 |
|
|
|
Next: Kodak 8110 Printer
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Feb 11, 2008
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:02 am
Post subject: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome?
Archived from groups: rec>photo>equipment>35mm (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 158
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:08 am
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
CanonAE14fun wrote:
> Now that I've FINALLY bought a camera, I'm wondering about that. Is
> there a material difference in quality, given that I will be having a
> company do the developing and printing?
No. Kodachrome was unique. It was basicly three monochromatic films,
each sensitive to one of the primary colors (red, green and blue).
During development (a long and complicated process), dyes were added
to replace the unexposed silver in each layer. This produced high quality
color with resolution and contrast close to monochrome film.
All the other films have the dye in them already which makes the layers
much thicker. This reduces resolution and contrast. The dyes are also not
as stable as the ones used for kodachrome processing.
Because slide file works with transmitted light and prints with reflected
light, slides produce sharper, clearer images with better color.
Assuming slides are properly processed after choice of film, exposure
will effect your results the most.
Prints are a different story. Today's prints are computer scanned to
produce "good" results. Good is defined as the least number of returns.
Exposure, choice of film and paper type do not effect your pictures
very much unless you use a lab that will produce correct results
as opposed to good looking ones.
If you wish to have real creative control over your results, consider
using black and white film and developing and printing it yourself.
It's not that difficult and equipment these days can be gotten cheaply.
Ask on rec.photo.darkroom, if you are interested.
If you do develop your own fim, you can buy it in 100 foot (33 meter)
rolls which makes it a lot cheaper. You put it in resuable film cassettes.
You also can make a contact sheet, which is an actual size print of all
of your negatives at once. Then you can pick and choose which ones to
print and after you have done it for a while know how to crop and expose
them.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm DeleteThis @mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 12
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
gsm.DeleteThis@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes:
> CanonAE14fun wrote:
>> Now that I've FINALLY bought a camera, I'm wondering about that. Is
>> there a material difference in quality, given that I will be having a
>> company do the developing and printing?
>
> No. Kodachrome was unique. It was basicly three monochromatic films,
> each sensitive to one of the primary colors (red, green and blue).
IS. Kodachrome IS unique. Why the past tense? Kodachrome's still
around. For how long, we don't know, but if you like it you should be
using it and show Kodak it's still wanted.
> During development (a long and complicated process), dyes were added
> to replace the unexposed silver in each layer. This produced high quality
> color with resolution and contrast close to monochrome film.
More corrections: Dyes ARE added, and this PRODUCES high quality
color. You get the picture. Pun intended. 
--
Fredrik Sandström
fs.DeleteThis@iki.fi >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 158
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I wrote:
>> No. Kodachrome was unique. It was basicly three monochromatic films,
>> each sensitive to one of the primary colors (red, green and blue).
Fredrik Sandstrom wrote:
> IS. Kodachrome IS unique. Why the past tense? Kodachrome's still
> around. For how long, we don't know, but if you like it you should be
> using it and show Kodak it's still wanted.
I guess it depends upon where you are. I doubt there is a roll of it for
sale in all of Israel. I also doubt that you could get it processed. You
would have to send it off to Dwaynes, via a courier service or take a
chance that it would neither get x-rayed at the post office, or gama ray
"inspected" on the docks. 
BTW, does anyone know if Kodak is still making it, or planing on making
anymore, or are they just cutting up rolls stored in a mine shaft?
I wish I had stocked up on Ektar 25 while I could, but I guess by now
it would all be too old to use, even if it had been frozen.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm DeleteThis @mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 01, 2004
Posts: 206
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:39:08 +0000 (UTC), gsm.RemoveThis@mendelson.com (Geoffrey
S. Mendelson) wrote:
[---]
>I wish I had stocked up on Ektar 25 while I could, but I guess by now
>it would all be too old to use, even if it had been frozen.
