Jump to content

THE END of Ektachrome


James Compton

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I once heard kodak wanted to be a resversal free company within 5 years, that was 4-5 years ago, tri-x will be axed very soon. I not sure if it was manufactured but either this or last year they was to make one last run of 8mm tri-x. That kinda indicates to me they were cutting the last master roll up into various formats. They did this with ds-8 100d last year and within a year cartridge based 100d has been axed.... My feeling is they have killed the affordable way of using super 8, thankfully Wittner will continue to support the reversal market, in fact their 50d has better transportation properties than kodaks 100d, never had a 50d jam or their now discontinued fuji 64t super 8 stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Kodak is going to continue manufacturing B&W Reversal instead of Color?

 

 

 

Just a quick poll here....

 

Do all of you prefer to shot B&W Reversal rather than Color Reversal?

 

It just seems that Kodak thinks so....

Hi Andy,

the reason Kodak have given for stopping Ektachrome but not Tri-x isn't due to popularity. Kodak are aware that they sold very much more ektachrome than tri-x. But they have stated that the reason for stopping Ektachrome was the difficulty in manufacturing it given the volumes sold. I added up how many panchromatic black and white MP films I could think of that Kodak are still selling and it comes to (at least) 6 including Tri-x. Perhaps this diversity of at least partly similar products makes it easier to manufacture any one of them. Perhaps. But I too suspect that Tri-x will nonetheless be next.

cheers,

richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Richard,

 

Thanks for that info. That does make more sense then on Kodaks part. The only thing now though, I wished more labs offered super 8 prints to take the place of color reversals. I know it won't save on the cost of just shooting reversal, processing and then projecting directly. Seems pointless to blow up to 16mm, to get a print.

 

But then, getting a good color negative motion picture scanner at reasonable cost would be ideal too.

 

Regards,

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the reason Kodak have given for stopping Ektachrome but not Tri-x isn't due to popularity. Kodak are aware that they sold very much more ektachrome than tri-x. But they have stated that the reason for stopping Ektachrome was the difficulty in manufacturing it given the volumes sold. I added up how many panchromatic black and white MP films I could think of that Kodak are still selling and it comes to (at least) 6 including Tri-x. Perhaps this diversity of at least partly similar products makes it easier to manufacture any one of them. Perhaps. But I too suspect that Tri-x will nonetheless be next.

 

Well, as long as Foma don't go belly up, there's life in b/w reversal yet.

 

Who else makes 8 or 16mm b/w reversal please?

 

Thanks,

 

Ric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a reversal shooter for over 30 years, both in Super 8/Reg 8 and 16mm...and slides too. It seems like I just got a real handle on Ektachrome 100D, the particular way it responds to light, and when and where it can be subtle, or over-the-top with color. This has been my learning curve over the past few years since the Kodachrome ran out in '05 or so. 100D is a very special beast, nothing like it in the history of cinema. I don't believe the small formats (Super 8 and Reg 8) had ever been better. And now it's gone after far too short a life.

 

I belong to the small minority that finishes on film without a workprint. A decent projector, careful hand, and liquid gate printing, and you have a 100% analog 16mm print that looks like no other moving image being produced today (that's a good thing). Another great point in Ektachrome's favor was its color response to internegs--colors shifted much less than Kodachrome (contrast build-up was still a problem, but could be reduced by a minimal post-flash and 1.5 stop pull process on the interneg--done correctly, the d-max on the positive print still betters prints direct from Vision negative). Ironically, I published a piece titled "At this moment" on just this topic in the Winter 2012 issue of The Moving Image (Journal of Motion Picture Archivists). Published literally weeks before the first announcement of slide film getting the ax.

 

My working process is the simplest way to make a beautiful color film, and gives me a necessary visceral connection to the craft. When I can't afford an interneg, I project my originals. I had a show at REDCAT back in September where I showed 30 minutes of camera original films on their excellent Eastman projector, without a scratch (thanks REDCAT!). 16mm 100D on that large screen was absolutely stunning, even if I do say so myself.

