
Kodak says it’s bringing back Ektachrome film - artsandsci
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/01/06/kodak-says-its-bringing-back-ektachrome-film-and-photographers-everywhere-smile/
======
photigragraphy
As a 'millennial' hobby photographer that enjoys working with film cameras
this is great news! However I find some of these comments disheartening.

There is a lot of discussion of the merits of film versus digital capture
which really isn't the point or why someone would necessarily choose to shoot
film today. Much like how a better camera doesn't automatically take better
photos the same goes with the film vs digital debate. A camera, and
film/digital sensor, is a tool that is used accomplish an ends (capturing an
image). One tool might be easier to use or have more control or some other
quality of preference. Similarly, a given film might subjectively have a
preferred color palette or a sensor have more flexibility. I shoot film
because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot; I can't
fallback on "guess and check" for exposure or composition.

Another thing to note is that much of the film market (both pro and consumer)
have stabilized in recent years. Kodak (also Kodak Alaris) and the other
manufacturers have adapted to be able to meet the lower demand of a niche
market. A great example of this is Ilford.

Anyway, I am just excited to have an excuse to shoot some slides this year!

~~~
svantana
>I shoot film because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot; I
can't fallback on "guess and check" for exposure or composition.

If this is a common sentiment then here's an idea for a product: a digital
camera that donates $1 to the red cross for every picture you take, charged to
your bank account. Not only would it restore this "restraint", it would help
people in need while also removing the usage of chemicals that are bad for
health and environment.

~~~
tel
It would need to also not let you see your photos for somewhere between 1 and
7 days, take SD cards no larger than 64 Mb, and break when X-rayed in airport
security.

That all said, I agree with the op.

~~~
rangibaby
I thought this comment was funny but would like to point out that X ray
machines won't fog film now. You'll need to hand check >=800ISO film though

~~~
tel
That's true for carry on luggage, but checked luggage (I've learned) still
fogs.

------
KaiserPro
I shoot digital almost exclusively. However for a wedding in Tuscany I went
with a medium format older than most of america, and a 35mm rangefinder (along
with my nikon and stock 30mm prime lens)

First things: Film is a massive faff. Xrays, heat, light. All pains.

However each film type has a different way of handling/rendering light.

I had:

o Ektar 100 (120mm)

o portra 160 (35mm)

o Ilford XP2 135 (35mm)

First things, unlike digital, it gracefully degrades when you are operating
around the edges of high exposure. Shooting into the bright summer sun yields
really pleasing results (details in both sky and subject[1][2])

the Ilford makes everything look like a picture from a local news article.

But, I'm not a film purist. I was in VFX for the apogee of 35mm film. I know
how much of an utter faff it can be. Digital Cinema cameras have surpassed
film by quite a way. (unless they are latter generation RED cameras, those
things are colour blind.)

A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format
comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film
just looks "real"

[1]in most digital cameras, everything is log, so most of the information is
in the lower exposure ranges, however there are complications. [2] the scanner
of course is log as well, but you can do things to get around it.

~~~
japhyr
> A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format
> comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film
> just looks "real"

Do you have a clear sense of why film looks "real" to you? Is it because film
is a more accurate rendering of how we perceive light, or is it because you
grew up on film?

There were plenty of films that didn't represent the real world accurately,
and plenty of digital filters that don't either. But I find that the default
settings for most digital cameras look about as realistic as the default
settings for most film cameras did when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s.

~~~
platz
I find the default settings for most digital cameras over-sharpen, blow out
highlights, and create color fringes which looks less realistic.

though, sure, certainly all photos have a psychological component, and film
may also look more "real" (absent significant defects) because culturally been
ingrained. Once the culture changes, it will probably be film which looks less
real over time. I wouldn't attribute it to individual tastes, though.

~~~
foldr
>and create color fringes which looks less realistic.

Interesting. I believe that lenses tend not to be corrected for chromatic
aberration as much as they used to be because chromatic aberration is
relatively easy to correct in post-processing. (Being lax about chromatic
aberration can give lens designers more leeway to correct other more serious
aberrations.)

