PDA

View Full Version : Kodak discontinue E6 films



IanG
1-Mar-2012, 07:35
No more E6 films from Kodak it was announced today here (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2156493/kodak-discontinues-colour-reversal-films).

Ian

Tobias Key
1-Mar-2012, 07:40
Can't say I'm surprised E6 has been on it's deathbed for years and Fuji pretty much rules E6 anyway. With the quality and flexibility of Kodak's negative film the E6 line seems superfluous.

BrianShaw
1-Mar-2012, 07:55
As sad as this news is, I must admit that I have not had much use for E6 films in quite a long time. My past use has been primarily because I could get it processed fast and cheap so it was essentially a proofing product... much like I once used Polaroid film. The other use was to "impress" people with the beauty of a 4x5 transparency. All this ended after my local E-6 processing lab had to shut down their line. Sad news, though, because of the fond memories and good experiences with E6 film in the past.

vinny
1-Mar-2012, 08:39
I don't use much kodak e6 but it sucks to know that c41 will be the last game in town as I have never liked the look of c41 all that much. Damn it!

Peter York
1-Mar-2012, 08:48
Well this is sad even though I am a Fuji guy. Price adjustments will follow.

I've heard claims that E6 is dead for many, many years now, and I don't buy it. A lot of photographers, including myself, prefer it over C-41. In my case, prefer is a bit strong - I use E6 when the light is right and I want the color palette that a specific film delivers.

Brian C. Miller
1-Mar-2012, 08:57
No wonder Kodak didn't bother to say they were discontinuing 8x10 E6. They're giving up on all of it. *sigh*

Well, Paul Simon, Kodachrome wasn't taken away. It was left to die in a ditch, with only a gentle blanket of snow atop it.

toyotadesigner
1-Mar-2012, 09:21
They killed the wrong product line with the fine grain material. Negative film doesn't even come close to the slide film resolution.

SamReeves
1-Mar-2012, 09:32
This definitely sucks. Especially if you want to go the scanning route to produce color prints with 4x5.

Ben Syverson
1-Mar-2012, 09:34
This really sucks. But the silver lining is that many photographers will experience modern color negative for the first time, and be pleasantly surprised...

Brian Ellis
1-Mar-2012, 09:47
Meanwhile, Kodak continues its efforts to screw its retirees.

http://soc.li/M41h5CG

Greg Miller
1-Mar-2012, 09:48
You might want to read Thom Hogan's "Swimming in Ponds (http://http://bythom.com)" article about Kodak and film.

toyotadesigner
1-Mar-2012, 09:50
But the silver lining is that many photographers will experience modern color negative for the first time, and be pleasantly surprised...

Sure, because we can't evaluate the results on the light table anymore.

IanG
1-Mar-2012, 09:51
This definitely sucks. Especially if you want to go the scanning route to produce color prints with 4x5.

I did some publicity work woth my local Pro lab about 8 years ago and the quality of the scanned C41 negatives was superb, there was never any thought of using E6.

One advantage of colour negative films is you can still print direct to RA-4 and the quality is outstanding even from 35mm negatives these days. With no Reversal print papers left you'd have to scan anyway.

Ian

Frank Petronio
1-Mar-2012, 09:58
I'm not happy because of the symbolism but I haven't shot chromes since I was forced to by idiot clients. Never hearing the stupid phrase, "Match the chrome" is quite wonderful (or it's sister phrase, "CMYK can not reproduce that color".) Remember the "joy" of duping and internegatives?

Shooting chromes is like shooting digital. Short range, harsh blow outs, lousy highlights.

Thom Hogan nailed Kodak on his blog, got it 100% right.

John NYC
1-Mar-2012, 09:59
Well I am bummed since E100G is my main film in 8x10. I will use Provia 100F now. And I will continue to use the Portras as well.

SpeedGraphicMan
1-Mar-2012, 14:13
Sad news indeed... But wait a minute I have never used Kodak E-6 films ?!?!

I heard a slight rumor that the Kodachrome patent was bought by a smaller film manufacturer with the hopes of bringing it back to life.

All I can say is I hope they remember us large format users if they do.

I have been very fortunate to have seen an 8x10 Kodachrome transparency from the 1930's-40's...

...I almost started crying...

Robert Jonathan
1-Mar-2012, 15:10
Shooting chromes is like shooting digital. Short range, harsh blow outs, lousy highlights.

Just the way I like it! :)

Although, it's been more Provia than E100G, but I've got both in the fridge.

Soon, I'll be cool like everyone else and switch to Portra 160.

GhoSStrider
1-Mar-2012, 15:19
I heard a slight rumor that the Kodachrome patent was bought by a smaller film manufacturer with the hopes of bringing it back to life.


I thought Kodak had already released everything related to making and developing Kodachrome into public domain?

lordvader
1-Mar-2012, 18:11
Kinda bummed about this, given that I was planning to use E100G as the replacement for Astia ...
Now it looks like I'll need to stock up on what's left of Astia, AND E100G, and I'm still 2 weeks away from payday !

evan clarke
2-Mar-2012, 05:45
Less product offering means less coating, less coating means even less product offering..You have to grow or die..Kosak's dying. It'll be just like Polaroid...EC

Frank Petronio
2-Mar-2012, 05:53
It probably allows them to lay off 3-4 people and reduce the number of SKUs offered so it looks like they did something. There was probably an edict to reduce 3% or something like that.