 

I know I personally couldn't possibly spend enough at Kodak, at the rate I shoot, to save color reversal. But I believe there are enough of us to keep it alive (regardless of what your process, or whether your final product is digital, original or print). Color reversal is simply too unique, too efficient, and too user-friendly to disappear at this date. All of the prior discontinuations by Kodak could be understood on some level, but this time they have crossed the line. Everytime I went in to the Hollywood office, they were selling Ektachrome--a lot of it. There was a ton of interest. This was not the case at the end of Kodachrome. Kodachrome was loved very much in name only, but Ektachrome 100D seemed to be really starting to catch on in its niche-market kind of way. (And in actuality, if it were only motion picture they were considering, they would not have discontinued it. This was a decision made in the professional still photography division. Most of the assumptions by posters here are correct--I've talked to Kodak employees and they simply did not believe that users would continue to buy it with a price increase necessary to produce it on a smaller scale).

 

I'm not posting here to lament (much) but to really put out feelers to the community to see if we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. I believe what Kodak is looking for (in this age of restructuring) is an outside entity to take on the risk of producing an emulsion (they have said as much). By simply contracting with Kodak to do another run of this film, and paying for it up front, we could supply 35/16/Super 8/8mm motion picture users with another 5 years of this wonderful film. (And it keeps wonderfully well, much better than negative: I've shot rolls that sat in my crappy old 70s fridge for over a year before being processed with no loss of color or d-max).

 

Anyone interested, either with ideas, inside information, committments of support...please contact me. I will be starting the preliminary footwork after the New Year. (I'm also looking at contacting ADOX, who announced a completely in-house produced B/W reversal 100 speed Super 8 this year, though I haven't been able to get my hands on any yet.)

 

Best wishes to you and yours,

Timoleon

 

Interesting...I wonder...if I had enough money to fund the production of a finite amount of 100D annually, would Kodak even entertain the idea? I sincerely hope it's only a fiscal issue at play here. Seems to me that if it is...there's still a chance. What kinda money are we talking about here? This'll be the second question I get answered...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting...I wonder...if I had enough money to fund the production of a finite amount of 100D annually, would Kodak even entertain the idea? I sincerely hope it's only a fiscal issue at play here. Seems to me that if it is...there's still a chance. What kinda money are we talking about here? This'll be the second question I get answered...

 

Gosh, have we no fly on the wall at Kodak - yes - what is going on at Eastman Rochester? I have nightmare visions of Ektachrome technology being skipped in bulk to make way for state-of-the-art VDU monitors which will be sota for about 9 months until the next new thing is unveiled, and so forth.

 

Cannot believe there are no small concerns out there interested in bidding on Kodak's Ektachrome program - could a consortium not be convened, look at all the labs in the USA, would it not be in their interest to keep reversal top side up: they'd be in Ektachrome Heaven, overseeing production and developing film at the same time - what a golden opportunity!

 

The worst scenario is that Kodak execs have gone dog-in-the-manger, they couldn't balance Ektachrome on their books so they are going to sink the entire operation in the west, or perhaps they are just completely indifferent?

 

Corporate indifference may have killed Ektachrome as surely as anything else?

 

Ric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ric,

there is no dedicated mixing, coating or finishing equipment just for ektachrome. Its the same equipment as used for all their other stocks. Yes, they could sell the formula and the proceedure, but not the machinery without ending all their MP film production.

cheers,

richard

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is no dedicated mixing, coating or finishing equipment just for ektachrome. Its the same equipment as used for all their other stocks. Yes, they could sell the formula and the proceedure, but not the machinery without ending all their MP film production.

 

Thanks Richard,

 

If what you say is true though, and I am sure it is - then Kodak have no intrinsic reason not to offer a limited amount of colour reversal film to loyal, dedicated Kodak film users once a year - one batch per year - they know it would sell like hot cakes so what's the problem? There were still pro film projects being shot on 16mm Ektachrome on the very eve of its discontinuance. Their decision is ridiculous, I think this is a concscious move to kill off film in favour of digital video.

