I can second that. I was in there earlier this week, and they are still running E-6 3 days per week. They do a nice job. They told me that they are getting film from up and down the East Coast. Even as E-6 tapers off, I expect that there will be a few labs out there. It just may become a mail business, rather than a drop off business. We lost one major E-6 lab in Wilmington a few years back, and Colourworks is the last lab standing here.
Originally Posted by jeff.blackwell
Back in the day (1990's) I'd use slide film when I wanted color images the lab wouldn't butcher through their automated printing like they do with c41. slides were very wysiwyg as long as they were exposed properly. It was never consumer friendly. I bet most slide film in the 1990's was bought by serious photographers who wanted results rather than travelers wanting to make slideshows. I didn't have any problem acquiring used projectors and slide trays cheaply in the 1990s, so it was a weak market then for the casual consumer.
Digital provides this wysiwyg experience, right down to proper exposure. And there's no turn around time.
Now that scanning is probably the most common "next step" in the work flow, computers can handle negatives almost as easily as positives. Slides were never printed super literal anyways. They look good as is, but would usually end up a little different with the contrast of a cibachrome or the changes from an internegative, or the changes from the computer scanning. They mostly never got to be appreciated as a unique high quality original image.
Champion may be marketing chemicals under more than one label, and if Kodak cannot keep up its end of the relationship, they can go it alone. But they no doubt benefit from the recognizable Kodak label as well as the Kodak distribution system. I'd imagine they'll try to work things out rather than run up the white flage to Fuji-Hunt in the significant RA4 category. But I'm more concerned about specialty developers like HC-110 and TMRS.
These aren't easy to duplicate in the specifics. Sometimes similar is not similar enough. I really don't know how
diversified Champion is, and hope they don't have to get restructured also due to a domino effect. Let's just say,
I stockpiled some extra developer too!
Slides were in fact a big deal, and pro photographers sometimes staked both their reputations and their fees on winning pro-level slide shows. And shooting them wouldn't let you be sloppy with exp
like digital and amateur neg film did. An ole time slide show still looks a lot more impressive than a
computr screen image, esp with the right subject matter. Shooting chromes for printing per se is
a more advanced skill. But technology doesn't always improve things. Perhaps the best color shows
ever were back when three lantern projectors were aligned side by side with tricolor black and white
sheet film images in them.
When I said that, given Kodak's untruths and lack of customer interest, consumers would turn to other brands, I was thinking of remaining products with "Kodak" branding, not just film.
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
Kodak is now seen as a failed company....if there was no more film and I had to to go digital, and Kodak brought out the finest and most advanced digital camera system in the world, I wouldn't buy it. I'd see Nikon, Leica, etc., as the way to go...more chance that they'll still be around, and the gear wouldn't go the way of APS, disc, 126, and all the other Kodak mistakes. What retailer would want to try to sell "Kodak" products right now, not even their Chinese-made batteries!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Sadly when slide film is gone, my presentations will probably largely go d*****l. Notice I didn't say capture... I've scanned some negatives I shot last spring and the detail in them is quite good, even when viewed on a computer screen. Guess I'll have to start saving up a few bucks for that other kind of projector that really stinks.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
Don't be sad, be smart and prepare, try to come up with plans that lay out what you need to do in 5 year blocks, that is what I did with Kodachrome and it payed off, I shot over 35,000 Kodachromes in a span of less than 5 years, no crying, no regrets, just amazing images...
Originally Posted by ME Super
By the way, in looking for a rare enlarging lens, I was talking to the owner of a very good lab in the state where I live about E6, he literally just wrote back one minute ago and said the following:
"Right now E-6 is doing very well. We process for other labs around the country so our daily runs are fairly consistent. As long as we can buy juice and Refrema parts we'll keep on with it. We use Fuji chemistry."
And I'm certain there are a couple of posters around here itching to tell him he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about...
Originally Posted by PKM-25
"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
"We use Fuji chemistry."
Several lab owners here in Toronto have mentioned that Fujifilm.ca reps aren't optimistic about Fuji's commitment to photo chemistry. Whether it's true or just a shill for new equipment--who knows?