D. Bryant
2-Mar-2012, 06:10
Meanwhile, Kodak continues its efforts to screw its retirees.

http://soc.li/M41h5CG

My late father-n-law worked for EK for 33 years so this will definitely affect his widow who is 82. Sad news.

Frank Petronio
2-Mar-2012, 06:48
Many of the older retirees, who had better contracts, are protected, it is the current workers and the more recent retirees who will loose the most. My 85-year old MiL isn't loosing anything so far.

Bruce Watson
2-Mar-2012, 06:52
Sure, because we can't evaluate the results on the light table anymore.

Actually, you can. It takes some effort and practice, but the human visual system can be trained how to remove the orange color correction mask and invert the colors. Just like using a view camera -- after about six months I found that I saw the scene on the ground glass upside down and backwards only if I willed it. Same is true of C-41 on a light table. If I can do it, anyone can.

toyotadesigner
2-Mar-2012, 07:26
If I can do it, anyone can.

So why don't the global TV stations start to broadcast inverted videos?

Frank Petronio
2-Mar-2012, 07:57
So you throw the sleeved negs onto a flatbed and do quick proof scans. What's the big deal?

The whole chrome workflow was a kludge. Kodak's first color process was Kodachrome and projected slides used to be a huge amateur and later, professional, market that they addressed. But their intent, according to the old timers I've known, was to get commercial photographers to adopt color negative back in the 1950s. That way the photographer would be responsible for controlling the color and making repro-quality, retouched prints for four-color repro. That was the model they built and it would have been better for most serious photographers in terms of control and profit.

Remember that Kodak invented and wanted to control that early color repro workflow in the post WW2 period just like they invented and controlled the early digital imaging workflow in the 1990s (everything you do with your DSLR was pioneered and mostly perfected by Kodak, not Canon or Nikon. Simply use any Canon or Nikon software to confirm that they have no f-clue about workflow!)

Instead, the printing and advertising industry started to use slides/chromes for reproduction. This striped the photographer out of the post-production process but it also made it easier for photographers to simply hand over their film and bill the clients. So most photographers took the easy way out and the prints/ad agencies/pre-press houses went to a chrome-based workflow.

This sucked in hindsight because from 1950 until 2000, most commercial photographers were at the mercy of however the film rendered color. It wasn't until clients started asking photographers to scan and retouch that they got control back.

Tossing some pretty chromes on the light table and picking up the check was relatively easy for the duffers, and then the braindead art directors and pre-press people would "match the chrome" instead of making color decisions with any intent - it was such a waste and it deprived photographers (and Kodak) of a very large stream of revenue. But at least Kodak sold the film and chemistry, so they adapted to the market reality... at that time.

As for chromes "providing a reference" I've never understood that comment and it always rang stupid, even though I spent years in the pre-press business and did relatively high-end work. It's just laziness and people doing it that way because "it's the way it was always done".

So I'll miss chromes for all the memories and such but from a shooting perspective? hahaha no.

Greg Lockrey
2-Mar-2012, 08:05
So you throw the sleeved negs onto a flatbed and do quick proof scans. What's the big deal?

The whole chrome workflow was a kludge. Kodak's first color process was Kodachrome and projected slides used to be a huge amateur and later, professional, market that they addressed. But their intent, according to the old timers I've known, was to get commercial photographers to adopt color negative back in the 1950s. That way the photographer would be responsible for controlling the color and making repro-quality, retouched prints for four-color repro. That was the model they built and it would have been better for most serious photographers in terms of control and profit.

Remember that Kodak invented and wanted to control that early color repro workflow in the post WW2 period just like they invented and controlled the early digital imaging workflow in the 1990s (everything you do with your DSLR was pioneered and mostly perfected by Kodak, not Canon or Nikon. Simply use any Canon or Nikon software to confirm that they have no f-clue about workflow!)

Instead, the printing and advertising industry started to use slides/chromes for reproduction. This striped the photographer out of the post-production process but it also made it easier for photographers to simply hand over their film and bill the clients. So most photographers took the easy way out and the prints/ad agencies/pre-press houses went to a chrome-based workflow.

This sucked in hindsight because from 1950 until 2000, most commercial photographers were at the mercy of however the film rendered color. It wasn't until clients started asking photographers to scan and retouch that they got control back.

Tossing some pretty chromes on the light table and picking up the check was relatively easy for the duffers, and then the braindead art directors and pre-press people would "match the chrome" instead of making color decisions with any intent - it was such a waste and it deprived photographers (and Kodak) of a very large stream of revenue. But at least Kodak sold the film and chemistry, so they adapted to the market reality... at that time.

As for chromes "providing a reference" I've never understood that comment and it always rang stupid, even though I spent years in the pre-press business and did relatively high-end work. It's just laziness and people doing it that way because "it's the way it was always done".

So I'll miss chromes for all the memories and such but from a shooting perspective? hahaha no.

Dittos

SamReeves
2-Mar-2012, 09:40
This really sucks. But the silver lining is that many photographers will experience modern color negative for the first time, and be pleasantly surprised...

Don't hold your breath on Kodak's C-41 line sticking around. I think they shall be gone alltogether soon.

Vlad Soare
2-Mar-2012, 10:11
I'm not happy because of the symbolism but I haven't shot chromes since I was forced to by idiot clients. Never hearing the stupid phrase, "Match the chrome" is quite wonderful (or it's sister phrase, "CMYK can not reproduce that color".) Remember the "joy" of duping and internegatives?

