The death of film was a self-fufilling prophesy

Ektar 100 is higher in contrast and saturation. The Portra 400 is lower in both compared to the old VC. The main issue is scannability for the film. The dye couplers are improved for the Magenta and Cyan. I'll of course have to reserve jugement until I scan a few sheets.

RedFox88 said:

Dave Luttmann said:

could be an Ektar 400. The saturation and contrast are significantly lower than Ektar 100 though.

Click to expand...

But I thought that press release said "...without sacrificing saturation or contrast". Ektar isn't super high contrast or saturation. You can always increase or decrease these values after scanning anyways since it's unlikely you have a system or could find a lab that is able to print optically from the film.

Click to expand...

RedFox88 said:

Ektar isn't super high contrast or saturation.

Click to expand...

Not super high as in Agfa Ultra, but it is currently the highest saturation film Kodak make

RedFox88 said:

You can always increase or decrease these values after scanning anyways since it's unlikely you have a system or could find a lab that is able to print optically from the film.

Click to expand...

True for the most part, but that ignores the basic character of the film. Ektar has very vivid reds and blues while the greens can remain dullish yellow/green and skintones are quite neutral.

So when you photoshop to reduce saturation you have to do that in a way that compliments the films character.

Say you reduce the saturation so that the reds and blues are less vivid, you'll find that the yellow green and skintone will be too dull.

The same would be true of Velvia or any other film with a unique colour palette.

According to my sources at Kodak the new film will be between NC and VC saturation wise with enhanced low print grain index especially in the cyan areas like skies.

Mark Smith said:

RedFox88 said:

Ektar isn't super high contrast or saturation.

Click to expand...

Not super high as in Agfa Ultra, but it is currently the highest saturation film Kodak make

Mark Smith145430 said:

You can always increase or decrease these values after scanning anyways since it's unlikely you have a system or could find a lab that is able to print optically from the film.

Click to expand...

True for the most part, but that ignores the basic character of the film. Ektar has very vivid reds and blues while the greens can remain dullish yellow/green and skintones are quite neutral.

So when you photoshop to reduce saturation you have to do that in a way that compliments the films character.

Say you reduce the saturation so that the reds and blues are less vivid, you'll find that the yellow green and skintone will be too dull.

The same would be true of Velvia or any other film with a unique colour palette.

According to my sources at Kodak the new film will be between NC and VC saturation wise with enhanced low print grain index especially in the cyan areas like skies.

Click to expand...

It's in the Cyan and Magenta for the improvement....so skies and skin will have less apparent grain. Grain index is between Ektar 100 and the old Protra 400 series.

I will try some of this for portraits in 4x5.....even though my fave for portraits is Fuji Prop 400H....a bit less warm and less magenta than Kodak.....and ncier greens in my opinion.

Dave Luttmann said:

003tvd said:

only real old negs (2 1/4 and 4x5) for reprinting and scanning. Most of this stuff is "found in grandma's attic". Archiving the family history in most cases.

Click to expand...

Must be cool to see that old stuff.

I remember scanning about 30 rolls of Tri-X and Plus-X that my dad used in the early 60's. Awesome, never before seen....to me anyway. Man were they curled!!!

Click to expand...

Remember to store them the way you found em'. Don't try to flatten out the curl. It can mess with the emulsion.

Yust a thought.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

as for expensive it depends. Anyone who buys digital cameras upgrades- is spending a LOT of cash on camera bodies. But that depends - if you are in that group or not.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

I have no opinion whether film is dead or not. I still have my Canon FD system but haven't had access to lab equipment in years and do not see myself putting a darkroom in the basement. Hence, I've been counting on local labs/retail stores that did film processing and printing. I live in the Boston, MA area and they are almost all gone. The quality of prints/processing has decreased over the years which is really no surprise given that you are really looking at cheap processing combined with low-res digital scans of the negatives which are then printed off some ink-jet.

When I compare these prints with pictures I took years ago (same camera and lenses, same limited skillset of the photographer...) I get teary.

And that's why I am in the market for a digital SLR, now where at least the cameras are reaching a level that is falling into the "good enough" range. With prints I am not so sure and I am still puzzled how we all debate over megapixels, sharpness - and film vs digital - when the real problem may be with the prints. I know that there are printing services that do a fabulous job, but those are very expensive. Again, when comparing any type of ink-jet print out to a traditionally processed chemical print it is really sad.

And all of that is similar to what has happened to music and the MP3 file: cheap mass production that falls behind the quality standards established over decaded - despite the fact that digital technology could actually by now really deliver much better results. The better convenience is a given. Yes, it is great that my 160GB MP3 player holds my entire record collection. Does it sound good? Meh...

The problem is that people under 35 probably don't even know what I'm babbling about. We are now on the second or third generation of people who have been conditioned to believe that digital=high quality and that what they see and hear on their MacBook is about as good as it gets.

You can't have a post mortem unless you have a dead person. In the same way you cannot discuss the "death of film" when the medium is not dead!

Of course it's a smaller more niche market, but it is not dead. Why anyone would want it to go away is a mystery to some of us. Do artists care if one paints in oil and the other in acrylic? Choice is good for all.

And film will likely remain a classic and timeless medium for photographers to explore. And that is the way it should be.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

You can't have a post mortem unless you have a dead person. In the same way you cannot discuss the "death of film" when the medium is not dead!

Of course it's a smaller more niche market, but it is not dead. Why anyone would want it to go away is a mystery to some of us. Do artists care if one paints in oil and the other in acrylic? Choice is good for all.

And film will likely remain a classic and timeless medium for photographers to explore. And that is the way it should be.

Click to expand...

I've been having more and more clients asking for film. They don't care what webexperts on internet forums have to say about artistic media.

At least Eaton didn't come back to spew more bile ;-)

I find the death of batteries more worrying than the death of film.
--
Roygbiv