Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Late to the party, but Ektachrome is coming back!

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 bluesteel

bluesteel

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,159
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2013
  • Loc: KILM

Posted 23 June 2017 - 10:12 AM

bounce.gifhttp://www.kodak.com/us/en/corp/press_center/kodak_brings_back_a_classic_with_ektachrome_film/default.htm


  • Eric P, Deven Matlick, torn8o and 3 others like this

#2 Richard O'Neill

Richard O'Neill

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,412
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2014

Posted 23 June 2017 - 10:29 AM

 That's Great news. Now all we need is to have Kodak bring back Kodachrome!

 

 https://www.youtube....h?v=N4ltLp30KVs


Edited by Richard O'Neill, 23 June 2017 - 10:42 AM.

  • Larry Geary, havasman, Nikon ED65 and 1 other like this

#3 jimr2

jimr2

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 823
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Sparks, NV

Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:05 AM

Yes, great news! And yes, be even better if they brought back Kodachrome--and processing for it--I still have a couple rolls of un-processed Koda sitting in my fridge that I forgot about until it and it's processing went away! (least I don't know of anyway to get it processed).


  • Larry Geary and havasman like this

#4 havasman

havasman

    Voyager 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 10,978
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:55 AM

Yep, it's not Kodachrome but it's not bad.

I've kept some of both in the freezer since they went away just for old time's sake. 



#5 NiteGuy

NiteGuy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,239
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:56 AM

Fuji Velvia was best of all with the greatest dynamic range/exposure latitude. That said, film sucks! Digital beats it in every way. It makes post processing so much easier and, best of all, you get to immediately see what you just shot and make adjustments on the fly. To post process film, you have to scan the slide or negative and all scanners lose a bit from the original. Unexposed film has a shelf life as do negatives and slides, while digital never degrades. Prints never quite have the same vibrancy as digital enlargements. Have you seen metal prints from digital? Amazing depth and color. Then there's the cost...film and processing vs. FREE. I could go on and on. What's not to like about digital?


  • Nightfly likes this

#6 Achernar

Achernar

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,598
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 25 June 2017 - 03:41 PM

Fuji Velvia was best of all with the greatest dynamic range/exposure latitude. That said, film sucks! Digital beats it in every way. It makes post processing so much easier and, best of all, you get to immediately see what you just shot and make adjustments on the fly. To post process film, you have to scan the slide or negative and all scanners lose a bit from the original. Unexposed film has a shelf life as do negatives and slides, while digital never degrades. Prints never quite have the same vibrancy as digital enlargements. Have you seen metal prints from digital? Amazing depth and color. Then there's the cost...film and processing vs. FREE. I could go on and on. What's not to like about digital?

I don't want to be a contrarian, but digital storage media can degrade, if by nothing else the fact technology never ceases to march forwards. In other words, to ensure that your photos remain viewable, you'll have to migrate from older to newer storage media to prevent them from being lost forever. A negative or transparency will always be useable, as long as the means to scan and digitize them exists.

 

Taras


  • SandyHouTex and Augustus like this

#7 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Dark Skies, Maine

Posted 26 June 2017 - 12:08 PM

"greatest dynamic range/exposure latitude".

Velvia? You may know digital, but little about film. Velvia has very narrow latitude and low dynamic range. It is perhaps the hardest film to expose accurately. It's beautiful stuff, but lousy for Astrophotography.

Astrophotography is a hobby and there is nothing wrong about shooting film.

If you shoot both, then so much the better.

#8 NiteGuy

NiteGuy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,239
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 26 June 2017 - 05:53 PM

"greatest dynamic range/exposure latitude".

Velvia? You may know digital, but little about film. Velvia has very narrow latitude and low dynamic range. It is perhaps the hardest film to expose accurately. It's beautiful stuff, but lousy for Astrophotography.

Astrophotography is a hobby and there is nothing wrong about shooting film.

If you shoot both, then so much the better.

Hey, if you shoot film, you're comfortable with your results and enjoying yourself, then you're right, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect film to be the equal of the digital world because it never will be. Regarding Velvia, I do apologize, my comments were made relative to using that film for indoor and landscape, rather than for astrophotography.

 

Things like clipped whites and lost shadow details can be recovered much more easily and fully with digital. For shooting something requiring a wide dynamic range/exposure latitude, like the fine filamentary coronal details of a total solar eclipse, no film can come remotely close to the dynamic range that can be extracted from digital shooting & processing.