Shooting chromes is like shooting digital. Short range, harsh blow outs, lousy highlights.

That may be, Frank, but on the other hand nothing compares to a projected slide.

Brian Ellis
2-Mar-2012, 10:44
You might want to read Thom Hogan's "Swimming in Ponds (http://http://bythom.com)" article about Kodak and film.

Link doesn't work (for me, on Firefox).

Frank Petronio
2-Mar-2012, 10:47
While I think digitally-shot movies are a sad imitation of real movies, it is inevitable that digital will take over 99.9% (I think, I don't really know).

Luckily a smaller operation of some sort could likely make B&W profitable so while color is on the horizon, B&W will likely be made for many years to come.

Brian Ellis
2-Mar-2012, 10:49
I'm not happy because of the symbolism but I haven't shot chromes since I was forced to by idiot clients. Never hearing the stupid phrase, "Match the chrome" is quite wonderful (or it's sister phrase, "CMYK can not reproduce that color".) Remember the "joy" of duping and internegatives?

Shooting chromes is like shooting digital. Short range, harsh blow outs, lousy highlights.

Thom Hogan nailed Kodak on his blog, got it 100% right.

I'd amend that to read "shooting chromes is like shooting digital. Short range, harsh blow outs, lousy highlights, when the photographer doesn't know what he or she is doing." : - )

Ben Syverson
2-Mar-2012, 10:55
Don't hold your breath on Kodak's C-41 line sticking around. I think they shall be gone alltogether soon.
I don't see any evidence of that. Kodak has stated that they want to re-focus on film, and "film" means C41, E2 and RA4. If anything, I would worry about B&W in LF sizes.

rdenney
2-Mar-2012, 10:58
Link doesn't work (for me, on Firefox).

Brian, "HTTP" got in there twice.


http://bythom.com (http://bythom.com)

Rick "it was a good article, though still speculative" Denney

Drew Wiley
2-Mar-2012, 11:23
I probably still have a bunch of 6x7 slides around mounted in antinewton Gepe glass, including some 120 Kodachromes. Now that made a good slide show!

vinny
2-Mar-2012, 11:57
I don't see any evidence of that. Kodak has stated that they want to re-focus on film, and "film" means C41, E2 and RA4. If anything, I would worry about B&W in LF sizes.

does anyone notice that these announcements and quotes always come first from the other side of the pond, British Journal of Photography? I don't remember the quote about dropping digicams and sticking with film to specify only those products above. Anything "they" say about film is bullshit at this point.

Bob Salomon
2-Mar-2012, 12:01
The same announcement is in the PMA newsletter today.

Frank Petronio
2-Mar-2012, 12:27
Here's a screenshot of Kodak's website: 69409

Greg Lockrey
2-Mar-2012, 12:55
FWIW...I heard on Kim Komado's radio show that Kodak was getting into the printer business but she didn't seem to know any more about it other than it would be fool hardy unless they had something that would blow the socks off everything already available.

Bruce Watson
2-Mar-2012, 13:43
So why don't the global TV stations start to broadcast inverted videos?

Then again, maybe you can't.

John Rodriguez
3-Mar-2012, 07:02
So you throw the sleeved negs onto a flatbed and do quick proof scans. What's the big deal?

As for chromes "providing a reference" I've never understood that comment and it always rang stupid, even though I spent years in the pre-press business and did relatively high-end work. It's just laziness and people doing it that way because "it's the way it was always done".

So I'll miss chromes for all the memories and such but from a shooting perspective? hahaha no.


The big deal is density, or data once you scan the files. Look here (I've done my own tests on this, but Tim's already got it all online) - http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/02/colour-film-comparison-pt-two/

Pick an E6 and C41 and compare any of the crops. Now try and tell me that there's the same amount of tonal and color information in both files.

Brian Ellis
3-Mar-2012, 07:25
Brian, "HTTP" got in there twice.


http://bythom.com (http://bythom.com)

Rick "it was a good article, though still speculative" Denney

Thanks Rick. Interesting article. While speculative it certainly seems like pretty accurate speculation to me.

rdenney
3-Mar-2012, 08:05
The big deal is density, or data once you scan the files. Look here (I've done my own tests on this, but Tim's already got it all online) - http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/02/colour-film-comparison-pt-two/

Pick an E6 and C41 and compare any of the crops. Now try and tell me that there's the same amount of tonal and color information in both files.

You're right, there is not the same amount of tonal and color information in both filtes. The Ektar files had more. Where I saw black shadows in the Velvia files, I saw clear detail in the Ektar files, when the highllights were the same. Yes, the color cast was different, and Velvia was more saturated. Those are easy to adjust in a hybrid workflow, which is what Frank was talking about.

I'm not talking about situations where the photographer is going to say, that pine cone was very slightly more green than what the film shows--few of us are that discriminating as long as the color is pleasing and appropriate.

Here's the corollary experiment: I believe I could take that Ektar file that Tim posted, and adjust it in Photoshop to look pretty darn close to that Velvia file. But there's nothing in the world I can do to add detail to those dense black shadows, especially if my scanner can't see through them.

As far as dogs and hunts--my freezer is half stocked with Velvia and half 160C, when I stocked up on Quickload as it was being discontinued. But I save the Velvia for those overcast days when I want a film with a lot of color contrast.

Rick "density does not equal data" Denney

John Rodriguez
3-Mar-2012, 08:23
When I look over the individual pine needles I see contrast and color variation in the E6 files that just aren't there in the C41 files. Looking at the black and white points won't do you any good - there's obviously more data in C41 once you pass the range limits of E6, but the point is within it's range there is more tonal and color separation data and thus separation.

You can match the overall contrast range of the C41, but you can't add back in tonal/color variation that wasn't there in the first place.

My point is, if the significant range you want to capture fits on E6 you'll have more data to work with in PS.

I'm not disparaging C41, I shoot quite a lot of Portra and Ektar, but I see them as tools to be used in their proper situations.

Frank Petronio
3-Mar-2012, 08:26
I used to have the sharpest chromes in the world. Lot of good it did me when I had to make an interneg to make a print or have it reproduced in 133 line-per-inch trade magazine.

As for judging a chrome based on color... pfft I'm saying it's a worthless argument, the saturation and color bias don't matter once you scan and adjust with the freedom not to "match the film".

But yes, if all your images fall within a 5-stop range, then shoot chromes with abandon! That's why Chimera and Photoflex are in business, making big softboxes and soft light for studios. Outdoors or in more spontaneous situations, like life, color neg trumps.

What is interesting to me is how photography, especially commercial work, was done in order to accommodate a chrome workflow in the 1980-90s. Before people would shoot a long range film and maybe use a reflector on a face outdoors. With shorter range chrome films, you saw people bringing 8000 watt strobes outdoors to overpower the sun in order to bring the range into something that would work as a chrome - thinking of all those lit-outdoors portraits in annual reports and Sports Illustrated for example.

rdenney
3-Mar-2012, 08:38
When I look over the individual pine needles I see contrast and color variation in the E6 files that just aren't there in the C41 files. Looking at the black and white points won't do you any good - there's obviously more data in C41 once you pass the range limits of E6, but the point is within it's range there is more tonal and color separation data and thus separation.

You can match the overall contrast range of the C41, but you can't add back in tonal/color variation that wasn't there in the first place.

My point is, if the significant range you want to capture fits on E6 you'll have more data to work with in PS.

I'm not disparaging C41, I shoot quite a lot of Portra and Ektar, but I see them as tools to be used in their proper situations.

Nope, I'm still not seeing it.

If you are saying there is more contrast in the middle values, then sure. Chromes are contrasty. And the color cast is different. But I'm not seeing data even in those middle values that is not present in the Ektar, to a high degree. And this morning I'm looking at both on my calibrated, wide-gamut monitor. I can see one case where the red channel oversaturated with the Ektar, but these are scanned images we are looking at and the scanning choices have an influence, too.

I would submit that you are treating the Velvia as an aesthetic--it is making aesthetic choices for you that you have built into your vocabulary. You can come very close to those same choices with Ektar. If your intent is to make the scene look like Velvia, then, yes, using Ektar will require more work. But I'm usually trying to make the image look good, and look the way I want it to look. I just don't hve enough experience with Velvia for it to have buried itself that deeply into my expectations. I did a lot with Kodachrome, but in small format. Most of my large-format stuff has been black and white, but what little color I've done has been mostly--Velvia. But those impenetrable shadows create a far greater problem than the lack of any particular look in the middle values.

Rick "glad we never had narrow-range black-and-white positive film that was forced into usage by the magazine biz" Denney

John Rodriguez
3-Mar-2012, 08:45
I'm using a strictly film=>scan workflow. I got into this after starting in digital; I don't feel influenced at all by past workflows (like needing chromes for directors). As far as color matching I agree, I'm color correcting and creatively coloring either way. Not ALL of my images fall into a 5-stop range, but the ones that do are better served by a sensor that matches it. In my opinion this is one argument for film over digital. With digital you're stuck with one sensor. If it's got a 12 stop range and the scene has 4 you just wasted 2/3rds of your available data storage. At least with film you have an option.

John Rodriguez
3-Mar-2012, 08:52
Rick - I could give a rats ass about the Velvia look (which I rarely shoot anyways). I'm strictly talking about density per stop.

vinny
3-Mar-2012, 09:09
Kodak doesn't make a c41 sheet film (ektar discontinued in 8x10, 4x5 will be next)suited for landscapes. I shot some portra* vc once with long exposures. The color cast was horrid and the grain much more appartent than 100 speed chrome. E100G was great for a lot of things, landscapes being one of them.

*pretty sure Portra is short for portrait so for Frank's work, it's the right tool for the job if you can't control the light or don't want to control it.

When they drop c41 films, you're gonna tell me that the next digital slr is better than c41:)

Ben Syverson
3-Mar-2012, 09:09
Jason, you're right about density per stop, but outside of the studio, it's pretty rare to come across a scene that can be contained in chrome's narrow range.

vinny
3-Mar-2012, 09:11
Jason, you're right about density per stop, but outside of the studio, it's pretty rare to come across a scene that can be contained in chrome's narrow range.

try open shade

Ben Syverson
3-Mar-2012, 09:29
try open shade
Sure, just be careful not to include anything sunny in the background.

I also hesitate to point out that people who shoot a lot of chrome typically aren't shooting portraits in open shade. They're doing punchy landscapes, and having to make difficult decisions about whether to throw away shadow detail or highlight detail. Negative film is simply a better choice for those situations.

John Rodriguez
3-Mar-2012, 09:29
Vinny - try the new Portra 160 if you haven't and see what you think. It's pretty nice when you need the range. Both below are Portra 160.

Ben - There are some situations where the actual range is that low. Also, it's not just about what the actual range is, but what the significant range you want to record is, making a creative decision just like setting the white and black point in a digital file.

http://images.us.viewbook.com/62596df828fdd32c50db8da8ef06025e.jpg

http://images.us.viewbook.com/7ea93b7fa88e879fccdfd279252fc424.jpg

Frank Petronio
3-Mar-2012, 09:46
When they drop c41 films, you're gonna tell me that the next digital slr is better than c41:)

When they drop color neg then I will buy a decent DSLR, whether it will be better or not will be moot. I have no doubts my current digital is worse than film ;-p It actually makes a good proofing device.

Frank Petronio
3-Mar-2012, 09:49
John's point about fitting the scene into the tonal range of the film makes sense, so perhaps shots in flatter light, open shade, are technically better with chromes than negs.

Back to the topic sort of though, it's a shame they killed off E6 but better that than negs!

Roger Cole
3-Mar-2012, 10:27
Don't hold your breath on Kodak's C-41 line sticking around. I think they shall be gone alltogether soon.


I don't see any evidence of that. Kodak has stated that they want to re-focus on film, and "film" means C41, E2 and RA4. If anything, I would worry about B&W in LF sizes.

I don't see any evidence of it either. I think Kodak was being truthful about sticking with film for the short term. This announcement fits in, because they still need to trim the film that doesn't bring in the profit, and E6 has been a small minority for a long time. C41 is film bread and butter. I'd be more worried about losing black and white than C41.

But I'm not worried about black and white, large format or otherwise. I prefer Tri-X in medium format but if I lose it I will stock up on HP5+ and continue to shoot. I prefer TMY-2 in LF but likewise, if it goes away I will just happily switch to HP5 +. Yes, I know, TMY is way finer grained (don't care, in 4x5, some folks may, especially if they print much larger than I do) and yes, I know that the reciprocity characteristics of HP5 are not as good. There is still Acros for that, albeit it starts out two stops slower. And photographers made wonderful large format images in black and white before TMX/TMY/T-grain anything. There may be a few images we'll have to pass up, but the vast majority will still be made.

I think it's the very rare image, if any, that can only be successfully captured on one film.


Kodak doesn't make a c41 sheet film (ektar discontinued in 8x10, 4x5 will be next)suited for landscapes. I shot some portra* vc once with long exposures. The color cast was horrid and the grain much more appartent than 100 speed chrome. E100G was great for a lot of things, landscapes being one of them.

*pretty sure Portra is short for portrait so for Frank's work, it's the right tool for the job if you can't control the light or don't want to control it.

When they drop c41 films, you're gonna tell me that the next digital slr is better than c41:)

Ektar 100.

I haven't shot LF color in a long time (or, more accurately, haven't processed it or had it processed, I have a few sheets to get done) but in medium format and 35mm I'm shooting Portra 400 and loving it. I don't see much difference from 160 honestly, and the extra 1-1/3 stops is useful. If you want more saturation go to Ektar.

Now if Kodak does stop making C41, large format color is hosed here in North America, at least unless and until Fuji brings C41 in sheets back or someone else makes a C41 sheet film.

vinny
3-Mar-2012, 10:27
John's point about fitting the scene into the tonal range of the film makes sense, so perhaps shots in flatter light, open shade, are technically better with chromes than negs.

Back to the topic sort of though, it's a shame they killed off E6 but better that than negs!

amen to your first sentence.

I shoot a mix of b+w and chrome with the occasional c41 neg thrown in for fun. I shoot chromes in soft light or back light and the rest in other conditions. The right tool for the job. In soft light, side by side on the computer screen, I prefer the results from the chrome every time. This works for me so suck it!

John R. those shots look great, I really like the first example.

John Rodriguez
4-Mar-2012, 08:58
I wonder what the chances are that Fuji decides to continue production of Astia now that E100G is being discontinued.

Chris Strobel
4-Mar-2012, 09:30
I wonder what the chances are that Fuji decides to continue production of Astia now that E100G is being discontinued.

I talked with Rodney Lough Jr.s wife a couple weeks ago, and she said Rodney was now shooting 50% digital because because his stash of Fuji E6 is running low, and after it's gone it will be 100% digital.She told me me Rodney is a Fuji sponsored artist, but that Fuji was discontinuing it's E6 film, and that any more Fuji E6 that's available is already out in the market place.

I'm a little confused as I talked to Jeff at Badger just the other day, and he says they have both Provia and Velvia on order with an expected arrival around may.I have never shot color film period in 8x10, and have 10 sheets of Provia and 10 sheets of Velvia 100f in the fridge.I'm thinking maybe I should sell the E6 and buy some Portra 160 instead.Don't want to fall in love with a film that's not available after 10 shots.

Ben Syverson
4-Mar-2012, 09:48
Chris, don't get rid of that film! Shoot it and enjoy it. There's really something special about an 8x10 transparency! I'm not the biggest E6 fan, but you can't deny the impact it has in-person.

Brian C. Miller
4-Mar-2012, 13:40
She told me me Rodney is a Fuji sponsored artist, but that Fuji was discontinuing it's E6 film, and that any more Fuji E6 that's available is already out in the market place.

