Kodak kills Ektachromes

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public said:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...salIndex.jhtml

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even sadder
to consider that this might have bee one of the last potentially
salvageable Kodak assets.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck writes:

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public said:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...salIndex.jhtml

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
potentially salvageable Kodak assets.

But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
necessary to let the remaining ones survive.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Savageduck writes:

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public said:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...salIndex.jhtml

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
potentially salvageable Kodak assets.

But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
necessary to let the remaining ones survive.

But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers notwithstanding. When
the market thins out by losing its best players, something is wrong.

Sorry, Velvia fans.
--
Michael

Michael wrote:

But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers notwithstanding. When
the market thins out by losing its best players, something is wrong.

It all depends upon the market. Eventually someone will realize that Bayer
sensor digital cameras are lacking something and there will be a move
back to color film.

Not on the scale it was say in the 1980's when everyone had a Japanese
35mm SLR. (You could get a Canon AE1-P for $105 at K-Mart), but hopefully
enough that a small film manufacturer will make some really good film.

It does not have to be Kodachrome with its many layers and long involved
processing, with modern technology an "Ektachome" type film can be
made close enough that no one would miss it.

It never ceases to amaze me, how many wonderful photographs were taken
with an ASA 10 film, 3 and 4 element lenses, no light meters and 1930's
film technology.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:39:04 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me, how many wonderful photographs were taken
with an ASA 10 film, 3 and 4 element lenses, no light meters and 1930's
film technology.

Many people still take great photos with plastic lenses, one aperture and
two shutter speeds, tuning exposure with luck and ISO selection.

Being there is a significant element of success...

My F3 died yesterday[*], propelled to the tiled floor by an energetic
dog. Not sure whether to replace it or abandon film at last. I'm in
mourning.
[*] All seems OK except the mirror seems to have come adrift on one
side. Fixable?

Cheers,

--
Andrew

Michael writes:

On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Savageduck writes:

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public said:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...salIndex.jhtml

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
potentially salvageable Kodak assets.

But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
necessary to let the remaining ones survive.

But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers
notwithstanding. When the market thins out by losing its best players,
something is wrong.

The market decided 15 years ago that it preferred Fuji slide films. The
fact that not everybody agreed doesn't change it.

Also the Kodachrome processing was slow and uncertain, which ruled it
out for professional use.

Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
that lovely neutral tone.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-03-06 16:03:32 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Michael writes:

On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Savageduck writes:

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public said:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...salIndex.jhtml

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
potentially salvageable Kodak assets.

But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
necessary to let the remaining ones survive.

But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers
notwithstanding. When the market thins out by losing its best players,
something is wrong.

The market decided 15 years ago that it preferred Fuji slide films. The
fact that not everybody agreed doesn't change it.

Also the Kodachrome processing was slow and uncertain, which ruled it
out for professional use.

Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
that lovely neutral tone.

Kodachrome processing uncertain? Difficult and involved but uncertain?
Kodak did it well even in the Kodalux era. So did Dwayne. In the end it
was only Dwayne. Ruled out for professional use? Have you read the
numerous tributes to Kodachrome written by the pros at the time of its
demise? Remember the Afghan girl photo for National Geo? That was
Kodachrome.
--
Michael

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
that lovely neutral tone.


Yes, me too. I adored the results I got Agfachrome CT18, which was a
DIN 18 (ASA 50) slide film. The results were just slightly on the
cool side so I used a 1A skylight filter most of the time.

Yep, that's the one. I mostly exposed it at EI 64.

I was never quite as impressed with its eventual successor, CT21 which
seemed to lose quite a lot of saturation for a one stop advantage at
DIN 21 (ASA 100).

And I'd mostly moved on to Kodak films by then.

We thought that ASA 50 was quite fast for slide film given that the
market leader was ASA 25 Kodachrome II. Ektachrome offered a little
more speed at ASA 64. High Speed High Speed Ektachrome offered ASA
160 but was grainy, contrasty and lacked saturation.

I never did take to Kodachrome 64; just wasn't the same thing.

Finally, there was GAF 500 (ASA 500) sold by 3M but made in Italy by
Ansco with grain the size of pebbles and a truly hideous colour cast.
Trying to remove the colour cast meant using colour correction filters
that robbed too much light, rather negating the point of using the
film, so it was best to leave it as it was and make a feature of it.

Man, I'd forgotten that. I did use 3M 640T quite a bit -- hideous
enough.

I was always annoyed that with very few exceptions, high-speed color
films were daylight balanced. I *never* needed high-speed color films
in daylight, it was always under artificial illumination indoors, which
then meant tungsten. I never did figure out who they thought the market
was that needed ISO 1600 dayligyht film.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Bruce wrote:



I never did figure out who they thought the market
was that needed ISO 1600 daylight film.


Me neither.


Because daylight film shot under tungsten lighting produces a nice "warm"
feeling, but tungsten film shot under daylight is unusable.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

Michael writes:

On 2012-03-06 16:03:32 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Michael writes:

On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Savageduck writes:

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public said:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...salIndex.jhtml

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
potentially salvageable Kodak assets.

But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
necessary to let the remaining ones survive.

But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers
notwithstanding. When the market thins out by losing its best players,
something is wrong.

The market decided 15 years ago that it preferred Fuji slide films. The
fact that not everybody agreed doesn't change it.

Also the Kodachrome processing was slow and uncertain, which ruled it
out for professional use.

Me, I've never really gotten over the 1960s and 70s Agfrachrome, with
that lovely neutral tone.

Kodachrome processing uncertain? Difficult and involved but uncertain?
Kodak did it well even in the Kodalux era. So did Dwayne. In the end
it was only Dwayne. Ruled out for professional use? Have you read the
numerous tributes to Kodachrome written by the pros at the time of its
demise? Remember the Afghan girl photo for National Geo? That was
Kodachrome.

I've read a lot of professional photographers writing about how they
gave it up because processing was slow and unreliable (by their
standards). E-6 is 3-hour standard service in any big city (1-hour
rush); K-14 was taking them over a week, and wasn't as reliable.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info