New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Bruce, Oct 25, 2008.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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
     
    Bruce, Oct 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Noons Guest

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

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



    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.
     
    Noons, Oct 25, 2008
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    "Ken Nadvornick" <> wrote:

    > "Noons" wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Seconded...
    >
    > For some reason, the participants at rec.photo.equipment.35mm failed to note
    > the introduction of a brand new color negative 35mm film.
    >
    > Wonder why that is...?
    >
    > Ken


    Some of don't shoot color?

    HFL
     
    Harry Lockwood, Oct 25, 2008
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Daniel Rocha <> wrote:

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

    >(...)
    >
    >Great !
    >
    >The Ektar film is excellent !



    The best there was ... and now the best there is!
     
    Bruce, Oct 25, 2008
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "Ken Nadvornick" <> wrote:

    >Perhaps I mis-searched in looking for "Ektar 100" in
    >"rec.photo.equipment.35mm" only? There were, in fact, several earlier hits.
    >But they were from pre-announcement dates. So my search criteria were
    >presumably not at fault.
    >
    >OR... perhaps just about all of the 35mm film photographers who would have
    >been expected to discuss this apparent major change in course by Kodak in
    >their earlier drive to an all-digital business model had, like Elvis, left the
    >building for greener - or at least less abusive - pastures...




    Sadly, this 35mm newsgroup is no longer
    a pleasant place to discuss 35mm film.
     
    Bruce, Oct 26, 2008
    #6
  7. Bruce

    ransley Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > 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
    > orhttp://visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!845DD01974D4626E!336....
    >
    > "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
    > orhttp://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ekta....


    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.
     
    ransley, Oct 26, 2008
    #7
  8. Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > ransley writes:
    >
    > > What a waste and step backwards. Since geting my first cheap digital I
    > > found I could duplicate Ektar- Kodachrome ...

    >
    > No, you cannot. You can simulate them, but you cannot duplicate them. There
    > are insurmountable physical barriers to duplicating the results.


    Glad to see you're still around, Mxsmanic.

    HFL
     
    Harry Lockwood, Oct 26, 2008
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "Ken Nadvornick" <> wrote:

    >"Bruce" wrote:
    >
    >> Sadly, this 35mm newsgroup is no longer
    >> a pleasant place to discuss 35mm film.

    >
    >Unpleasantly true, that...
    >
    >But the new film does sound very interesting. My wife will probably give it a
    >go. She has steadfastly refused to trade her 35mm film camera for another
    >technology. Says she doesn't like the "artificial look" of other
    >technologies. Fortunately, her circle of friends who have traded don't
    >verbally beat the snot out of her for that personal choice.
    >
    >Pleasantly true, that...



    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. :-(


    >Me? For color I'm a lost cause since the early 70s for Kodachrome.
    >Absolutely nothing else like it anywhere in the world. Thirty-six
    >freshly-processed Kodachrome slides on a large 5000K lightbox is truly a
    >wonder to behold. But it's definitely not cheap and most assuredly not
    >convenient, so precious few these days have the tastes to partake of this
    >exquisite delicacy.
    >
    >Pity, that...


    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.
     
    Bruce, Oct 27, 2008
    #9
  10. On 10/27/2008 12:00 PM Alan Browne spake thus:

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

    >
    > BS.
    >
    > This is a very pleasant place to discuss it. It just is not discussed
    > often.


    Interesting; a denial from one of the perpetrators.


    --
    Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
    powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

    - Paulo Freire
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 27, 2008
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >Bruce wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Sadly, this 35mm newsgroup is no longer
    >> a pleasant place to discuss 35mm film.

    >
    >BS.
    >
    >This is a very pleasant place to discuss it.



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


    >It just is not discussed often.



    Thanks to your "clever" remark, the reason why not it is clear.
     
    Bruce, Oct 28, 2008
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Helen Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    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?
     
    Helen, Oct 28, 2008
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    Helen <> wrote:
    >
    >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.
     
    Bruce, Oct 28, 2008
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

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


    Can you explain that to your baby-boy-blue?
    And why don't you follow your own advice?
     
    Noons, Oct 28, 2008
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    Bruce wrote:
    > Helen <> wrote:
    >> 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.
    >


    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.
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Oct 28, 2008
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    Rol_Lei Nut <> wrote:
    >Bruce wrote:
    >> Helen <> wrote:
    >>> 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.
    >>

    >
    >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.
     
    Bruce, Oct 28, 2008
    #16
  17. Bruce

    jimkramer Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rol_Lei Nut <> wrote:
    >>Bruce wrote:
    >>> Helen <> wrote:
    >>>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >>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
     
    jimkramer, Oct 28, 2008
    #17
  18. Bruce

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    jimkramer wrote:

    > 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.
    >


    ??!!??
    Please clarify

    Confusedly yours....
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Oct 28, 2008
    #18
  19. Bruce

    jimkramer Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    "Rol_Lei Nut" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > jimkramer wrote:
    >
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    > ??!!??
    > Please clarify
    >
    > Confusedly yours....


    From Ken
    >For some reason, the participants at rec.photo.equipment.35mm failed to
    >note
    >the introduction of a brand new color negative 35mm film.
    >
    >Wonder why that is...?
    >


    >Which, of course, begs the primal question... WTF? Isn't anyone anywhere
    >else
    >paying attention to the mind-numbing film-is-dead bleatings from around
    >here?


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


    >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. :-(


    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
     
    jimkramer, Oct 28, 2008
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Re: New! Kodak Ektar 100 35mm negative film!

    "jimkramer" <> wrote:
    >
    >There's almost nobody here left to bad mouth anything.



    That's true.
     
    Bruce, Oct 28, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Graham Fountain
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,038
    mjmm@.bit.net.au
    Oct 5, 2004
  2. Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,014
    Robert C.
    Oct 6, 2005
  3. Andy Barlow

    Is Ektar 25 still available?

    Andy Barlow, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    467
    Bob Sull
    Nov 12, 2003
  4. Tim Mathers

    Ektar 25 reply

    Tim Mathers, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    452
    Tim Mathers
    Nov 13, 2003
  5. Stephan Goldstein
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    689
    Richard Knoppow
    Jun 29, 2006
  6. Annika1980

    EKTAR 25 Q.

    Annika1980, Oct 29, 2008, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    458
    Helen
    Oct 29, 2008
  7. Michael Benveniste

    Ektar 100 Revisited

    Michael Benveniste, Mar 25, 2010, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    1,685
    David Nebenzahl
    Apr 1, 2010
  8. Darkroom User

    35mm 100TMX vs 100 Delta vs 100 Acros.

    Darkroom User, Jan 28, 2012, in forum: Darkroom Developing and Printing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    636
    Darkroom User
    Jan 28, 2012
Loading...