I was at Glazer's on Friday, and the guys there said that when Kodak says a film is discontinued, that means that there isn't any more in the warehouse. When Fuji says a film is discontinued, there may still be master rolls to cut. Since Fuji hasn't announced anything, I'm guessing that there is still film. I just ordered a box of Provia from B&H. If there's some in stock two weeks from now, I'll buy some more.

John Rodriguez
4-Mar-2012, 13:51
The only official announcements from Fuji I'm aware of are from Sept and only mention Astia as far as 4x5



The discontinued films include the following:

Negative film
Sheet film (large format)
Fujicolor PRO160NC 5x4 (20 pieces)
Fujicolor Pro 160NC 5x4 Quick load type 20 sheet pack

Reversal (slide film)
135 (35mm)
Fujichrome Fuji Sensia III 100 24exp
Fujichrome Fuji Sensia III 100 36exp
Fujichrome Tungsten T64 36exp

120 (medium-format)
Fujichrome Astia 100F 12exp 5 pack

220 size
Fujichrome Astia 100F 24exp 5 pack

Sheet film (large format)
Fujichrome Astia 100F 5x4 20 sheet pack
Fujichrome Astia 100F 10x8 20 sheet pack
Fujichrome Astia 100F 5x4 quick load 20 sheet pack

Black & white negative film - 135 (35mm)
Fujifilm Neopan SS 36exp
Fujichrome Velvia 100F in 35mm, 120, 220 and sheet film will continue to be produced along with other current films.

Robert Jonathan
5-Mar-2012, 14:39
I just don't see how Fuji would all of a sudden discontinue E-6 films...

Fuji sells the most E-6 in the US. I have three 20 sheet boxes of 8x10 Provia in the fridge. If someone can prove that Fuji is discontinuing the stuff, then I'm buying more!

Anyone notice how 4x5 Provia and Astia cost more now at B&H (from $39 to $43)?

Brian C. Miller
5-Mar-2012, 15:23
Google translation of FujiFilm news page (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://fujifilm.jp/information/)
Let's see:
"Negative film "Fujicolor REALA ACE" 35mm color negative film for Pro End-of-Sales Guidance"
I can't find anything about E-6 film.

However, the Japanese can be a bit harsh:

Before purchasing the product from Fujifilm wilt give everyday, Thank you very much.

FUJIFILM Corporation (President: Shigetaka Komori), you will be discontinued as soon as our inventory is gone, the "Fujicolor REALA ACE" for 35mm film negatives & professional color negative film.

Silver halide film under market conditions will continue to shrink, while providing efficiency and productivity in the future review of the product lineup, will proceed to create systems available to continue the photographic film.
Upon actual purchase, please contact our local dealer.
To everyone, but will inconvenience, thank you enough for your understanding.

Wow, talk about end-of-life!

Drew Wiley
5-Mar-2012, 16:30
Chris - all that's discontinued in Fuji sheet film is Astia and Quickloads. Overall Astia has been a very slow seller. It was an excellent film for those who understood its potential,
but never caught on like the typical contrast Provia or punched-up Velvia. Individual dealers' stock of this always tends to fluctuate. No need for panic. Just buy an extra box
of two. Another misleading statement on this thread is the notion that Ektar is being discontinued. It's a popular product and even 8x10 is not discontinued - it just requires a
volume order now. Someone like B&H could order it anytime and stock it themselves, or a
group purchase could be made. Until Kodak is really six feet under there's no sense in making a bigger fuss out of all this than actually exists. I don't personally regard color neg
film as a substitute for chromes; they're just different. I've shot chromes for decades and
have had no trouble making very high quality prints from there. You just get used to what
kinds of subjects are suitable and have the right lighting ratio. I learned how to do that
almost half a century ago. It get instinctive after awhile. Now I'm shooting mostly negs.

David Luttmann
5-Mar-2012, 17:16
I talked with Rodney Lough Jr.s wife a couple weeks ago, and she said Rodney was now shooting 50% digital because because his stash of Fuji E6 is running low, and after it's gone it will be 100% digital.She told me me Rodney is a Fuji sponsored artist, but that Fuji was discontinuing it's E6 film, and that any more Fuji E6 that's available is already out in the market place.

I'm a little confused as I talked to Jeff at Badger just the other day, and he says they have both Provia and Velvia on order with an expected arrival around may.I have never shot color film period in 8x10, and have 10 sheets of Provia and 10 sheets of Velvia 100f in the fridge.I'm thinking maybe I should sell the E6 and buy some Portra 160 instead.Don't want to fall in love with a film that's not available after 10 shots.

Chris, Rodney shoots with 8x10 Astia...and Astia is no more. I think that's why he's switching over to MF digital backs.

Daniel Stone
5-Mar-2012, 17:30
Rodney talks about some of his technique in this video(starts @ 0:22:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M08PVdadOMw

-Dan

Black Lightning
5-Mar-2012, 19:29
I have shot some chromes in the past in 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5. The 35mm slides are the only ones I was ever able to enjoy through a projector. I have a while book full of 6x6 and 4x5 as well as a few fresh boxes of 4x5 in the fridge which I anticipate will never see any light other than that of a light box. That is, until I get a real scanner which doesn't completely make sense to me.