Interesting question - how long can freezing prolong the useful life
of film? >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: 170
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
CanonAE14fun wrote:
> Now that I've FINALLY bought a camera, I'm wondering about that. Is
> there a material difference in quality, given that I will be having a
> company do the developing and printing?
> Thanks for your opinions!
> Cindy
Yes, no, maybe ... you're looking for absolutes that don't exist.
Kodachrome is not what it once was ... except that it's still a
difficult film to process and not at all environmentally friendly.
Kodachrome 25 is gone forever, as is Kodachrome roll film (120/220) and
sheet films. All that's left is KR 135-36 and PKR 135-36 (consumer & pro
films) and one lab that still processes it (Dwayne's Photo Service in
Parsons, KS).
You might find some Kodachrome 25 or Kodachrome 200 on eBay. Kodachrome
200 was COOL! You could push process it 1-1/3 stops to ISO 500.
All Fuji films are either E6 or C41. It's a matter of taste whether you
prefer Kodak or Fuji film.
For C41 it doesn't really matter all that much, the real difference is
in the printing and the paper. I prefer Kodak paper, but YMMV.
As to E6, I use Kodak in studio, and Fuji outdoors. Well, for anything
that looks like WORK anyway (i.e. I'm gonna' get paid for it).
I was recently gifted with a couple hundred rolls (hand-loads) of out of
date (7/2001) Velvia, Astia and Provia (all kept refrigerated of course)
plus a hundred foot bulk roll of Velvia; the up-side of the "film is
dead" thingy I guess.
I'm doing a lot of just plain goofing with it. I mean, it's FREE FILM
after all ...
I wouldn't rely on it for paid work, but it's great to have something to
experiment with. Quite a bit of it's going to get cross processed in C41
since I have the processor & I want to see what it's gonna' do.
But, QUALITATIVELY, there's no difference between Fuji and Kodak films.
They each have their own look, and that's what should inform your
choice, i.e. which film gives you the look you want, but there's no
difference in the quality of the film stock and emulsions. >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 08, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Andrew Price" wrote in message
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:39:08 +0000 (UTC), gsm DeleteThis @mendelson.com (Geoffrey
> S. Mendelson) wrote:
>
> [---]
>
>>I wish I had stocked up on Ektar 25 while I could, but I guess by now
>>it would all be too old to use, even if it had been frozen.
>
> Interesting question - how long can freezing prolong the useful life
> of film?
Film begins aging the instant it is made (more or less). Radiation from
nature (and the beams the Government sends out!) adds to the background fog
level. Keeping the film cold will slow down the chemical aging process, and
keeping it in metal freezer will decrease the background radiation (assuming
it's not the same freezer where you keep your Uranium stash!)
Black & White obviously will not be affected by a color shift, only fogging,
so it can kept longer.
When color film is printed, the color balance can be adjusted to a certain
amount to compensate for color shifts.
Slide film has no correction available for color shift or fog, so it will
show any aging effects first.
It's really a matter of how much aging shift you can toloerate. B&W or color
print film that's a year or two out of date and has been frozen the whole
time shouldn't be a problem. >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 1764
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Ken Hart" wrote in message
>
> "Andrew Price" wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:39:08 +0000 (UTC), gsm RemoveThis @mendelson.com (Geoffrey
>> S. Mendelson) wrote:
>>
>> [---]
>>
>>>I wish I had stocked up on Ektar 25 while I could, but I guess by now
>>>it would all be too old to use, even if it had been frozen.
>>
>> Interesting question - how long can freezing prolong the useful life
>> of film?
>
> Film begins aging the instant it is made (more or less). Radiation from
> nature (and the beams the Government sends out!) adds to the background
> fog level. Keeping the film cold will slow down the chemical aging
> process, and keeping it in metal freezer will decrease the background
> radiation (assuming it's not the same freezer where you keep your Uranium
> stash!)
>
> Black & White obviously will not be affected by a color shift, only
> fogging, so it can kept longer.
