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
117 replies to this topic

#26 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 11 July 2017 - 06:02 PM

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.

Point taken.  (I assume that by "Ilford color" you meant "Fuji color.")

 

Kodak Ektar 100 print film also has good H-alpha response.



#27 Alen K

Alen K

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,696
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2009

Posted 11 July 2017 - 07:25 PM

(I assume that by "Ilford color" you meant "Fuji color.")

I guess I must have. blush.gif  (I actually didn't know Ilford doesn't make color film. But I do now.) 

 

Kodak Ektar 100 print film also has good H-alpha response.

Good to know. I always shot slide film (other than Tri-X) but I suppose I should not be afraid of using negative film for AP since it's all going to be digitized and image-processed anyway.


Edited by Alen K, 12 July 2017 - 09:30 AM.

  • Michael Covington likes this

#28 ETXer

ETXer

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Rockville, MD USA

Posted 01 August 2017 - 09:01 AM

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

E-6 kits from 1 quart to 5 liters are available from Freestyle Photo in the Arista, Tetenal, and Fujifilm brands.

 

Also good to know about the strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity characteristics with the new E100, I'll be giving some a try!



#29 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 01 August 2017 - 09:14 AM

 

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

E-6 kits from 1 quart to 5 liters are available from Freestyle Photo in the Arista, Tetenal, and Fujifilm brands.

 

Also good to know about the strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity characteristics with the new E100, I'll be giving some a try!

 

OK, so Kodak expects us to process their film in Fuji chemicals.   O tempora, o mores!

 

(Nothing wrong with that, of course; Fuji products are good.  So are Arista and Tetenal.  I would guess Arista might be made by Tetenal.)

Actually, because Kodak spun off its chemical line quite a while back (still using the Kodak brand but made by another company), there have been various anachronisms, such as Kodak continuing to produce Dektol but no black-and-white papers.  This is a mismatch in the opposite direction.   Or Kodak E-6 kits may still exist in larger sizes.


  • ETXer likes this

#30 ETXer

ETXer

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Rockville, MD USA

Posted 01 August 2017 - 10:34 AM

 

 

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

E-6 kits from 1 quart to 5 liters are available from Freestyle Photo in the Arista, Tetenal, and Fujifilm brands.

 

Also good to know about the strong H-alpha response and low reciprocity characteristics with the new E100, I'll be giving some a try!

 

OK, so Kodak expects us to process their film in Fuji chemicals.   O tempora, o mores!

 

(Nothing wrong with that, of course; Fuji products are good.  So are Arista and Tetenal.  I would guess Arista might be made by Tetenal.)

Actually, because Kodak spun off its chemical line quite a while back (still using the Kodak brand but made by another company), there have been various anachronisms, such as Kodak continuing to produce Dektol but no black-and-white papers.  This is a mismatch in the opposite direction.   Or Kodak E-6 kits may still exist in larger sizes.

 

I just checked B&H and Adorama, and neither have any Kodak E-6 chemistry at all (I know they used to sell separate concentrates to make 5-gallon E-6 components made by Kodak but can't remember how far back)... I guess that sums it up!



#31 SMigol

SMigol

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2010
  • Loc: California, USA

Posted 04 August 2017 - 04:35 PM

I get my e6 chemicals from freestylephoto online, too.  You can also order the kits from the Film Photography Project online, too.  I've used the Arista and have had good success.  

 

I have an old Tetenal kit that I'm going to try to use this weekend on a test roll before committing any astrophotos to it.



#32 Rustler46

Rustler46

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,780
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Coos Bay, Oregon

Posted 18 February 2018 - 02:41 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.

  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

 

Hi Joe,

 

I can definitely give a good word for Kodak EktaPress PJ400 for H-Alpha response. I don't want to add any fuel to the film versus digital flames. But If I could get my hands on some rolls of that PJ400 film, I'd set aside my un-modified digital cameras and be loading that EktaPress into my old film cameras for astrophotography. Here's an example from August, 2000:

 

MilkyWay Film-1.jpg

 

This was with a Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 @ f/2.8, 17 minute exposure, riding piggyback on a Celestron-8. Taken from Paulina Peak (~8000 ft.) in central Oregon.

 

I only had one roll of that film, which I bought in a camera store off the shelf. Little did I know how good it was for H-Alpha.

