Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,519   Posts: 1,572,207   Online: 987
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 69
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    More on the new Portra 160, this time something concrete:

    http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/02...41-scan-hybri/

    Hard to believe so many here can't grasp that this is a new and truly improved film available in<<GASP>> 5 formats.
    It is not that we cannot grasp that the new film is incredible. Where is the person who said that?

    The problem is that the new lineup is geared toward those who scan, with only one flavor of film in each speed. Those who scan ("scanners?" ) would not miss the differences between NC and VC because they do not need the differences for their work.

    The loss of two emulsions that were absolutely fine in technical quality in order to have a single emulsion that is technically better is not good, IMO.

    But I don't think anybody knocked the new film's quality. At least I did not. That is not the point of the criticism of this move by Kodak. How would an illustrator like it if certain of his or her favorite markers were discontinued and replaced by a new and improved line of markers, but with a reduced choice of palette, when the old markers left not a thing to be desired? The criticism of this move by the marker company is then dismissed because the new inks are "improved" and because the old colors can be replicated by scanning the work colored with the new markers and then using Photoshop. That is the heart of the critique, not the quality of the new film.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    The loss of two emulsions that were absolutely fine in technical quality in order to have a single emulsion that is technically better is not good, IMO.
    I don't color print, but from my understanding, the current state of color papers is a lot more of an impediment to good color printing than the films available. No more cut Kodak paper, and the couple posts I've read on the new Fuji paper (Type II?) have all been pretty negative.

  3. #53
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    It is not that we cannot grasp that the new film is incredible. Where is the person who said that?

    The problem is that the new lineup is geared toward those who scan, with only one flavor of film in each speed. Those who scan ("scanners?" ) would not miss the differences between NC and VC because they do not need the differences for their work.

    The loss of two emulsions that were absolutely fine in technical quality in order to have a single emulsion that is technically better is not good, IMO.

    But I don't think anybody knocked the new film's quality. At least I did not. That is not the point of the criticism of this move by Kodak. How would an illustrator like it if certain of his or her favorite markers were discontinued and replaced by a new and improved line of markers, but with a reduced choice of palette, when the old markers left not a thing to be desired? The criticism of this move by the marker company is then dismissed because the new inks are "improved" and because the old colors can be replicated by scanning the work colored with the new markers and then using Photoshop. That is the heart of the critique, not the quality of the new film.
    Think you confirmed my point. Kodak's 1/2 a loaf is pretty tasty. You're lucky to have the new 160 and 400.

  4. #54
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,575
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Think you confirmed my point.
    Think you may have missed his...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  5. #55
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Think you may have missed his...

    Ken
    Really? The new Portra is a done deal. Why wring a hankie or engage in interminable end-of-Kodachrome style kvetching? Like the man said, "So, rejoice! Go shoot some film."

  6. #56
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,998
    Images
    1
    the majority of people shooting color neg films these days are scanning the film and outputting digitally(inkjet, lightjet, even Costco printing). I'd venture to guess that under 5% of color shooters are enlarging their film optically. I do it for some prints, when I want a print, and don't feel like sitting on my ass doodling in photoshop. Kodak's new coating facility is/was designed for larger runs, and can't handle smaller, more efficient coating runs of film or paper(it can do both on one machine). Ilford's coating facility is able to do smaller, cheaper runs, and they don't have to worry about film stock going bad before it expires(like Kodak does now).

    so the moral of this post of mine?:

    Kodak re-consolidated 2 fantastic emulsions into one(160NC/160VC-->Portra 160)/(400NC/400VC-->Portra 400) because they felt that it was more cost efficient to make one great emulsion, rather than having to make 2 separate coating runs. Now with PS and fantastic scanning software, a lot of the subtleties of the prior emulsions(contrast, saturation, color balance,etc...) can be input to the users desired output, tailoring it to each individual shot. This is good and bad. Good for scanners, bad for people who optically print, and like what a certain emulsion gives them in the darkroom.

    -Dan

  7. #57
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,575
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Really? The new Portra is a done deal. Why wring a hankie or engage in interminable end-of-Kodachrome style kvetching? Like the man said, "So, rejoice! Go shoot some film."
    Seems so...

    All of the above may be valid for you, but none of it remotely addresses the point 2F/2F was making. Rather, it skirts his point entirely. So to say it "confirmed my point" is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

    Perhaps I am reading 2F's post incorrectly, but I certainly didn't get the impression he was rejoicing that he now has "1/2 a loaf" of options instead of the previous full loaf. Nor that he feels "lucky to have" two choices now where previously there were four.

    But perhaps I misread?

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  8. #58
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,380
    Images
    65
    Seems to me this kvetching is pointing dissenters to Kodak policy in this regard in one direction. Go buy Fuji color negative films! Of course, that presupposes that you can find a suitable one there.

    Kodak did the best they could to split the difference between quality and production. The result, as some have said, is a fine film.

    Thank you very much Kodak.

    This was in spite of horrible losses this year in sales.

    PE

  9. #59
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,575
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak did the best they could to split the difference between quality and production. The result, as some have said, is a fine film.
    Although I have not yet tried it personally, I believe this is undoubtedly the case. In my entire photographic lifetime I don't think I've ever used a Kodak film that was not of astonishingly high quality, relative to the manufacturing technologies of the period. There is no knock here against Kodak film quality.

    But for those who wish to produce their color negative subtleness in camera (APUG), as opposed to in Photoshop (DPUG), I can easily see where Kodak's Portra product line consolidation might be a very valid concern.

    And although I have no dog in that fight, I realize others do and their observations and opinions deserve a fair hearing. Not a dismissal via a film products version of "you should feel lucky you have a job..."

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    I don't color print, but from my understanding, the current state of color papers is a lot more of an impediment to good color printing than the films available. No more cut Kodak paper, and the couple posts I've read on the new Fuji paper (Type II?) have all been pretty negative.
    I'll quote myself. What is that status of color paper right now?

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin