Printable View
Ken;
I don't disagree with what you said. But, you ignored the rest of my post. I suggested that they use Fuji film if that supplied their needs. If indeed Fuji does not, then why not? It then devolves to the point that the manufacturer(s) are trying to supply the needs of the maximum number of users. Therefore it becomes the old maxim that you cannot please all of the people all of the time!
PE
If you don't like the Fuji color paper, then your other option is to buy Kodak in roll format. I don't dislike the Fuji paper, but I find the color of the Type C to be a little over-saturated for some subjects. (Haven't tried the Type II yet) I bought a roll of Edge and I like the more subtle palette of the Kodak paper for some things. Also bought couple boxes of 8x10 Supra Endura which I find to be very similar.
So, paper can be had, but cutting it is a pain - although cutting it off the roll is cheaper. I'd say the status of color paper is OK, but not outstanding. It seems surprising that someone isn't out there pre-cutting Kodak paper for sale. (Or, I haven't found them yet)
And that relates to members posting their concerns about Kodak's continuing consolidation in their color negative film product portfolios - and how it affects their personal work - exactly how...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Gray
Ken
P.S. I don't think Freestyle would continue stocking this stuff if nobody was purchasing/using it. And even if you may not find the available choices to your personal liking, others may feel differently...
RA-4 Color Paper at Freestyle
RA-4 Color Chemistry at Freestyle
[Edit: "I'd say the status of color paper is OK, but not outstanding." --kb3lms. Well, there you have it from the post right above this one, from someone who presumably does have a dog in the fight...]
^This is answered by this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
If all the easy to use color paper is going away, then 'those who wish to produce their color negative subtleness in camera (APUG)' might be out of luck. Freestyle only stocks Fuji Type II, which from the two reports I've read isn't so hot. To quote one of them, "The new Fuji paper - it sucks."Quote:
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.
There would really be no comment for me to make if this was simply stated differently. It is a sacrifice made by Kodak to hopefully delay the inevitable demise of all of their still color film. It is a heavy reduction in the number of quality tools available for analog printers. (This is the Analog Photography Users Group, in case we forgot.) For analog photographers, this is not something to be raving excited about, but something to be more excited about than having nothing. Yet the whole event is being framed here by many (including the OP) as some sort of grand announcement for analog photography that is just so wonderful for everybody, as opposed to a possibly-necessary survival technique that might be hard for some to swallow! I would prefer a more realistic presentation of the issue for analog photographers. Quit blowing smoke up analog printers' asses as if this is the greatest thing in the world for analog photography, and just come out and say, "Sorry man. I know it sucks, but we had to do it to stay alive for now."
Perhaps so. But my point here is, they still have a right to post their concerns regarding that fact without being accused of "wringing hankies..." or being subjected to "you're lucky to have..." judgements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Gray
And that's regardless of the "status of color paper right now." Which, if others are to be believed, is "OK, but not outstanding."
It's the bullying factor I'm objecting to here...
Ken
P.S. I just now read 2F's above response right before I clicked Submit. To my mind, he summarizes the facts elegantly and correctly. And he is allowed to express that summation even if others do not necessarily agree with him. It is not a wringing of hankies to do so.
I've no interest in stoking another self-regarding doctrinal squabble. Kodak calls the shots. Quality scan/print lines operated by people with considerable optical printing experience can turn out stunning results with these new materials. That's the emerging consensus. Nothing's changed by a months' long lament over the passing of NC/VC Portras. Both 160 and 400 are available in FIVE formats. Let's shoot some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Don't forget that YOU can control the contrast and saturation in camera using under and over exposure. Under for saturation, over for pastels hopefully will still give us that control.
2F/2F, your point certainly is 100% valid and agreeable.
However, I would like to give you a small reminder;
In medium-speed color neg film, the number of choices really didn't go down!
Just a few years ago, we had two choices, NC and VC. Now we have "NC" and Ektar. Palette has changed, but not actually reduced. Of course there was a short moment (a few years) when all the three were available, but that was very special in the current situation.
IMO, having two choices that differ from each other more than before, is a good thing because interpolating is easier than extrapolating. The changes you can make in the darkroom are slight, but I'd bet if you tinker around a bit, you can find a good alternative to VC either from the new "NC" or from the Ektar, by tweaking development time etc. Then, you actually have two new choices. If you had to extrapolate from VC to try to make it look like Ektar, you'd only have one choice.
Of course, if you personally needed just the VC, and you don't like Ektar, this won't do anything good for you.
But, it is impossible to satisfy every need. So yes, I agree it's a compromise or even a sacrifice, but only from some people's point of view.
I also print analog and don't like scanning, and still I'm glad about the new product line with Ektar replacing VC, for the reason I just stated. I find that I now have more possibilities.
The loss of papers optimized for optical enlarging (Supra Endura, Portra Endura) is a real loss compared to this, but I think we can overcome even that.