 

Russ


  • Toups, Ron359, ETXer and 3 others like this

#33 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 18 February 2018 - 09:08 AM

Of course the H-alpha response of film is revealed on the data sheets -- the current Kodak Ektar color negative film looks relatively good. 

 

Has anything been heard from Ektachrome?  I understand Kodak Alaris missed their original goal of getting it out by the end of the year.



#34 Joe F Gafford

Joe F Gafford

    Aurora

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,552
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Denver, Colorado, US

Posted 19 February 2018 - 02:01 AM

Kodak didn't publish their spectral response curves until the 1990's. I have an old Kodak databook my uncle gave me when he worked for Kodak. Nowhere in that databook that mentions spectral response of the different films listed. Some film was red sensitive and some blue on the black and white side with the old Tri-X had a dip in the green that you could use a mercury safelight with a heavy green filter on it to process it and see the image form. Now, the modern Tri-X doesn't have that dip. So you'll have to see the new film specs to make sure. Kodak is notorious in changing the specs of a certain emulsion over time. My uncle warned me on this and he told me to look at the number code on the edges of the developed film to note the changes. 

 

Joe



#35 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:22 AM

What is the current situation with Fuji slide films?  Still available?  Do any have good H-alpha response?



#36 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:29 AM

Answering my own question, Fuji Velvia RVP (Velvia 100) is still available and has good H-alpha response:
http://www.fujifilmu...in/AF3-960E.pdf

It also claims to have excellent reciprocity (2/3 stop at 8 minutes!).

 

Provia 100F is not much different.

Their Acros 100 black-and-white film claims excellent reciprocity but does not respond to H-alpha.


  • ETXer likes this

#37 ETXer

ETXer

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Rockville, MD USA

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:46 PM

Has anything been heard from Ektachrome?  I understand Kodak Alaris missed their original goal of getting it out by the end of the year.

Check out this podcast, fascinating listening and a fairly up-to-date status of Ektachrome and everything involved in its re-issue... much more than I expected!

 

https://soundcloud.c...odak-ektachrome


  • Michael Covington likes this

#38 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 22 February 2018 - 11:37 PM

I came across that a while back -- haven't listened to all of it -- but was wondering if there was any newer news.



#39 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Dark Skies, Maine

Posted 23 February 2018 - 06:26 AM

Kodak Alaris just announced TMAX P3200 is back in production.   Available in 35mm next month.  I'll  be Interested if it becomes available in 120.  


  • tim53 and ETXer like this

#40 tim53

tim53

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,450
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 24 February 2018 - 11:27 AM

Kodak Alaris just announced TMAX P3200 is back in production.   Available in 35mm next month.  I'll  be Interested if it becomes available in 120.  

I just saw this on a petapixel post on FB this morning:  https://petapixel.co...max-p3200-film/

 

-Tim.


  • Michael Covington likes this

#41 JakeJ

JakeJ

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,661
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2004

Posted 26 February 2018 - 08:06 PM

I would like to see TMAX3200 in 120 also.  Pushes very nicely in Diafine, my fave developer.



#42 Achernar

Achernar

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,157
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 27 February 2018 - 08:23 PM

I would like to see TMAX3200 in 120 also.  Pushes very nicely in Diafine, my fave developer.

I used to use T-Max P-3200 a lot, usually at ISO 1600 or 3200 because the image quality was excellent. It worked well at ISO 6400 too. However, I NEVER heard of anyone using Diafine on  this film successfully, but it always did well with Tri-X. I'm not questioning your experiences, I had no idea Diafine can be used that way. I used Acufine far more often on that film at ISO ratings of 1000 or 1600, with fine grain even for Tri-X. I developed T-Max P-3200 with T-Max developer.

 

Taras


Edited by Achernar, 27 February 2018 - 08:28 PM.


#43 Michal1

Michal1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 613
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Czech Republic, Central Europe

Posted 28 February 2018 - 04:21 AM

Guys, please could you tell me more about Ektachrome E100 and TMAX P3200 and explain why do you expect them to be suitable for astrophotography? I don't recall any astrophotos taken on them but it might be just because I started with film astrophotography quite late.



#44 Achernar

Achernar

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,157
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 28 February 2018 - 05:26 AM

Guys, please could you tell me more about Ektachrome E100 and TMAX P3200 and explain why do you expect them to be suitable for astrophotography? I don't recall any astrophotos taken on them but it might be just because I started with film astrophotography quite late.