Drew Wiley
5-Mar-2012, 19:41
Thanks for the link Daniel, but there Rodney claims once all his Astia is gone he'll switch to 8x10 Provia. MF digitial just doesn't make sense if his
goal is to maintain an 8X10 level of detail in really big prints. But I'd did like his analogy that a crescent wrench wasn't invented as a murder weapon, even though someone has probably used it that way, so similarly,
PS wasn't originally invented to murder images, but people have chosen to do so. I suspect I recognize a couple of the major culprits he refers to.

Chris Strobel
5-Mar-2012, 22:07
Ahh ok, his wife must have meant Astia is no more.I watched that whole interview (thanks for the link) and caught the section where he mentions going to Provia once his Astia runs out, guess he changed his mind and has decided to go with that 80mp back instead.Anyway I got his book 'Wilderness Collections' and half the images are Velvia.If someone asked me to pick out which were Astia and which were Velvia in the book I wouldn't have a clue, but I'm not the sharpest tack when it comes to color photography.Maybe I'll just get that new Nokia cell phone and call it a day :D

John Rodriguez
5-Mar-2012, 22:33
I just googled Rodney Lough and realized that it's due to him that I'm shooting large format. A number of years ago I wandered into his gallery on Pier 39. I'd just really started getting into photography; when I saw his prints I instantly knew I eventually wanted a large format camera so I could create prints of that scale and quality. I'd completely forgotten his name until now, thanks! While seeing his stuff gave me the bug it was Charles Cramer's images that sealed the deal.

onnect17
6-Mar-2012, 19:23
E100G is king in E-6 when humans are part of the scene, at least to me. BTW, B&H got more 8x10 in stock.

Chris Strobel
6-Mar-2012, 20:13
I just googled Rodney Lough and realized that it's due to him that I'm shooting large format. A number of years ago I wandered into his gallery on Pier 39. I'd just really started getting into photography; when I saw his prints I instantly knew I eventually wanted a large format camera so I could create prints of that scale and quality. I'd completely forgotten his name until now, thanks! While seeing his stuff gave me the bug it was Charles Cramer's images that sealed the deal.

I think Cramer taught Rodney the whole digital work flow thing.I too wasn't even interested in doing color till I saw that pier 39 gallery.I like Burkett a lot, even own a print, but after seeing Rodneys work it inspired me that I didn't need to learn the whole Ciba thing to get a large fine color print.

SpeedGraphicMan
7-Mar-2012, 13:28
B&W film will always be produced.

There is simply no other alternative for archival preservation than B&W separation negatives.

Drew Wiley
7-Mar-2012, 17:15
Maybe Rodney's wife was surmising. Best just to email Rodney himself. Makes no difference
really. Provia and Velvia is what is going to be left. Can't imagine any kind of digital capture
at this point in history being a realistic substitute for 8x10. I've driven by one of his galleries frequently but never walked in. Through the window looks a little too Sierra Clubby
for my personal interest. I'm an outdoor photographer too, but am more interested in perceiving the majestic in the commonplace. Guess I identify more with people like Brett
Weston, who ended up photographing mud cracks instead of scenery per se.

Chris Strobel
7-Mar-2012, 18:48
Maybe Rodney's wife was surmising. Best just to email Rodney himself. Makes no difference
really. Provia and Velvia is what is going to be left. Can't imagine any kind of digital capture
at this point in history being a realistic substitute for 8x10. I've driven by one of his galleries frequently but never walked in. Through the window looks a little too Sierra Clubby
for my personal interest. I'm an outdoor photographer too, but am more interested in perceiving the majestic in the commonplace. Guess I identify more with people like Brett
Weston, who ended up photographing mud cracks instead of scenery per se.

Talked with them today and did confirm its the lack of Astia driving him to Digital.Anyway I've never been into color that much period.Definitely I identify more with Brett, Edward, Merg Ross, etc. myself.Never even shot a color neg or chrome.Its just the Rodney Lough Jr. gallery is the only one my wife is willing to spend any time in, so I sacrifice for her :D

Daniel Stone
7-Mar-2012, 22:48
E100G is king in E-6 when humans are part of the scene, at least to me. BTW, B&H got more 8x10 in stock.

agreed. But B+H is now out of stock again :(

-Dan

Robert Jonathan
8-Mar-2012, 01:07
Should've bought more E100G when it was $119, free shipping. That was in January... oh well, can't predict the future. :(

But honestly, who here doesn't like Provia? I think it has more DR/shadow detail than E100G, is fine for skin tones, and you get 20 sheets for just 30 dollars more than Kodak.

I want 8x10 Astia, but that ain't happening. Why is 4x5 Astia still available?

onnect17
8-Mar-2012, 04:35
agreed. But B+H is now out of stock again :(

-Dan

Dan,
You should enter your email in the "notify" at B&H. They should receive more E100G in the next few days. I can't imagine (but possible) some party will be able to gather the remaining stock in less than 30 days. Worst case scenario you can count with one box from my own "collection". \:)/
Armando

Roger Cole
8-Mar-2012, 05:05
Should've bought more E100G when it was $119, free shipping. That was in January... oh well, can't predict the future. :(

But honestly, who here doesn't like Provia? I think it has more DR/shadow detail than E100G, is fine for skin tones, and you get 20 sheets for just 30 dollars more than Kodak.

I want 8x10 Astia, but that ain't happening. Why is 4x5 Astia still available?

I don't really like Provia that much. It's too contrasty much of the time, and the saturation, while less than Velvia or E100VS, still looks exaggerated to me, at least in anything but drab light.

But I'm not really a shooter of LF transparencies anyway. 35mm, yes, for projection, and I might get a MF projector too, but for LF I am shooting with the aim of prints, and with both Ilfochrome and type R paper gone, I'm really not interested in shooting transparencies in LF anymore. I'm 90% B&W in LF; the other 10% will be color neg.

Now if I could still get Astia (well, I can, for now, in 4x5) AND Ilfochrome, that might be different.

In 35mm, I'm going to stock up on E100G for projection. I like it better than Provia. I like Astia slightly better still but it's long gone in 35mm except for exorbitantly priced rolls on eBay.

Drew Wiley
8-Mar-2012, 09:52
Provia tends to be more off in the deep shadows, and might not have quite the range and
ease of scanning as some people prefer. Why I don't like Provia (and I've shot plenty of it
over the years, at least until E100G and Astia 100F came out) is because it's acetate base. And that's hell to work with when you're printing Cibachrome or any other registration process, because it's not dimensionally stable. Several years ago I figured Ciba
and it's high overhead cost was in risk of discontinuance (finally true this yr), so started
experimenting with Portra. Lots of near misses and a few home-run prints for me; but the
learning curve was valuable, and now I feel I can move forward toward the kind of very
high quality prints I once routinely bagged with chromes and Ciba.

John Rodriguez
8-Mar-2012, 10:16
My only issue with Provia is how easily it goes cyan. It's easily fixable with filtration but that means dropping shutter speed.

Daniel Stone
8-Mar-2012, 10:24
Dan,
You should enter your email in the "notify" at B&H. They should receive more E100G in the next few days. I can't imagine (but possible) some party will be able to gather the remaining stock in less than 30 days. Worst case scenario you can count with one box from my own "collection". \:)/
Armando

hey Armando,

I've already got a "stash" of my own I'm working off of ;). But if perfect light hits me 500x in the next year or so, and I get graced with perfect chromes, I might come 'a callin :D

I've been shooting some 4x5 lately, comparing Provia & Velvia 100 and some of my EPN/E100G stash. The Ektachrome, IMO, comes out much "truer" to what was actually there. The Provia is exaggerating yellows in open shade scenes, where as I have to use an 81A/B filter to warm up the EPN. Now, that CAN be nice, but even for someone like myself who is drum scanning their film, so adjusting color balance is quite simple, I still try to get the color as correct as possible before capture. It just makes it easier in post. Besides, being able to show family nice beautiful 4x5, 4x10, 5x8 and 8x10 transparencies is really a nice thing in its own right :)

-Dan

onnect17
8-Mar-2012, 12:56
Dan, Glad to hear you have some backup :) The latitude of the E100G is really helpful and Astia is out of the picture.

Daniel Stone
8-Mar-2012, 13:03
unfortunately Astia's gone bye-bye :(. But E100G IMO looks damn beautiful almost all the time :). Now to find some E100VS in 8X10....

-Dan

John Rodriguez
8-Mar-2012, 13:16
You can still get Astia in 4x5.

Interesting side note about Astia and Provia:

If you look at their characteristic curves published by Fuji, Provia has about 2/3 of a stop more total range. However, if you compare the toe and shoulder Provia has ~3 stops in the toe and ~2 stops in the shoulder, while Astia is the exact opposite - ~2 in the toe and ~3 in the shoulder. So according to the data sheets Provia will give you more range but you have more protection in the highlights with Astia.

Roger Cole
8-Mar-2012, 13:39
You can still get 4x5 Astia but it's remaining stock. I'm not really shooting 4x5 chromes now so don't want to start down a dead end road. (Though I do have a frozen box of E100SW I picked up at a good price.)

onnect17
8-Mar-2012, 20:08
Most of us here in the forum are judging the film characteristics based on the local lab development standards. Once you develop E-6 carefully in your basement you really see the potential of each emulsion.

I don't think Astia is available in 8x10, right?

Daniel Stone
8-Mar-2012, 20:15
in Japan it is(@ ~$25/sheet :cool:):

http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=69

-Dan

John NYC
8-Mar-2012, 20:31
in Japan it is(@ ~$25/sheet :cool:):

http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=69

-Dan

That is obscene.

Daniel Stone
8-Mar-2012, 20:52
yup, but someone must be buying it to justify him buying it and re-selling

-Dan

Brian C. Miller
8-Mar-2012, 23:48
His price isn't that bad when you consider the dollar-yen exchange rate, and his markup from Yodobashi. If you want to buy direct from Yodobashi (http://www.yodobashi.com/%E5%AF%8C%E5%A3%AB%E3%83%95%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB%E3%83%A0-FUJIFILM-ASTIA%EF%BC%88%E3%82%A2%E3%82%B9%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%82%A2%EF%BC%89100F-8%C3%9710-%E3%82%B7%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88-20%E6%9E%9A%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8A/pd/100000001001237403/) ($18 per sheet before shipping), go for it.

David Luttmann
20-Mar-2012, 10:55
After viewing Rodney's photographs at his Pier 39 Gallery a week ago, I'd say the P65+ shots, while good, where not up to the 8x10 photos. The IQ180 photographs though were another matter....they blended in perfectly with his 8x10 work. Even I was surprised.