~~~
lllr_finger
It's not that, because classic film lenses are used on digital mirror less
cameras rather routinely. Film has a pleasing, gradual acutance compared to
digital - especially in high contrast areas.

Edit: but you are correct that chromatic aberration, distortion, and other
things probably take a backseat to resolution these days, since those things
are easier to correct in post.

~~~
foldr
>It's not that, because classic film lenses are used on digital mirror less
cameras rather routinely

Sure, I don't think anything I said contradicts that.

------
jrapdx3
As one who has been a photographer for 50 years I have a great appreciation
for the technologies involved. Digital imaging has advantages to be sure, but
I think it's best to think of film vs. digital as two distinct media with only
superficial resemblance. That's very similar to acrylic vs. oil painting,
which, for very good reasons are considered distinct media.

In the world of art, "old" media don't really die, interest may come and go
but never disappears completely. Casein-based paints were used in ancient
Egypt, egg tempera dates to the middle ages, oil painting goes back 600 years,
etching was invented in the 1400's.

BTW acrylic paints are very recent inventions, products innovated by Bocour
and Golden in the 1940's, modern forms coming available in the early 1960's.
But despite its technological benefits older techniques are hardly obsolete.

Same with digital vs. film. They are different media with distinct aesthetics.
Film will never die, and that's a very good thing for the sake of the art of
photography.

The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome
were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal.

~~~
acomjean
I don't know about this. Been shooting 30 years, including a couple years at a
college paper (Daily paper needs lots of photos). I think film will be very
niche.

We shot film at the college paper, specifically black and white, 400 iso, but
can be pushed to maybe 1600 (it starts getting really grainy at this point.
For a newspaper it doesn't matter). Being a daily paper getting photos out
quickly was often a priority.

Slide film is way pickier on exposure than Black and White, with very little
margin for error on the under/over (low dynamic range so to speak)

Developing film and making prints was always kind of a pain (we didn't know it
at the time having no alternative..). While making the print, watching the
image appear in the developer in the darkroom was almost magical, trying to
make a good print was often frustrating). While printing we'd adjust the
contrast, dodge a burn (lighten and darken regions). It was time consuming and
error prone and not easily repeatable. Dust shows up as white spots on your
prints too, which you won't see till the red light comes off.

Ansel Adams is the consute example of someone who made amazing prints by
dodging and burning a lot, post processing. (He co-invented the "zone system"
of printing.. [1])

The photo ink-jet printers these days are good enough to reproduce a lot of
photos.

Honestly I don't miss film. I get to focus more on composition and subject,
rather than the tech details. Except the sorting, we all take way too many
pictures these days.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System)

~~~
beat
My favorite thing about film shooting isn't the look of film, but rather how
the camera works. Digital cameras have so much distracting/confusing crap on
them. Reducing the world to just aperture and shutter speed, with a comfy
cushion of exposure, really makes life more pleasant.

That said, I love auto-ISO to death. It's my favorite thing about digital
photography. On film, you're either compromising shutter speed or compromising
aperture to get the exposure. So nice to be able to easily adjust the third
variable in the algebra.

Definitely agree on your point about slide exposure relative to black and
white, too. Slide film is almost as fussy as digital. What's the fun of that?

~~~
ghaff
I have fond memories of B&W darkroom work--including having to run into the
darkroom after some event to develop negs, contact them, and then print them.
Though I can't say I really miss it.

And I don't use auto-ISO but find being able to switch ISOs--including to
rather high values--is one of the aspects of digital that is probably
underappreciated.

But color slides, which is all I did latterly until digital came along, was
mostly a sort of fussy way of capturing color images for reproduction and
projection. Absent spending a lot of money and effort, you were pretty much
stuck with what you captured, which may have a certain purity to it but could
also be very frustrating.

