Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome?

Pudentame wrote:
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
But, all of today's Kodak C-41 films are based on the Ektar technology
anyway, so you might try Kodak Ultra 100UC.

It's not just the technology, it was the "look" Ektar 25 was the closest
thing to Kodachrome ever made in a color negative film.

How does the 100UC compare to it?

Geoff.


90% of the quality at 50% of the cost I'd say. It's been so long since I
actually shot Ektar.

And I don't shoot 100UC, although 400UC is nicely saturated, if that's a
valid description for a color negative film.

I don't think the one roll of Ektar I found is going to be much use for
making comparisons. It wasn't refrigerated properly.


If you want to try UC, try it now, because I have been informed that
it is no longer being manufactured. There is currently plenty in
stock, but when it's gone, it's gone.

Here in the UK we get UC in ISO 200 and 400 versions as Elite Color,
It is my negative emulsion of choice on dull, grey days (we get plenty
of those!) when it manages to inject colour into scenes that would
otherwise be rather flat.

UC is the last remaining descendant of the outstanding Ektar
emulsions, so I am particularly sad to see it go. I've ordered
several bricks and I hope they will last me a year.


(I don't buy into the idea that the Ektar technology has been
incorporated into all C-41 Kodak films, sorry. Kodak's marketing
department hasn't got a clue.)

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:26:26 -0500, "Ken Hart"
wrote:

[---]

It's really a matter of how much aging shift you can toloerate. B&W or color
print film that's a year or two out of date and has been frozen the whole
time shouldn't be a problem.

I was hoping it would be a little bit more than just a year or two - I
have quite a bit of Agfa Scala which I bought and froze when the
company went bankrupt about two years ago. I suppose I'd better start
using it up.

"Andrew Price" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:26:26 -0500, "Ken Hart"
wrote:

[---]

It's really a matter of how much aging shift you can toloerate. B&W or
color
print film that's a year or two out of date and has been frozen the whole
time shouldn't be a problem.

I was hoping it would be a little bit more than just a year or two - I
have quite a bit of Agfa Scala which I bought and froze when the
company went bankrupt about two years ago. I suppose I'd better start
using it up.

If you have some that was processed when it was 'fresh', you could shoot and
process some now and compare the density of the edge of the frame. As the
film ages, it will build up fog. You could also periodically shoot a
greyscale target and check the densities of that. As you start losing
contrast, then you should probably pick up the pace of your shooting. And
by changing your developer, you may be able to counteract some of the
effects of aging (The film's aging, not your own!)

When I said "a year or two out of date", I probably should have mentioned
that I'm pretty particular about color and contrast. Also, one brand might
have substanially more frozen life than another.

Ken Hart wrote:
If you have some that was processed when it was 'fresh', you could shoot and
process some now and compare the density of the edge of the frame. As the
film ages, it will build up fog. You could also periodically shoot a
greyscale target and check the densities of that. As you start losing
contrast, then you should probably pick up the pace of your shooting. And
by changing your developer, you may be able to counteract some of the
effects of aging (The film's aging, not your own!)

When I said "a year or two out of date", I probably should have mentioned
that I'm pretty particular about color and contrast. Also, one brand might
have substanially more frozen life than another.

Isn't Scala a black and white film? You should be able to get a decent
slide out of it by exposing a "test" subject with bracketed 1/4 or 1/8th
stops (if you can go the low) exposures and seeing which is best.

My guess from using old black and white film is that a useable neagtive
can be produced for many (20-30) years. All film fogs from exposure to
cosmic radiation (where did I put that lead lined freezer?) with ISO
1600 film starting to show noticable fog in a year or two. ISO 50 film
would need 32 times the exposure, ISO 100 16, to show the same fog, so
Scala is safe from that for a long time. Other sources of fogging may be
a problem first.

Or you could look into reversal processing of other films. One lab in
New York had good luck with Efke film and the Scala process. At one time
Kodak sold a reversal kit for regular film (I think it was Tri-X or
Plus-X) and later a similar kit for T-Max.

The kits are discontinued, but the formula has been published and at
least one third party sells a kit, which may or may not be exactly the
same, but should work.

I am partial to Ilford PAN-F, which is by my reconning the closest thing
to Kodak Panatomic-X still made. When Freestyle stopped carrying it as
their house brand, I was able to get several 100 foot rolls cheaply, and
they live in a 40F refrigerator.

It would be worth, IMHO, if you are up to the expermentation, to try a
roll of that in reversal processing along with the Efke KB-25. You might
just find a replacement for Scala.

More information can be obtained from rec.photo.darkroom.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

On 2008-02-15 04:49:06 -0500, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) said:
....snip...

Or you could look into reversal processing of other films. One lab in
New York had good luck with Efke film and the Scala process. At one time
Kodak sold a reversal kit for regular film (I think it was Tri-X or
Plus-X) and later a similar kit for T-Max.

