New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

Some truly great news for those of us who miss the superb saturation
and ultra fine grain of the unique Kodak Ektar 25 film ...

From the Vision Landscapes site:
http://tinyurl.com/6lk6tr
or
http://visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!845DD01974D4626E!336.entry

"Not since the reintroduction of Velvia 50 a couple of years ago has a
major manufacturer shown such a commitment to film. This all changes
for Kodak with the introduction of the new Kodak Ektar 100 Color
Negative film. This film builds upon the discontinued Ektar 25, with
finer grain, increased resolution, in a faster speed. Ektar 100
incorporates Entertainment Imaging's KODAK VISION Film technology,
with a grain structure based upon Kodak's T-GRAIN® Emulsions
technology.

"Equally significant is that this film is only available in 35mm, a
format many consider dead (there are in fact, only 2 or 3 35mm SLR's
still in production), and aimed squarely at the professional
photographer. Attendees at the recent Photokina 2008 in Germany are
reporting that both Kodak and Fuji are reporting increased film sales
amongst professional photographers."

For more information visit:
http://tinyurl.com/64sqo9
or
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...tar/ektarIndex..jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.5.14&lc=en

 

Some truly great news for those of us who miss the superb saturation
and ultra fine grain of the unique Kodak Ektar 25 film ...

From the Vision Landscapes site:
http://tinyurl.com/6lk6tr
or
http://visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!845DD01974D4626E!336.entry

"Not since the reintroduction of Velvia 50 a couple of years ago has a
major manufacturer shown such a commitment to film. This all changes
for Kodak with the introduction of the new Kodak Ektar 100 Color
Negative film. This film builds upon the discontinued Ektar 25, with
finer grain, increased resolution, in a faster speed. Ektar 100
incorporates Entertainment Imaging's KODAK VISION Film technology,
with a grain structure based upon Kodak's T-GRAIN® Emulsions
technology.

"Equally significant is that this film is only available in 35mm, a
format many consider dead (there are in fact, only 2 or 3 35mm SLR's
still in production), and aimed squarely at the professional
photographer. Attendees at the recent Photokina 2008 in Germany are
reporting that both Kodak and Fuji are reporting increased film sales
amongst professional photographers."

For more information visit:
http://tinyurl.com/64sqo9
or
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...ktar/ektarIndex.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.5.14&lc=en

I may have to drag my old Canon A2 out of storage. But, I'd probably just
have negs scanned to disk instead of getting prints.

Take Care,
Dudley

 

Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2008 10:41 AM:

Welcome to last month's news.
It was announced at Photokina.
And as usual the "news" sites
all missed it...
Fortunately, in the sites that really
deal with film photography, it's already
been widely discussed. We're all very keen
on trying it, whenever it shows up.

 

Some of don't shoot color?

HFL

 

The best there was ... and now the best there is!

 

Sadly, this 35mm newsgroup is no longer
a pleasant place to discuss 35mm film.

 

What a waste and step backwards. Since geting my first cheap digital I
found I could duplicate Ektar- Kodachrome, and save a fortune from bs
in wasted money, time, roll restrictions, lack of instant playback etc
etc that goes into film, that dead medium. A buthead move by Kodak.

 

Glad to see you're still around, Mxsmanic.

HFL

 

She's lucky. Some people who have converted to digital are like so
many religious converts - zealots for their new-found faith, who try
to impose it on everyone they can. :-(

I still use Kodachrome. But I don't find it expensive. I buy it in
bulk packs of 20, process paid.

I have to air mail it to Switzerland, from where it is shipped to the
USA and air mailed back to Europe, which takes a couple of weeks. The
slowness is the only disincentive to using Kodachrome - the slides are
still as wonderful as they always were.

However, there are enduring rumours that manufacture has ceased, and
that current stocks will be the last. I hope that isn't true.

 

Interesting; a denial from one of the perpetrators.

 

A complete contradiction. First you demonstrate exactly why this
newsgroup is an unpleasant place for film users, then deny it.

Thanks to your "clever" remark, the reason why not it is clear.

 

Does it really matter what medium a photographer shoots with? Isn't
the main objective simply the passion for PHOTOGRAPHY?
I've become disheartened by the way a lot of people have lost focus
and bitterly choose film or digital, and in so doing, wars are
created. They are both fantastic mediums where a photographer can
express him/herself.
Can we not just respect someone's choice of medium and celebrate the
joy and passion of photography?

 

I'm pleased that you respect freedom of choice, Helen, but there are
many here who don't. That is unfortunately a strong disincentive to
post here about film.

 

Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 28/10/2008 11:07 PM:

Can you explain that to your baby-boy-blue?
And why don't you follow your own advice?

 

There are (or were) people here who have been called "luddites" by
someone who doesn't have the photographic and aesthetic skills of some
eight-year-olds I know.

 

That's tame, really. Some far less pleasant things have been said
here about film and film users.

 

I shoot films and digitals. I belong to a photo club that alternates
between projected slides and printed images of any source. At the last
slide presentation, one of my submissions was a very pale yellow water lily
in a black tarred wooden barrel taken in direct sun. One of the comments
was how well controlled the highlights were because nothing was burned out
even though you could clearly see that it was taken in direct sun. My first
thought was, "well duh, it's a film shot."

Now that I have you're attention, learn how to use a killfile, because
frankly, the people who are the "biggest supporters of film" are the only
ones I see talking about how bad film is and how badly treated people who
shoot film are.

May your emulsions be smooth and your light meter accurate.
-Jim

 

??!!??
Please clarify

Confusedly yours....

 

From Ken

From Bruce

Now if you ignore every "film is dead" o "why isn't anyone talking about
film" post from Scott W and Annika who else is bad mouthing film here?

I went to Photokb.com to see who else contributed to this thread
Noons went in to the KF after the "pedo" wars started
ransley went in to the KF long before that
Mxsmanic got canned during one of the Annika wars
David Nebenzahl got canned after the upteenth go post on a digital group

Who here is bad mouthing film?

There's almost nobody here left to bad mouth anything.

I suspect I will feel bad about this rant latter, but right now it feels
pretty good to unload.
-Jim

 

That's true.