 

“Definitely, celluloid still offers subtleties that digital can't" ~ which is & always has been my argument in favour of photographic emulsion, both still and moving varieties. I think that the movie industry going entirely digital is the dumbing down of film - another milestone in the dumbing down of culture - no more no less.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/cut-celluloids-last-hurrah-8320390.html

 

Video is not film and neither is digital video. Film is an actual material entity. There's a grey area where film is telecined into video, but straight video is not film - by definition.

 

Ric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think film technology has room to advance from where it is today. I think the use of chemicals and bieing able to import into a computer is what is really limiting for the mass market.

 

I have made holographic images on glass plates before and I think the future of film technology can easily go here next!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

Chemicals make film work, and even more pernicious chemicals make digital chips work, scanning will become cheaper. Chemistry will be a part of both the film (organic) and digital ( organic and exotic ) world's forever.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think film technology has room to advance from where it is today. I think the use of chemicals and bieing able to import into a computer is what is really limiting for the mass market.

 

I have made holographic images on glass plates before and I think the future of film technology can easily go here next!

 

DV I use. Computers I use & like, when they don't crash (all the time). Holography I find interesting. There was a burst of activity several decades ago then nothing - nothing that I am aware of that is. But photographic emulsion is still the thing for me, it is subtle, it is unpredictable, it is ART :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chemicals make film work, and even more pernicious chemicals make digital chips work, scanning will become cheaper. Chemistry will be a part of both the film (organic) and digital ( organic and exotic ) world's forever.

 

-Rob-

 

 

Indeed! Better living, through modern chemistry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few questions for some of you more advanced cinematographers. I've been saving up to make a feature film sometime next year and my dream has always been to shoot on... Kodak 100D 16mm film stock. So, this is very unfortunate news for me. I'm going to keep my eyes open for any more shipments of this film stock from Kodak in the next few months and if possible acquire enough for the entire production, which will be stored in a freezer. Do you think in 12 - 16 months time that it will still be possible to get such film developed if colour reversal is completely discontinued over the following months? Do you think this is a risky and silly idea? I really don't wish to use any other stock!

 

Thank you,

 

David

Edited by David Owen James
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you are David, but in UK I recently got some from http://www.stanleysonline.co.uk

It should be fine stored cold, see my earlier post 30th Dec.

Lovely emulsion. If it is indeed allready run out, whoever made the final decision at Kodak must be kicking themselves. :mellow:

 

Doug

 

http://www.filmisfine.co

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kicking hard I hope. :angry:

Losing Ektachrome for movies is a tragedy. Since the 1930s independent film-makers have always relied on colour reversal film-stocks that can be examined directly over a lightbox. No guessing the result as is the case with neg stocks. So whether to retake can be decided without having to print the camera original, which is a real cost saving. Projecting once in a kind machine is what I tend to do, then make my own 16mm cutting copy. But telecine is a maybe cheaper option. OK I know you do this with neg, but somehow I feel that when you examine the actual film, or at least a good film print, you are that closer to seeing what your camera saw.

100D is... or rather was, probably the most 'ideal' colour movie stock Kodak ever made for low/no budget film-makers. With a grain structure approaching that of K40, it's a full 2 stops faster in daylight. As I mentioned before I think, it is not necessarily a contrasty film unlesss you intend it to be. Either pre or post-flashing will control contrast. OK it's rather red on some skin tones but one can cope with these kind of issues.

 

It's hard to predict how such a loss will affect those of us who prefer filming with analog.

In my 'spare time' I run a camera shop and over the past year ironically I have seen a marked increase in folks using film. Mainly still photographers but also there is solid interest and renewed curiosity in analog movie making, especially among younger people who have previously only known digital. These are the sort of people that continue to need a reasonably priced colour film.

 

Kodak, is anyone there ? We need some more 100D if you please.....