 

Scanning and stacking can be done with film but, in the end, the effective ISO and consequently the graininess, can be kept much lower with digital. This is perhaps most evident in planetary and lunar imaging where 1000s of images can be stacked to create one final image. Also, if you're glued to the "look" of a particular film, any digital output can be matched to that film by using available add-ons and apps, just choose your film preference and check the little box.

 

As far as digital life or degradation, technological obsolescence really isn't a factor. There will always be many file conversion programs that will take any loss-less format (TIFF, true loss-less RAW, etc.) and convert that to a future loss-less file format with zero degradation. The same might not always be true for lossy files like JPEG. Negatives are good for perhaps a few lifetimes, transparencies for maybe a single lifetime. That said, if you act before the termites eat them, negs and slides can match digital image files by being scanned to digital for preservation.

 

And just a guess but I suspect film shooters today are more likely to be computer-phobic or simply don't want to navigate the learning curve that comes with the many techniques involved and various image processing programs like PhotoShop. Digital results keep getting better and better and a key factor is because the processing software gets more and more sophisticated (read - less intuitive and harder to use). Someday artificial intelligence will hopefully simplify all of this. So when it comes to results, digital wins but, when it comes to simplicity, film wins. Bottom line is that, as a hobby, it should be all about enjoyment but I've seen many people give up astrophotography over the years because it became too complicated and was no fun anymore. So does that open the door for film to make a comeback (like vinyl records) because it's simple? Well, don't bet on it.


  • Augustus likes this

#9 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,978
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 26 June 2017 - 05:55 PM

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Query: Who makes E-6 processing chemical kits these days?


  • ETXer likes this

#10 torn8o

torn8o

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2007
  • Loc: Kansas City, Missouri

Posted 26 June 2017 - 07:11 PM

Great news on Ektachrome!  I bought a stash of it before it was cut off.  Love it.  As for E-6 kits, I still prefer to send slide film out. Lots of great processors around. But if you like doing it at home, Kodak still provides the goods.

 

As for the whole film vs. digital, are you seriously trying to rev up a debate that got old and died years ago?  You're comparing apples to pumpkins.  It's like saying oil painting is better than watercolor.  I'm shooting ditigal astro only because I begrudgingly have to (for the time being). Your assumptions about being computer phobic sound like someone who puts everyone in a nice, neat, square little box.  I was one of the first professional photographers who made the switch to digital when it finally became halfway viable ... and I was one of the first to go back to film for work that actually requires an aesthetic.  Digital is dull as dirt, I don't care what filters you pop into a frame, and it requires about as much skill as eating popcorn.  And you will probably spend twice as much for digital equipment of equal value to its film counterparts than I spend developing film.  Sorry, but you couldn't be further off about blown highlights ... digital is notoriously awful for them.I can recover so much data in a scanned frame it would knock your socks off.  Done with this conversation ... it's so 2003. [EDIT: ok, so I went back through your posts for the past year and couldn't find any where you actually posted your own digital work ... would you mind sharing it? Before I start buying any of your argument, I'd like to see the quality of the goods.]

 

I'm actually going to try some film astro work just to see what can be done. Anxious to give it a go.


Edited by torn8o, 26 June 2017 - 07:39 PM.

  • ETXer, Augustus and CQDDEMGY like this

#11 petert913

petert913

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,065
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Portland, OR

Posted 26 June 2017 - 09:47 PM

Glad I kept my old Olympus OM-1 from 1978 !  I loved Ektachrome in the old days.  400 ASA on color slide was 'da bomb back then.


  • Augustus likes this

#12 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,978
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 27 June 2017 - 09:36 AM

No, I definitely don't want to "rev up" the film versus digital debate.  Digital solidly outperforms film.  But film outperforms what film used to be.



#13 davidc135

davidc135

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,030
  • Joined: 28 May 2014
  • Loc: Wales, UK

Posted 27 June 2017 - 12:05 PM

 

"greatest dynamic range/exposure latitude".

Velvia? You may know digital, but little about film. Velvia has very narrow latitude and low dynamic range. It is perhaps the hardest film to expose accurately. It's beautiful stuff, but lousy for Astrophotography.

Astrophotography is a hobby and there is nothing wrong about shooting film.