> When color film is printed, the color balance can be adjusted to a certain
> amount to compensate for color shifts.
> Slide film has no correction available for color shift or fog, so it will
> show any aging effects first.
>
> It's really a matter of how much aging shift you can toloerate. B&W or
> color print film that's a year or two out of date and has been frozen the
> whole time shouldn't be a problem.
>
>
>
It does continue to age after being exposed and printed......My old color
slides show a lot of mold spots, and in some of them (the non-Kodachromes)
the color fading/shifting is very evident......I don't know how one would go
about preserving them longer after printing.....Perhaps putting them in a
dry nitrogen filled case, like they do with historical paper
documents....... >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: 170
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>>> No. Kodachrome was unique. It was basicly three monochromatic films,
>>> each sensitive to one of the primary colors (red, green and blue).
>
>
> Fredrik Sandstrom wrote:
>
>> IS. Kodachrome IS unique. Why the past tense? Kodachrome's still
>> around. For how long, we don't know, but if you like it you should be
>> using it and show Kodak it's still wanted.
>
> I guess it depends upon where you are. I doubt there is a roll of it for
> sale in all of Israel. I also doubt that you could get it processed. You
> would have to send it off to Dwaynes, via a courier service or take a
> chance that it would neither get x-rayed at the post office, or gama ray
> "inspected" on the docks.
>
> BTW, does anyone know if Kodak is still making it, or planing on making
> anymore, or are they just cutting up rolls stored in a mine shaft?
>
They're still making KR 135-36 & PKR 135-36.
It's going to go away because the technology is difficult and not
particularly environmentally friendly and because you can get 90% of the
quality for 50% of the cost from today's E-6 emulsions, not to mention
what digital's doing to film in commercial work.
> I wish I had stocked up on Ektar 25 while I could, but I guess by now
> it would all be too old to use, even if it had been frozen.
>
> Geoff.
>
Funny you should mention that, I found a CK 135-12 (12 exp Ektar 25)
cleaning out some boxes of old stuff just the other day.
But, all of today's Kodak C-41 films are based on the Ektar technology
anyway, so you might try Kodak Ultra 100UC. >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 158
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:34 am
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Pudentame wrote:
> But, all of today's Kodak C-41 films are based on the Ektar technology
> anyway, so you might try Kodak Ultra 100UC.
It's not just the technology, it was the "look" Ektar 25 was the closest
thing to Kodachrome ever made in a color negative film.
How does the 100UC compare to it?
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm.DeleteThis@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: 170
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:34 am
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> Pudentame wrote:
>> But, all of today's Kodak C-41 films are based on the Ektar technology
>> anyway, so you might try Kodak Ultra 100UC.
>
> It's not just the technology, it was the "look" Ektar 25 was the closest
> thing to Kodachrome ever made in a color negative film.
>
> How does the 100UC compare to it?
>
> Geoff.
>
90% of the quality at 50% of the cost I'd say. It's been so long since I
actually shot Ektar.
And I don't shoot 100UC, although 400UC is nicely saturated, if that's a
valid description for a color negative film.
I don't think the one roll of Ektar I found is going to be much use for
making comparisons. It wasn't refrigerated properly. >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 158
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Pudentame wrote:
> 90% of the quality at 50% of the cost I'd say. It's been so long since I
> actually shot Ektar.
>
> And I don't shoot 100UC, although 400UC is nicely saturated, if that's a
> valid description for a color negative film.
Thanks.
> I don't think the one roll of Ektar I found is going to be much use for
> making comparisons. It wasn't refrigerated properly.
I'd leave it in the box and sell it on eBay as a collector's item. 
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm RemoveThis @mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 04, 2008
Posts: 15
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Pudentame wrote:
>Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>> Pudentame wrote:
>>> But, all of today's Kodak C-41 films are based on the Ektar technology
>>> anyway, so you might try Kodak Ultra 100UC.
