A new film from Kodak.

On 2008-09-10 00:59:02 -0400, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) said:

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman at a
photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said never. He
said that Vericolor whatever was sharp enough for that.

IMHO Ektar 25mm was the best color film ever made. The results were as
good as Kodachrome and by the time it came out Kodachrome had to be
"sent away" for processing, while any one hour lab could process Ektar 25.

Kodak claimed that the technology behind Ektar 25 was incorporated into
their later ISO 100 color negative film and has found its way into all
of their current offerings. It may be so, but none of them had the "look".

Even in 35mm Ektar 25 never sold enough to a viable product, which is why
it never made it to larger formats.

Wasn't there also an Ektar 100? I seem to remember it existed, but did not
look as good.

Geoff.

I loved Ektar 25. I will buy the 100 for my "new" Nikon F as soon as it
is available. If it comes out in 120/220 I will buy some for my Pentzx
6x7
--
Michael

On 2008-09-09 20:19:52 -0400, John J said:

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/6coc29

high saturation and ultra-vivid colour,

Interesting. So Kodak has made a competitor to the Japanese "high
saturation and ultra-vivid color" film, such as Velvia.

So Kodak is still playing the film market. I wish them the best of
luck. It could be good for the rest of us. I won't be buying any unless
they offer it in formats larger than 35mm, but I am a happy minority.

Thanks for the link!

Not exactly a competitor to Velvia. Velvia is a slide film.
--
Michael

Michael wrote:
On 2008-09-09 20:19:52 -0400, John J said:

So Kodak is still playing the film market. I wish them the best of
luck. It could be good for the rest of us. I won't be buying any
unless they offer it in formats larger than 35mm, but I am a happy
minority.

Thanks for the link!

Not exactly a competitor to Velvia. Velvia is a slide film.

Ah! Thank you for the correction. I hope they make it in 120.

On 2008-09-26 05:12:35 -0400, Peter said:

On Sep 13, 6:02*am, Michael wrote:
On 2008-09-10 00:59:02 -0400, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson)
said:



Jean-David Beyer wrote:
They did; it was Kodak Ektar 25, only in 35mm. I asked their salesman
at a
photo show when they would be making the stuff in 4x5 hand he said nev
er. He
said that Vericolor whatever was sharp enough for that.

IMHO Ektar 25mm was the best color film ever made. The results were as
good as Kodachrome and by the time it came out Kodachrome had to be
"sent away" for processing, while any one hour lab could process Ektar
25.

Kodak claimed that the technology behind Ektar 25 was incorporated into
their later ISO 100 color negative film and has found its way into all
of their current offerings. It may be so, but none of them had the "loo
k".

Even in 35mm Ektar 25 never sold enough to a viable product, which is w
hy
it never made it to larger formats.

Wasn't there also an Ektar 100? I seem to remember it existed, but did
not
look as good.

Geoff.

I loved Ektar 25. I will buy the 100 for my "new" Nikon F as soon as it
is available. If it comes out in 120/220 I will buy some for my Pentzx
6x7
--
Michael *

I visited one of the Kodak stands at Photokina Wednesday. I asked if
they planned to supply Ektar 100 in roll film. The first person I
asked assured me that of course they did, and if I went to speak to
their expert she would give me a roll. It was an offer I could not
refuse. She immediately gave me a roll of 35mm. I thanked her and
kept the roll, but said that what I really wanted was to know if the
film would be available in roll film, specifically 120 or 220. She
said, it certainly would not. She seemed to be a German speaker with
significant trouble with English, so I take that answer as less than
apodictic certainty and subject to confirmation. She, at least, was
quite sure of her answer and did indeed seem to know quite a bit about
Kodak's films.

When I checked Kodak's website a week or so ago it listed Ektar 100,
claimed it was a direct (but faster) descendant of Ektar 25, and listed
35mm as the only format. But it did not EXCLUDE 120/220 as a future
product.
--
Michael

Michael schrieb:
On 2008-09-26 05:12:35 -0400, Peter said:
On Sep 13, 6:02*am, Michael wrote:

She immediately gave me a roll of 35mm. I thanked her and
kept the roll, but said that what I really wanted was to know if the
film would be available in roll film, specifically 120 or 220. She
said, it certainly would not. She seemed to be a German speaker with
significant trouble with English, so I take that answer as less than
apodictic certainty and subject to confirmation. She, at least, was
quite sure of her answer and did indeed seem to know quite a bit about
Kodak's films.

I guess I spoke to the same representative - in German. She knew what
she was talking about.

