x10 project that absolutely requires ISO 400 film. You may well be right that they won't introduce it in 8x10.

[cosmicexplosion]

IS it possible that lots of people are giving money to various stores, like canaham etc who are all saving up to pay kodak the minimum order, who never reach it, due to this form of dissipation?

Wouldnt it be better to simply band together and have ONE store handling all the dosh?

[Brian C. Miller]

Well #1, the new film hasn't been released yet. #2, there's still plenty of 400 in the stores. I really don't think that anybody has bothered to give any serious thought about placing a custom Kodak order, let alone start a queue.

Really, this isn't a post-apocalypse Mad Max situation here. (cue images of 8x10s being pushed around in baby jogging strollers by punk-leather-clad foggeys armed with cable releases and drinking V8s not driving them) I have posted a link in this thread for custom film cut orders. Eventually there may be an entry there for 8x10, but the time isn't now.

[cosmicexplosion]

i will pledge $1000 to a film order of colour film.

[cosmicexplosion]

would 14 others please step forward...

[Uri A]

darn tootin'!

400 NC is ALL I shoot :(

[Riverman]

I'm sad to see 400NC go. I wet print my C-41 negs and have been using 400NC extensively for a current project. I'm sure the new 4x5 400 will be a good film though. I really like Kodak's color films. The best thing all of us can do is to keep buying Kodak products. Shoot lots. Print lots. Keep color alive.

[John NYC]

Extrapolating from this behavior, it seems plausible that Kodak might do the same in 8x10 with new Portra 400, especially since they're already introducing 4x5 from the start.


I hope you are right. Kodak has an automatic cutter for 4x5, and they do not for 8x10. So, there is a difference in producing them, which may or may not be factoring into their business model, temporarily or permanently.

[frotog]

I spoke with Edgar Praus about the discontinuation of 8x10 sheets. After talking to several contacts at big yellow he called me back to tell me that Kodak needs to see demand before they decide to cut the new Portra to 8x10. Apparently this is how Ektar came to be in 8x10 - initially EK had no intention of cutting that film to 810 until enough people called and wrote letters demanding that the new emulsion be made available in this size. So if you shoot 8x10 or 5x7 (which I cut down from 810) it's important that you bug EK with emails, phone calls, and letters to tell them as much.

[Barry Trabitz]

Frank
Do you rate portra 400nc at 200 or 400? I was a bit confused by your post concerning this.

Barry

[Jim Michael]

Canham Cameras is organizing special orders (http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html).

[Bruce Watson]

Damn that Kodak! How dare they listen to customer demand and bring 400 Portra to 8x10 (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1868284/kodak-releases-8x10-version-film?WT.rss_f=All+the+latest+articles+from+BJP&WT.rss_a=Kodak+releases+8x10+version+of+new+film) after all? It was supposed to be my film for 4x5 and mine alone! Curse them!



So, who's for berating Kodak now? Surely someone here can find some reason for this announcement to cause yet more knee-jerk Kodak hatred. Anyone? Anyone at all?

Alright then. Now the ball is in the court of the 8x10 users. If enough gets bought, Kodak will most likely keep supplying it. If not...

[MikeSeb]

Damn that Kodak! How dare they listen to customer demand and bring 400 Portra to 8x10 (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1868284/kodak-releases-8x10-version-film?WT.rss_f=All+the+latest+articles+from+BJP&WT.rss_a=Kodak+releases+8x10+version+of+new+film) after all? I was supposed to be my film for 4x5 and mine alone! Curse them!



So, who's for berating Kodak now? Surely someone here can find some reason for this announcement to cause yet more knee-jerk Kodak hatred. Anyone? Anyone at all?

My thoughts exactly, Bruce. I believe you and I both predicted that Kodak would test the waters prior to offering the film in sizes above 8x10.

I guess those who'd boycott Kodak in pique will be forced to try this new offering, given the scant alternatives.

[vinny]

That's great and certainly better news than that i got from kodak just a few weeks ago.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Kisses to Kodak;--)))

[John NYC]

Canham Cameras is organizing special orders (http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html).

Uh. Where? It is not listed as an option in the link you presented.

[Brian C. Miller]

If you don't see what you want on the Canham page, go to the Kodak contact page (http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakform.html) and ask Canham about Kodak film you'd like to buy.

[Brian Ellis]

Here's a portion of a Kodak press release issued last week that accompanied its 2010 3rd quarter earnings report.

"Revenue from the company’s digital businesses grew 10% in the third quarter, reflecting increased demand for the company’s consumer and commercial inkjet products, packaging solutions, and workflow software and services, along with a non-recurring intellectual property licensing agreement. Revenue from the company’s digital commercial printing businesses grew by 13% in the third quarter, including 23% growth in commercial inkjet printing. Consumer inkjet printer and ink revenue grew by 26% in the third quarter. Profits from the company’s digital portfolio showed year-over-year improvement for the fourth consecutive quarter. Third-quarter revenue from the company’s Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group declined by 25%."

It's interesting that they also talk about "profits" from digital but don't say anything about profits from film and related businesses. I'd guess that their profits from film still substantially exceed their profits from digital but they don't talk about that because EK wants to convince the investment community that its "transformation" (the term EK uses elsewhere) from a film to a digital company is working and that they don't have to rely on film to be successful.

Nevertheless digital revenues up 10% and film and related revenues down 25% is hardly encouraging. Under these circumstances being upset that EK is discontinuing one particular film in one particular format strikes me as a little like someone going to the guillotine complaining about his dandruff. We should be happy they're making sheet film at all because that has to be only a tiny sliver of their overall business.

[John NYC]

Alright then. Now the ball is in the court of the 8x10 users. If enough gets bought, Kodak will most likely keep supplying it. If not...

Tell you what. I've got two boxes of 160NC left and one box of 400NC that I am going to save for a while. So after my 160NC is gone, I am going to try the new Portra 400 in 8x10 straight away. (Frankly, I'll probably be done with the 160NC before Kodak releases the new film.)

[Ben Syverson]

I'm deep-freezing my stockpile of Portra 400NC and will be trying out the new Portra as soon as it ships...

[mcfactor]

Yeah, this is very good news!

[Daniel Stone]

so,

with them now cutting it in 8x10 size, you think we can persuade em to do a once-a-year run of 11x14 ;)?

-Dan

[Jan Pedersen]

Of course Kodak will cut 11x14 you just need to pony up 15k. They will do it anytime not just once a year.

Thank you Kodak.

[Daniel Stone]

I know about the minimum order, just throwing some fun around :D

-Dan