>>
>> It's not just the technology, it was the "look" Ektar 25 was the closest
>> thing to Kodachrome ever made in a color negative film.
>>
>> How does the 100UC compare to it?
>>
>> Geoff.
>>
>
>90% of the quality at 50% of the cost I'd say. It's been so long since I
>actually shot Ektar.
>
>And I don't shoot 100UC, although 400UC is nicely saturated, if that's a
>valid description for a color negative film.
>
>I don't think the one roll of Ektar I found is going to be much use for
>making comparisons. It wasn't refrigerated properly.
If you want to try UC, try it now, because I have been informed that
it is no longer being manufactured. There is currently plenty in
stock, but when it's gone, it's gone.
Here in the UK we get UC in ISO 200 and 400 versions as Elite Color,
It is my negative emulsion of choice on dull, grey days (we get plenty
of those!) when it manages to inject colour into scenes that would
otherwise be rather flat.
UC is the last remaining descendant of the outstanding Ektar
emulsions, so I am particularly sad to see it go. I've ordered
several bricks and I hope they will last me a year.
(I don't buy into the idea that the Ektar technology has been
incorporated into all C-41 Kodak films, sorry. Kodak's marketing
department hasn't got a clue.) >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 01, 2004
Posts: 206
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:26:26 -0500, "Ken Hart"
wrote:
[---]
>It's really a matter of how much aging shift you can toloerate. B&W or color
>print film that's a year or two out of date and has been frozen the whole
>time shouldn't be a problem.
I was hoping it would be a little bit more than just a year or two - I
have quite a bit of Agfa Scala which I bought and froze when the
company went bankrupt about two years ago. I suppose I'd better start
using it up. >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 08, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Andrew Price" wrote in message
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:26:26 -0500, "Ken Hart"
> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
>>It's really a matter of how much aging shift you can toloerate. B&W or
>>color
>>print film that's a year or two out of date and has been frozen the whole
>>time shouldn't be a problem.
>
> I was hoping it would be a little bit more than just a year or two - I
> have quite a bit of Agfa Scala which I bought and froze when the
> company went bankrupt about two years ago. I suppose I'd better start
> using it up.
If you have some that was processed when it was 'fresh', you could shoot and
process some now and compare the density of the edge of the frame. As the
film ages, it will build up fog. You could also periodically shoot a
greyscale target and check the densities of that. As you start losing
contrast, then you should probably pick up the pace of your shooting. And
by changing your developer, you may be able to counteract some of the
effects of aging (The film's aging, not your own!)
When I said "a year or two out of date", I probably should have mentioned
that I'm pretty particular about color and contrast. Also, one brand might
have substanially more frozen life than another. >> Stay informed about: Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Any Fujifilm FinePix F40fd owners - any good? - Anybody own a Fujifilm FinePix F40fd digital camera? What are your opinions of this camera? Which accessories do you recommend with this camera - compact protective case, memory card, ac adapter, lens cleaning cloth, lcd screen protector, extra..
"Kodachrome" used as an adjective - On CNN today during their commentary on the democratic convention, the anchor referred to John Edwards' as a "kodachrome family". I can only assume they meant "photogenic". I can't see them referring to them with anything that's spec...
No Kodachrome in Australia - I have just spoken to the Kodak customer care on their Kodachrome hotline 1800 339 513 and was told I can no longer buy Kodachrome in Australia, once present supplies run out. What other slide film can I use that matchs the archival properties of..
Replacement for Kodachrome? - Are there any test results available on which slide film has the highest resolution? I'd like to know what is closest to the old Kodachrome 25, in terms of color saturation and resolution. I especially liked the way Kodachrome 25 handled greens, as I d...
Adorama has Kodachrome and Ektachrome - Some of the Kodachromes are on back order, but the Ektachrome is there, along with Fujichrome. and they also have darkroom supplies and chemicals. EPA hasn't reined them in yet, I guess. If anyone in Israel wants some, try THERE. BTW, I bought a SanDisk... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