 

Doug

http://www.filmisfine.co

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you in or near the LA area, I just spoke with the guys at Spectra Labs and they have one 400' can of 7285 left, and are expecting their final shipment from Kodak to come within the next few weeks. They are supposed to get a couple more 400' cans and a couple dozen 100' daylight spools of 16mm, and hoped to get the same amount of 8mm but can't know how much until the shipment arrives.

 

It'll probably be expensive, and Spectra will likely make you purchase the film with processing included in the price, but at least there is something else coming down the pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the silence...down with the flu for the last week, and with the relatives here for the Holidays, and a fried computer...well, when it rains it pours.

 

I have several friends who put in orders with Kodak (for 7285) around the 15th of December and have yet to receive anything. The last word, as of a few days ago from the order desk, was they are no longer taking any orders for it, period. Further, I have it on very reliable authority they will only be able to fill a fraction of the back orders they received. How they parse it out, I do not know. A previous poster is correct in assuming they have some stock "to finish", but no newly manufactured stuff in the pipeline. Even if they were to start another batch, it wouldn't be ready for sale for months. After coating, there is an aging process on the order of months from what I understand. It will not be coming back. And I couldn't be sadder.

 

I've hatched some real Kafkaesque plans to save Ektachrome, including basically an unofficial kickstarter-type campaign, to put together as many businesses and individuals who care about this medium to buy an entire new batch of 7285 "up front". I can only venture to guess the minimum needed--$100,000? $500,000? More? Or perhaps no price would be high enough, short of bailout.

 

Personally, for me, this is a task that (after much anguish) I have to leave for someone else. My interest in film is just too artistically oriented to make a proper go at it. It needs to be a business, and a properly run one at that. A la the example of Ilford for B/W still films. At least the idea is out there:

 

FOR SALE: a niche business with potential yearly earnings in the millions of dollars. (Please, if someone out there reads this, and decides to do it, I will commit to buy your product--on the order of several thousand $ per year, or more.)

 

This of course means nothing to a company that's disposed of billions of it's customers' and shareholders' cash due to continual withdrawal of their best products, lack of vision, and non-existent marketing for more than a decade. Can you imagine if Kodak had just started a persistent advertising campaign circa 2000: Something like--(insert celebrity here:) "Digital's great...but when it really matters...I shoot film". Or even "Film: Yeah...we make that". If Apple can create such a rabid need for its I-products, Kodak could have just kept even a small piece of their pie the same way. But, like the entire social world today, it seems run not by vision, nor hope, but the fear job-loss and shame of exclusion. So much lip service paid to "individuality" "creativity" "hard work". Not uncoincidentally, these are the exact same values demanded by the unwieldy, dirty, physical, and at times frustrating medium of film. No one seems to remember that the rewards can be so very high! But people want "guarantees" of fame and fortune these days, not artistic sublimity.

 

OK, end of tirade. I am committing myself to finishing a few more films this year; I believe out of several hundred hours of Kodachrome and Ektachrome I've shot in the last 20 years there ought to be at least an hour long film in there, maybe two. I need to put all my energy in that, because there may be no Kodak, and no internegative or even positive stock sooner than we'd like to believe. I do still hate arm chair speculation like that, but I think some paranoia is in order right now. On the up side, I believe our long term future belongs to companies like ORWO, ADOX or perhaps one that isn't even born yet. By no means do I believe its the end of film. But it sure hurts like it is.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post Timoleon. I share your well articulated pain. What I am doing right now is finding a way through my connections to get at the Kodak suits who can disclose if a- any amount of money would mean anything and b- if so, how much, for what. If "a" is answered in the positive, then "b" can and *will* be raised. Hopefully it's a matter of communication, relationships and money of course. I do hope for success, however unlikely...

but I suppose that ultimately I just want the satisfaction of knowing that someone with the assets, clout, connections and business savvy (not me!) was told "no" and hopefully why. I'm sure Kodak has legitimate reasons, etc. that we should respect, but unless I'm mistaken...(and I hope I am)...

>>>> you can't obtain color reversal motion picture film anymore...anywhere in the world <<<< That's NUTS!!!! I'm having a real hard time with this!

Edited by Ernest Fleet Dalby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...