I did somewhat obsess over different film stocks but that's sort of in the
same bucket as playing with chemistry to push B&W film. Sort of a geek hobby
but not really an end in itself at the end of the day.

~~~
beat
I used to do a lot of dance performance photography, which is a real technical
challenge - low light and fast motion. Being able to shoot 6400 ISO and still
get a decent image was a lifesaver! But it was good to be able to auto-ISO to
deal with varying light while keeping aperture and shutter consistent so I
know what I'm getting.

------
stevefeinstein
I think this is a good call from Kodak. People are enamored with less accurate
reproduction of vinyl records. So it's no surprise that up and coming hipsters
will soon be shooting with another media that capture a less accurate version
of reality, calling it superior and claiming they like it better.

~~~
beat
Hah. Hah.

Most people talking about "accurate" have no idea wtf they're talking about.
I'm a musician, and I've produced records. At best, vinyl vs digital
reproduction aren't "better" than one another, just different. But personally,
I think vinyl can be more true to the music.

Start with dynamic range, since that's one of the spots where the "But it's
more accurate!" people get it wrong. _In theory_ , cd has far more dynamic
range than vinyl. _In practice_ , it has great deal less! This is a result of
modern "loudness war" mastering. Most modern albums have less than 6db of
actual dynamic range. Listen to something with more range than that, and it
sounds flat and lifeless. Vinyl is usually mastered with significantly more
dynamic range, but sounds more open and breathy - the way more dynamic range
should sound.

And why is this? Because either way, most audio reproduction equipment is in
no way able to reproduce the sound of instruments in an "accurate" way. You
_cannot_ shove the massive sound of a 100 watt Marshall stack through a pair
of iPod earbuds, any more than you can look accurately at the Grand Canyon
through a pinhole. So records are a _miniature_ of a real sound. The entire
recording, mixing, and mastering process is built around trying to capture the
essence, the spirit of the original sound (or an ideal sound) in a way that
can be reproduced on car stereos, cheap headphones, and the like. And the
sound itself isn't exactly accurate, not on a record where the acoustic guitar
is as loud as the drum kit!

Accuracy. Hah.

~~~
Nition
I'm in audio too, and while what you say is true, it feels kind of like saying
digital photography is worse than film if everyone's shooting with their
exposure set five stops up. Then you can say "digital's clearly worse - look
how blown out it all is!"

The loudness war is unfortunate, but a CD _can_ be used properly to have
plenty more dynamic range and plenty less noise than a record.

There are other benefits to analogue formats though, like soft clipping.

~~~
beat
Well, yeah. But that's a different issue than the "accuracy" line that's
brought up by dudes who don't play instruments and have never mixed a song (or
alternately, have little experience at professional-level photography and
couldn't tell you the three factors of exposure if you asked).

------
cathartes
Working with film was fun. It imposed many subjective qualities to one's
imagery that do appeal to me--and when it worked, it worked well. But when it
didn't, it was very frustrating. I honestly don't miss film or the perishable
chemicals. If I'm up for pain, I'll go out shooting with just my Sigma DP
Merrills and work the proprietary raws in SPP--that's as close to the "fun" of
film I get, nowadays ...

------
PeanutNore
Photographers who still enjoy film do so for the same reason that a lot of
guitarists still enjoy tube amplifiers: it's reproduction is less accurate,
but it's inaccurate in an aesthetically pleasing way.

~~~
jrockway
I don't think that's particularly fair. With a sheet of 4x5 film, I can
capture much more information than any digital camera on the market; even the
$50,000 100MP "medium format" system cameras. Film has the disadvantages
inherent in a chemical process; time and chemicals are required. But in terms
of maximum information capture with minimum equipment cost, it wins.

If anything, the shortcuts that digital photographers take degrade the quality
of the image. The tiny image circle of DSLR lenses means that you can't
control the image at the time of exposure, and have to use information-
destroying transforms in post-processing. In the end, it doesn't matter, art
is art, and jacking up all the colors to a million gets you the likes on
500px. Nobody will notice that the lighting was poor or that some of your
square-at-the-time-of-exposure pixels are now rectangles. (That's why
everything in the grocery store contains sugar. Nobody ever complaints about
too much color, and nobody ever complains about too much sugar. It's a great
way to make something mediocre delicious for the mass market!) But there is
some value in getting it right in-camera, if only for the sense of
achievement.