T-Max P-3200 is a VERY fast film, at least for normal photography and if you don't insist on pushing it to ISO 6400 or higher the grain would be tolerable. At ISO 1,600, it's exhibits fine grain. Bear in mind film at very low light levels does not behave the way it will in normal photography where exposure times are fractions of a second. This phenomena is known as reciprocity failure, and films vary dramatically from one type to the next. High speed films can be no better than a low speed film or even worse when exposures are measured in tens of minutes. However, Ektachrome 100 would be a better choice because it's very fine grained, and as other posters noted responds well to hydrogen alpha emissions from nebulae. In other words, it is sensitive to deep red light, without which you would find it wanting for nebulae. It would work well for piggybacking your camera on a telescope, and should work for prime focus work through the main optics but your exposure times will be on the long side. It does however have less reciprocity failure than others, which makes long exposure work easier.

 

Taras


Edited by Achernar, 28 February 2018 - 05:27 AM.

  • zjc26138 likes this

#45 TxStars

TxStars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,596
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 03 March 2018 - 11:34 PM

If they manage to duplicate the E 100 then it should be a nice film for astro work.

Below is an image obtained on E-100G  20min exposure with  my Takahashi FCT-65

E100G

 

 

https://www.flickr.c...tetaken-public/


Edited by TxStars, 03 March 2018 - 11:37 PM.

  • tim53, zjc26138, Nightfly and 2 others like this

#46 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 17 March 2018 - 10:05 AM

If they manage to duplicate the E 100 then it should be a nice film for astro work.

Below is an image obtained on E-100G  20min exposure with  my Takahashi FCT-65

 

 

 

https://www.flickr.c...tetaken-public/

Beautiful pic.  Last I heard, Kodak wasn’t going to reissue Kodachrome, probably because of the unique development chemistry that no one has.  However, they have already started setting up everything for Ektachrome, and it should be out soon.



#47 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 17 March 2018 - 11:05 AM

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.

Frankly digital does a pretty good job, and I have many DSLRs and dedicated astrocameras.  Where film shines is in resolution.  Here’s an excellent article on it:

http://www.kenrockwe...-resolution.htm

To summarize, to equal 35mm film resolution, you need a full frame sensor of 171 megapixels.

Here’s a comparison of film versus digital resolution:

 

http://www.kenrockwe...d200-vs-4x5.htm

 

As you can see, the film crushes the digital sensor in resolution.

 

There’s also the issue of MTF for digital sensors.  Due to the electronic manipulation done to the pixels both in camera and post processing the MTF curve has abrupt changes in it.  Here’s a good discussion of that:

 

http://www.kenrockwe...m/tech/mtf.htm#

 

It essentially makes the final pictures look unnatural.


Edited by SandyHouTex, 17 March 2018 - 08:25 PM.


#48 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 18 March 2018 - 08:12 PM

I simply don't believe film is sharper than digital -- quite the other way around.  Here's why:

http://www.covington...ex.html#x150428

Nonetheless, I'll read Ken Rockwell's writings with interest.



#49 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 19 March 2018 - 06:11 PM

I simply don't believe film is sharper than digital -- quite the other way around.  Here's why:

http://www.covington...ex.html#x150428

Nonetheless, I'll read Ken Rockwell's writings with interest.

That’s an interesting article, but he only uses camera lenses for his comparisons.  It would have been nice if he used a scope.



#50 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 20 March 2018 - 09:36 AM

I actually think something else was going on in Ken Rockwell's digital-vs-film test, and that the digital camera was not performing at its best.

 

Film typically claims a resolving power of 50 to 100 lines/mm.  If film relied on uniformly spaced pixels, the Nyquist criterion would apply, but in fact film grains are not uniformly spaced, so I'm not sure it does.  Anyhow, by the Nyquist criterion, film "pixels" should be at most 200 to the mm, which is 5 microns.  That is the same as good digital cameras today.  

In fact, because of doubts that the Nyquist criterion applies that way -- and because film at 100 lpm has very low contrast due to the point spread function -- and because of my own tests -- I think good film (Kodachrome 64, Ektachrome 100) is comparable to digital with a pixel size of maybe 20 or 25 microns.  I've simply never gotten film images (terrestrial or astronomical) that were anywhere near as sharp as the best images with contemporary DSLRs.


  • Todd N 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