The kits are discontinued, but the formula has been published and at
least one third party sells a kit, which may or may not be exactly the
same, but should work.

I am partial to Ilford PAN-F, which is by my reconning the closest thing
to Kodak Panatomic-X still made. When Freestyle stopped carrying it as
their house brand, I was able to get several 100 foot rolls cheaply, and
they live in a 40F refrigerator.

It would be worth, IMHO, if you are up to the expermentation, to try a
roll of that in reversal processing along with the Efke KB-25. You might
just find a replacement for Scala.

More information can be obtained from rec.photo.darkroom.

Geoff.

Kodak marketed a b&w film for reversal processing called Kodak Direct
Positive film and sold the kit to process it. I don't think any
commercial labs did it, you had to do it yourself. Of course, back in
the 1960s there were a lot of us doing our own processing. But Kodak
also recommended processing Panatomic X in the chemistry rendering a
transparency. Pan X was a very fine grain very slow (ASA 32) negative
film and as I recall it was rated somewhat faster when processed as a
positive in that chemistry.

--
Michael

On 2008-02-13 06:02:38 -0500, CanonAE14fun said:

Now that I've FINALLY bought a camera, I'm wondering about that. Is
there a material difference in quality, given that I will be having a
company do the developing and printing?
Thanks for your opinions!
Cindy

And a short answer to the OP: NOTHING is as good as Kodachrome, at
least nothing is as good as Kodachrome 25 (RIP) but 64 is pretty good
too.
--
Michael

On 2008-02-16 10:08:26 -0500, Pudentame said:

Michael wrote:
On 2008-02-13 06:02:38 -0500, CanonAE14fun said:

Now that I've FINALLY bought a camera, I'm wondering about that. Is
there a material difference in quality, given that I will be having a
company do the developing and printing?
Thanks for your opinions!
Cindy

And a short answer to the OP: NOTHING is as good as Kodachrome, at
least nothing is as good as Kodachrome 25 (RIP) but 64 is pretty good
too.


And Kodachrome 25 wasn't as good as the older Kodachrome II which
wasn't as good as the original Kodachrome ASA 8 ... but that's how it
is, and no use crying for what you can't have.

But while I was looking for some history on this, I ran across a site
the Library of Congress has on Flickr of Kodachrome images (4x5 sheet
film) from the 30s &40s. Some might be interested in seeing them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library...7603671370361/

I remember Kodachrome II and its predecessor which was Kodachrome ASA
10. I don't remember it when it was 8.
--
Michael

On 2008-02-16 10:08:26 -0500, Pudentame said:

Michael wrote:
On 2008-02-13 06:02:38 -0500, CanonAE14fun said:

Now that I've FINALLY bought a camera, I'm wondering about that. Is
there a material difference in quality, given that I will be having a
company do the developing and printing?
Thanks for your opinions!
Cindy

And a short answer to the OP: NOTHING is as good as Kodachrome, at
least nothing is as good as Kodachrome 25 (RIP) but 64 is pretty good
too.


And Kodachrome 25 wasn't as good as the older Kodachrome II which
wasn't as good as the original Kodachrome ASA 8 ... but that's how it
is, and no use crying for what you can't have.

But while I was looking for some history on this, I ran across a site
the Library of Congress has on Flickr of Kodachrome images (4x5 sheet
film) from the 30s &40s. Some might be interested in seeing them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library...7603671370361/

Thanks for the flickr link. Those images are priceless.
--
Michael

When Kodak dropped Panatomix-X in 120, Ilford started making Pan-F in 120.
I've been using Pan-F in both 35 and 120 formats ever since and stopped
using Kodak. In my not so humble opinion, I thing Pan-F is superior,
especially when developed in Perceptol.

Gene Pallat

Orion Data Systems
Orion Forensics

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Ken Hart wrote:


I am partial to Ilford PAN-F, which is by my reconning the closest thing
to Kodak Panatomic-X still made. When Freestyle stopped carrying it as
their house brand, I was able to get several 100 foot rolls cheaply, and
they live in a 40F refrigerator.

"Michael" wrote in message
news:2008021522025575249-adunc79617@mypacksnet...
On 2008-02-13 06:02:38 -0500, CanonAE14fun said:

Now that I've FINALLY bought a camera, I'm wondering about that. Is
there a material difference in quality, given that I will be having a
company do the developing and printing?
Thanks for your opinions!
Cindy

And a short answer to the OP: NOTHING is as good as Kodachrome, at least
nothing is as good as Kodachrome 25 (RIP) but 64 is pretty good too.
--
Michael

The local Natural history museum uses photographic prints to show volcanoes
and earthquakes to the public. One of the 30x40 prints was from Kodachrome.
You can see the difference even from 30 feet away.

Gene Pallat

Orion Data Systems
Orion Forensics