~~~
pedrocr
People used to make similar arguments about 35mm film. Now that that's firmly
surpassed I guess 4x5 will do. 4x5 is only 16x the area of a 35mm sensor so
it's not too far away, you will have to soon move on to 8x10 to make the same
argument :)

~~~
lllr_finger
Current APS sensor technology is around 15 stops of dynamic range and 50MP.
4x5 sheets of Portra can resolve 100-300MP with 18 stops of dynamic range.

Digital has beaten 135 film, but it still hasn't beaten 120 / medium format in
several key areas. I would be surprised if digital beat 4x5 in the next 10
years because there's no substantial market for such a product.

~~~
pedrocr
You're just making my point exactly. You're getting 6 times the resolution out
of 32 times the area. 35mm sensors are already common and that's already twice
the area with better SNR. Maybe not all the 18 stops but close and it's also
all semiconductor technology which improves for many other purposes than
making sensors. There are also computational techniques to make the equivalent
of a larger sensor from many small ones. We're coming at this from too many
directions to not solve it. We'll soon need to have this discussion with 8x10.

~~~
jrockway
The resolution of the sensor is pretty irrelevant. Camera and subject motion,
the MTF of the lens, and diffraction are much bigger factors (once you get to
a certain point). You're almost diffraction limited on modern APS-C cameras at
f/8! The motion of your hand and body will cause a point of light to
illuminate two sensor elements even at 1/8000 shutter speed.

Basically, DSLRs require perfect conditions in the field to actually achieve
the sharpness stated by the camera manufacturer. A 4x5 sensor allows much more
slop.

~~~
pedrocr
So you're doing 4x5 handheld? I don't understand your point. If there's
anything digital clearly wins at is at getting you better results than film
for a given physical constraint. It has better sensitivity so takes better
advantage of the light, it has more density per unit of area so gets you more
resolution per unit of camera volume or weight, etc. The only thing film still
wins at is being able to cheaply build larger "sensors" since film doesn't get
more expensive to manufacture larger. And as sensors have gotten better it's
gotten harder and harder to actually realize a benefit from larger film up to
a point where you need a large cumbersome camera in a very sturdy mount and
really good technique and process to have a shot at it. I expect that within
the next 5 years multi-sensor/multi-lens cameras and a bit of software to
finish off the last few advantages there still are[1].

[1] [https://gearjunkie.com/multi-lens-
light-l16-camera](https://gearjunkie.com/multi-lens-light-l16-camera)

------
neom
Awesome. In all seriousness, I'm so sick of seeing hyper sharp images with 36
stops range either side.

~~~
cartoonfoxes
Not actually sure if serious.

I've spent a very significant part of the last 20 years of my life staring
into screens. I love low-tech analog media. If nothing else, it's a great way
to relax and break free from my work life.

~~~
jolux
i find digital cameras and post-processing software endlessly fiddly. as my
photography teacher says, "you want to take photos? buy a dslr. you want to
make art? shoot silver halide."

~~~
sjwright
It sounds like your photography teacher cares more about gear than technique.

~~~
jolux
no, the teaching is all about technique and he teaches digital too. this is
just his personal opinion and was in no way central to the teachings of the
class.

~~~
sjwright
If he actually cared about technique he wouldn't have said anything remotely
like what you quoted. Even if it was hyperbole.

The only difference between film and digital is the set of limitations.
Arbitrary limitations can be instructive - e.g. fixed focal lengths,
monochrome, limited shutter counts. They can also be pointlessly stifling,
e.g. tediously long feedback loops.

------
aaronbrethorst
Ooh, in even better news, Kodak's apparently "investigating Kodachrome,
looking at what it would take to bring that back"
[https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-
br...](https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-
kodachrome/)

------
dharma1
I wish there was a cheap, automated service where I could post rolls of film
for developing, and would get high quality scanned TIFF download links in my
email a couple of days later, with the developed negative/prints returned as
an optional extra. I think most of the time I would just want the scans
though.

I love shooting film but it is expensive, and slow.

