Originally Posted by Dave Miller
I think it was the same case as with Kodachrome 25. Of course have both films been amateur and professional products, but a considerable amount was shot by consumers with higher quality claims. These films have been standard films in the past. But they became special purpose films in the end - for amateurs and pros as well. However, this does not necessarily imply a discontinuation. I believe the problem is that Kodak always wanted to be a mass producer.
I used to feel that Kodachrome 25 was the only color film I really liked, but then I realized as I moved up in format, other films that I didn't particularly like in 35mm became more attractive. ISO 25 films often require a tripod and aren't usually fast enough for subjects like wildlife requiring very long lenses that are only practical with 35mm, so in situations where I might be able to use such a film, there's no downside to using a bigger camera.
If you want fine grain, rich tonality, and high resolution in a color negative film, consider moving up to 6x7, and a film like Portra 160NC in medium format will end your nostalgia for Ektar 25.
Portra 160NC is my current favorite in 120 roll and LF. My head to head comparisons between 120 Fuji Reala and Portra give a definite edge to the Portra 160NC . However, in 120 roll, Konica Impressa 50 is still sharper and finer grained (but very unforgiving).
Everything is analog - even digital :D
Farewell, Sweet 25
I, too, miss Ektar 25. Yes, it was primarily only good for outdoor shots in good sun, but man! what results you could get. I shot my first roll of it in the Grand Canyon and enlarged a shot for my father (who was a teacher at the time) to 20x30" and I am willing to swear that I saw no difference in the grain between that and a 3x5. It was just as clear and crisp, and full of color!
Originally Posted by Thilo Schmid
Kodak has a reputation (I would say) of coming out with outstanding products and then dumping them just when you get used to them, because Kodak was after the almighty $ and let the customer fend for themselves. As Thilo said...
I've seen this happen time and again. I've been a loyal Kodak customer ever since I was a tiny tot with my first camera (a Kodak -126, I believe) and I finally went digital this past year. And not with a Kodak camera.
I believe the problem is that Kodak always wanted to be a mass producer.
Oh, I still keep a couple of 35s around, for weddings and such, but mostly I shoot digital now.
Last edited by claidheamdanns; 01-06-2005 at 02:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Wanted to include Thilo's quote
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Graphic Designer & Photographer[/FONT][/SIZE]
Great in 35 mm, too.
Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Since Ektar 25 and now Impressa 50 are now long gone, the next best thing are the new Pro 160 films from Fuji. Apparently the grain is RMS 3 for those which should come close to, if not beat, Ektar 25 in that area. Sharpness is still not quite as good though.
Sure, Fuji Velvia. 50 or 100
FYI. Ektar 25 was the most difficult film Kodak ever manufactured.
That led to its early demise.
In what way? Just curious.....
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Ektar 25 had one outstanding thing, it's ability for low light photography. It's reciprocity for long times without compensation was fantastic.
I did many a night shot with that film.