If you shoot both, then so much the better.

Hey, if you shoot film, you're comfortable with your results and enjoying yourself, then you're right, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect film to be the equal of the digital world because it never will be. Regarding Velvia, I do apologize, my comments were made relative to using that film for indoor and landscape, rather than for astrophotography.

 

Things like clipped whites and lost shadow details can be recovered much more easily and fully with digital. For shooting something requiring a wide dynamic range/exposure latitude, like the fine filamentary coronal details of a total solar eclipse, no film can come remotely close to the dynamic range that can be extracted from digital shooting & processing.

 

Scanning and stacking can be done with film but, in the end, the effective ISO and consequently the graininess, can be kept much lower with digital. This is perhaps most evident in planetary and lunar imaging where 1000s of images can be stacked to create one final image. Also, if you're glued to the "look" of a particular film, any digital output can be matched to that film by using available add-ons and apps, just choose your film preference and check the little box.

 

As far as digital life or degradation, technological obsolescence really isn't a factor. There will always be many file conversion programs that will take any loss-less format (TIFF, true loss-less RAW, etc.) and convert that to a future loss-less file format with zero degradation. The same might not always be true for lossy files like JPEG. Negatives are good for perhaps a few lifetimes, transparencies for maybe a single lifetime. That said, if you act before the termites eat them, negs and slides can match digital image files by being scanned to digital for preservation.

 

And just a guess but I suspect film shooters today are more likely to be computer-phobic or simply don't want to navigate the learning curve that comes with the many techniques involved and various image processing programs like PhotoShop. Digital results keep getting better and better and a key factor is because the processing software gets more and more sophisticated (read - less intuitive and harder to use). Someday artificial intelligence will hopefully simplify all of this. So when it comes to results, digital wins but, when it comes to simplicity, film wins. Bottom line is that, as a hobby, it should be all about enjoyment but I've seen many people give up astrophotography over the years because it became too complicated and was no fun anymore. So does that open the door for film to make a comeback (like vinyl records) because it's simple? Well, don't bet on it.

 

I doubt if there are many on this forum who disagree with you, other than on some minor points.  I think you are pushing at an open door.

 

David


Edited by davidc135, 27 June 2017 - 12:18 PM.


#14 davidc135

davidc135

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,030
  • Joined: 28 May 2014
  • Loc: Wales, UK

Posted 27 June 2017 - 12:13 PM

Hopefully, Ektachrome will be available in 120 format as well as 35mm.

 

David



#15 Joe F Gafford

Joe F Gafford

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,219
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Denver, Colorado, US

Posted 27 June 2017 - 01:46 PM

No, I definitely don't want to "rev up" the film versus digital debate.  Digital solidly outperforms film.  But film outperforms what film used to be.

  It did before we lost the Ha towards 1999 in some of the film back then. I did 90 minute exposures of M31 and the veil nebula in the 1980's with a "fast" 10" F/4.5 system with Kodacolor 400. In the 1990's the Kodak PPF and Royal Gold 400 print film came out with the smaller tabular grains for the speed and those two print films had a good Ha response. I had to limit my exposures on both of my F/4.5 systems with these films to 25 minutes or less at a dark site as these were picking up sky glow as a grainy background. As with the Ektachrome 400 back then I had problems with reciprocity and lower dynamic range. 

 

Joe


  • Augustus likes this

#16 Achernar

Achernar

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,598
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 02 July 2017 - 05:44 PM

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Query: Who makes E-6 processing chemical kits these days?

Where did you hear that? I'm just curious because I have a Nikon F-3HP and a full array of lenses for it, which were used to expose lots of Ekatchrome and Fujichrome as well.

 

Taras



#17 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,978
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 03 July 2017 - 09:36 AM

 

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Query: Who makes E-6 processing chemical kits these days?

Where did you hear that? I'm just curious because I have a Nikon F-3HP and a full array of lenses for it, which were used to expose lots of Ekatchrome and Fujichrome as well.

 

Taras

 

Google it.  It has been announced by Kodak Alaris.

https://www.kodakala...rome-still-film



#18 Joe F Gafford

Joe F Gafford

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,219
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Denver, Colorado, US

Posted 05 July 2017 - 10:10 PM

 

 

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Query: Who makes E-6 processing chemical kits these days?