When I checked Kodak's website a week or so ago it listed Ektar 100,
claimed it was a direct (but faster) descendant of Ektar 25, and listed
35mm as the only format.

The lady at the Kodak film booth told me that this Ektar 100 is a
derivative of their current cine film stock and thus not available in
size 120 or bigger.

The sample films they handed out in Cologne are pre-production, made
under a large hurry and the final film in mass production may in fact
not be identical to the "Photokina Ektar".

The hurry was so big that they didn´t have the time to finish large
prints taken with Ektar 100 - all they were able to show to me were a
few offset printed snapshots and inkjet prints. :-/

Gruss,
Roman
--
"An MDCCCXII/Mémorable par la campagne contre les Russes/
Sous le préfectura de Jules Doazan."
"Vu et approuvé par nous commandant russe de la ville de Coblentz/
le 1er janvier 1814."

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:01:40 -0400, Michael
wrote:

When I checked Kodak's website a week or so ago it listed Ektar 100,
claimed it was a direct (but faster) descendant of Ektar 25, and listed
35mm as the only format.

For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to
the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk.

The high grain CN film that superceded Ektar was called Royal Gold. It
was pricy and came in ISOs of 25, 100, 400 and 1000 (maybe 200, too).
I shot it when I could afford it.

JJ

wrote:

For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to
the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk.

That makes you a "teenager" by most of our standards. Old enough to remember
when film was still the only way to go, but too young to remember it at
it's peak.

You're probably too young to remember the days you could walk into a
drugstore and pick the film you wanted based on grain, contrast, and speed.
A well stocked camera store could literally have 10 or more different
black and white films each with its own "look".


The high grain CN film that superceded Ektar was called Royal Gold. It
was pricy and came in ISOs of 25, 100, 400 and 1000 (maybe 200, too).
I shot it when I could afford it.

Royal Gold was just another color film, which incorporated "Ektar technology"
but was nothing like it. If Ektar had the look of Kodachrome, Royal Gold
had the look of Kodacolor. Ektar came in 25,100 and 1000 (or something like
that, I havent' had my coffee yet), but the 25 was "special". It was the
designed to be the closest thing to Kodachrome 25 in a negative film.
IMHO it was the closest film made to K25 ever made.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
wrote:

For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to
the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk.

That makes you a "teenager" by most of our standards. Old enough to
remember when film was still the only way to go, but too young to
remember it at it's peak.

You're probably too young to remember the days you could walk into a
drugstore and pick the film you wanted based on grain, contrast, and
speed. A well stocked camera store could literally have 10 or more
different black and white films each with its own "look".

I guess I should start thinking of myself as an old-timer. I remember when
D-76 and such came in metal cans, when Sodium Sulphite and stuff came in
glass bottles, when you could get any of these things from Fishkin Brothers
in a near-by town (now out of business), when you had a choice of two good
photo labs in the next town (now both out of business) that would process
C-22, C-41, K-12, K-14 (I think it was) as well as black and white, and so
on. Now if I do not process myself, I have to go to a drug-store who send it
out somewhere for so-so color negative processing -- that or nothing.

Now I must get my film and hardware from B&H, Calumet, and Lens and Repro,
which are fine outfits but more inconvenient. Even Zone VI is pretty much
gone -- luckily I do not need any more hardware.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:05:01 up 22 days, 7:07, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.18, 4.11

Jean-David Beyer writes:
I guess I should start thinking of myself as an old-timer. I remember
when D-76 and such came in metal cans


Ha, I live in Turku, Finland, and we have a store here that sells D-76
in metal cans, and pretty close to 10 different kinds of B&W films in
135 and 120 sizes. I can remember them because the last time I saw
them was Tuesday. Does that make me old?

Toni Nikkanen wrote:
Jean-David Beyer writes:
I guess I should start thinking of myself as an old-timer. I remember
when D-76 and such came in metal cans


Ha, I live in Turku, Finland, and we have a store here that sells D-76
in metal cans, and pretty close to 10 different kinds of B&W films in
135 and 120 sizes. I can remember them because the last time I saw
them was Tuesday. Does that make me old?

Yes; at least, honorarily old. It also makes your photo store old. I think
Kodak stopped putting developers in metal cans in the very early 1970s, so
your stuff, if Kodak, is very old. Since they were sealed in cans, they may
still be good.

I forgot: the film came in metal cans with a screw-cap on them, with a trace
of rubber-like compound where the cap touched the top of the can.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:30:01 up 22 days, 8:32, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.29, 4.72