~~~
plg
Dunno if it qualifies as cheap or as automated, but Indie Film Lab is awesome:

[http://indiefilmlab.com](http://indiefilmlab.com)

Mail them your film and they send you a link to d/l the scans, with option to
return your negs

~~~
nathancahill
Second Indie Film Lab as being awesome. About as close to "automated" as you
can get.

------
pklausler
I shoot digital now, but I still get that darkroom feeling by processing my
images from NEF (raw) to PGM/PPM using code that I wrote myself (C and
Haskell). My algorithms may not be as good as Nikon's or Adobe's, but they do
give my images a look that is all my own.

------
gaoshan
Prior to become a web developer I was a photojournalist (staff photog at a
mid-sized newspaper) for 10 years starting right before digital started. I
always loved working in the darkroom and printing but I do not miss film. Film
was just... meh. Limited number of shots, bulky to carry, expense in
processing, relatively primitive light sensitivity, color sensitivity, etc.

If it were up to me, for hobby purposes I would love to shoot 4x5 or 8x10
tintypes and wet plate collodion. I mean, the quality is spectacular with
those processes (especially tintypes) when done perfectly. Otherwise, give me
super high quality digital. I'm either going to do it (real) old school or I'm
going to choose the tools that limit me the least. Nothing in between.

------
deeth_starr
But who will develop it? That's going to be damn expensive. That's why I have
all my b&w gear still. If I get the bug to shoot film I can develop it myself.

~~~
4ad
Ektachrome is E-6, like all other transparency film used today. Anybody can
develop it (for cheap).

~~~
yesimahuman
Unfortunately, it's not cheap. You're looking at $10+ per roll in development,
and I'm guessing one roll of Ektachrome will be $10+ if it's anything like
Provia/velvia. $20+ for one roll and that's without scanning which many have a
lab do.

Don't get me wrong, I _love_ slide film and I'm so excited to shoot this, but
it's not exactly easy to make a habit out of shooting E6 for hobbyists.

~~~
patrickg_zill
You can pick up a decent 35mm kit for $100 off Craigslist, if you are careful.

Difference between $100 and say $15/roll total costs vs. $700 kit = 40 rolls @
36 slides each = 1440 exposures until you start spending more than if you
bought digital.

(thanks to poster below, I have corrected my very bad math errors)

~~~
StyloBill
Sorry if I sound pedantic but your math is really wrong here.

Difference between the 2 kits: 600$. So 600/15 = 40 rolls, at 36 slides each,
you're in for 1440 exposures.

------
Theodores
"Kodak" exists as much as 'Standard Oil' does, this is Kodak Alaris, 'a
separate company owned by the UK-based Kodak Pension Plan'... This film is
just a branded product like the Polaroid branded TVs, someone has thought
'what can we stick this Kodak logo on...' and thought 'film! We can make money
out of that, or at least some money.'

~~~
PeanutNore
The factories in Rochester where they make the film never stopped making the
film. Ektachrome took a 5 year break, sure, but they've been making Tri-X and
Portra and Vision3 cinema film etc. the entire time. It might be technically a
different company than Eastman Kodak was, but it's not like they've
subcontracted out the production to the Chinese and just kept the brand name.

~~~
patrickmay
Tri-X is still available in 35mm? Got a link, please?

~~~
citruspi
Amazon - [https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Tri-X-400TX-Professional-
Black/...](https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Tri-X-400TX-Professional-
Black/dp/B000I2JI3A)

B&H -
[https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_86670...](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_8667073_TX_135_36_Tri_X_Pan.html)