Where did you hear that? I'm just curious because I have a Nikon F-3HP and a full array of lenses for it, which were used to expose lots of Ekatchrome and Fujichrome as well.

 

Taras

 

Google it.  It has been announced by Kodak Alaris.

https://www.kodakala...rome-still-film

 

We shall see if this emulsion will pick up Ha emissions when the specs comes out later in Q-4 as announced. 

 

Joe



#19 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,978
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 05 July 2017 - 10:20 PM

 

 

 

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Query: Who makes E-6 processing chemical kits these days?

Where did you hear that? I'm just curious because I have a Nikon F-3HP and a full array of lenses for it, which were used to expose lots of Ekatchrome and Fujichrome as well.

 

Taras

 

Google it.  It has been announced by Kodak Alaris.

https://www.kodakala...rome-still-film

 

We shall see if this emulsion will pick up Ha emissions when the specs comes out later in Q-4 as announced. 

 

Joe

 

My understanding is that it is E100, which I took to be the same as the previous E100, so yes.  I don't know which specs will change, if any.  All the Ektachromes have had good H-alpha response.



#20 Achernar

Achernar

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,598
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 09 July 2017 - 01:46 PM

 

 

 

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Query: Who makes E-6 processing chemical kits these days?

Where did you hear that? I'm just curious because I have a Nikon F-3HP and a full array of lenses for it, which were used to expose lots of Ekatchrome and Fujichrome as well.

 

Taras

 

Google it.  It has been announced by Kodak Alaris.

https://www.kodakala...rome-still-film

 

We shall see if this emulsion will pick up Ha emissions when the specs comes out later in Q-4 as announced. 

 

Joe

 

It's great they're bringing back the Ektachrome 100 professional film, but I would like to see a re-introduction of a Ektachrome 400 as well.


Edited by Achernar, 09 July 2017 - 01:46 PM.


#21 Alen K

Alen K

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2009

Posted 10 July 2017 - 08:45 AM

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Better than Elite Chrome 200 (or Ektrachrome E200)? That was my preferred slide film back in the day (along with Provia 400F, which I thought had better blue response).

 

https://www.cloudyni...r/96203-alen-k/



#22 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,978
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 10 July 2017 - 08:18 PM

 

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Better than Elite Chrome 200 (or Ektrachrome E200)? That was my preferred slide film back in the day (along with Provia 400F, which I thought had better blue response).

 

https://www.cloudyni...r/96203-alen-k/

 

Well, what is coming back is E100.  Half the speed, half the grain :)   Very pushable to 200 or 400.



#23 Alen K

Alen K

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2009

Posted 10 July 2017 - 09:21 PM

 

 

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Better than Elite Chrome 200 (or Ektrachrome E200)? That was my preferred slide film back in the day (along with Provia 400F, which I thought had better blue response).

 

https://www.cloudyni...r/96203-alen-k/

 

Well, what is coming back is E100.  Half the speed, half the grain smile.gif   Very pushable to 200 or 400.

 

I'm glad I kept my trusty OM-1. I'll have something to put in it again. 



#24 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,978
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 11 July 2017 - 08:58 AM

 

 

 

Ektachrome is coming back, and it will apparently be the best consumer-market film for astrophotography that the world has ever seen.  Strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity failure (perhaps as good as p = 0.9).

Better than Elite Chrome 200 (or Ektrachrome E200)? That was my preferred slide film back in the day (along with Provia 400F, which I thought had better blue response).

 

https://www.cloudyni...r/96203-alen-k/

 

Well, what is coming back is E100.  Half the speed, half the grain smile.gif   Very pushable to 200 or 400.

 

I'm glad I kept my trusty OM-1. I'll have something to put in it again. 

 

T-Max 100 never went away... nor did Tri-X... nor did the whole Ilford line.

Kodak's problem was management, not obsolescence.  Fuji and Ilford managed to downsize their film production gracefully and keep the products available.


  • Joe F Gafford likes this

#25 Alen K

Alen K

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2009

Posted 11 July 2017 - 10:10 AM

Maybe I should have qualified that: "Something to put in it again that I would find useful for AP." It's been multiple decades since I shot B&W (I once bought a bulk roll of Tri-X) and I'm not interested in that anymore. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any Ilford color films that have good spectral sensitivities for AP. There may very well be some but I'm simply not aware. If there are some please feel free to educate me.


  • Michael Covington likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics