Kodak Introduces New Professional Print Film
Did you forget about film? Kodak didn’t. In spite of professional-level digital cameras like the 24-megapixel Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 announced today, Kodak has shown a continued commitment to film and the photographers who choose to use it. Today they announced a new 35mm color negative film, Kodak Professional Ektar 100. The ISO 100 film “offers the finest, smoothest grain of any color negative film available today.” Kodak says the film is ideal for nature, travel, fashion and product photography – or any other subject where smooth, rich color is desired.
Learn more about Kodak Professional Ektar 100 35mm color film:
Kodak Professional Ektar 100 Press Release
Related Content:
Kodak Photokina Panel Press Release
All Kodak Print Film User Reviews
All Kodak User Reviews
Film Cameras and Photography Forum
Kodak Web Site
next page – Kodak Professional Ektar 100 Press Release >>
Awesome! I love photography and film is a very important part of photography… it gives us a choice of medium other than digital. Thanks Kodak!
Thank you Kodak
Thank you Kodak for reinventing yourself and staying current. Please continue to be dedicated to real photographers who will never abandon film and switch over to what is, in effect, a computer used to take pictures. To all film lovers; patronize Kodak and Ilford for their commitment to the greatest photographic meduim.
Thanks for adding your thoughts, Avatar Meher Baba.
“what is, in effect, a computer used to take pictures.”
It is about the photo though – right? Should it matter what the tool you use to capture light? Some large format photographers might look down their noses at 35mm film. And some digital photographers might look down their noses at film because it isn’t the latest and greatest. Truth is, we’re all photographers using the tool we prefer or have available to catch some light and share what we see. I agree that we should support Kodak, Ilford, Fujifilm, and any other company that continues to produce film. Because film is important. I’ve gone out of my way to make sure that this site continues to pay attention to film and film photographers. But we don’t need to create artificial hierarchies of what technologies or methods are more real or relevant. That’s just unproductive, inauthentic, and divisive. Let’s all just try to make the best photos we can, inspire and support each other, and enjoy photography together. Life is too short.
Fantastic news. I’ve been looking for a colour negative film to use for such a long time and if what Kodak say is true, this will be right up my street. I shoot both digital and film and have never really found a 35mm film to match the ektachrome or velvia look and feel. Hopefully this new Ektar 100 is just the film Im looking for. Good on ya Kodak, keep up the great work. I also use Fuji and Ilford films depending on what Im after with film
Since most of my photos are sent, posted, etc. via the computer, what is the proper method of converting the new Kodak film to a digital format? Should this be done at the lab that processes the film, or does the negative need to be scanned by the photographer? I assume a good scanner will set me back a bundle.
Thanks for any advice, as I am debating whether of not I give up my Canon T90 for a digital SLR of equivalent quality.
About friggin’ time.
To Roger–invest in a DEDICATED 35mm film scanner. It will cost less than a digital slr.
Right now 20081217
Kodak Ektar 100 Pro Review
Ongoing review of this new film from Kodak!
http://www.stockholmviews.com/kodak-ektar-100-review
Regards/ Stefan
Thank you site admin
Hey Photo-John, I hear you with what you’re saying about “just getting pictures.” I’ve shot extensively in digital and film, dealing with news/press briefings and all manner of events; and I have to say, digital shooting does tend to make for lousy photographers.
I’ll restrain myself from getting into a rant here, so let me just speak of my own experience and avoid judging others. Here’s an example: I recently shot a wedding using digital and film. First off, even for me, my “keeper” rate was very low with the digital stuff; I shot probably 700 photos to get about 90 very good ones. And that was me with my usual diligence — I ended up with all kinds of lousy shots and kind of embarassed to say so.
I also shot nine rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film. The lowest “keeper” rate I had was one roll where I had 22 good shots; in my best roll of all, there were 33 (!) that I thought were pretty good stuff and the couple really liked. I’m very proud of that one, and come on — getting that many “keepers” is just about shooting one-for-one. You just don’t see that all the time.
Anyway, I said I wouldn’t get into a rant and continue with some kind of “film vs. digital” argument, but I will say something I have said in many other forums: Having 24 or 36 arrows in your quiver, shall we say, inspires very different behavior in photographers than having 26,000 or 36,000. An awful lot of the photography I’ve seen, shooting side-by-side by news pros and other event guys, is disruptive, excessive, wasteful, and in the end, g-a-r-b-a-g-e. Now, truth be told, if I’m shooting for real news, you bet I’ll shoot digital; most of the time, you end up publishing some teeny 200 by 150 pixel image at 72 dpi anyway, so why bother with anything good?
But when I want it to matter, and when I’m using every bit of knowledge and experience I’ve gathered at this point, for me it’s always gonna be film. It’s just a very different experience and a very deep love of mine.
So with that, I’ll say I’m shooting my first roll of Ektar at a party New Year’s day. I can’t wait to see how it works out.
And yes, on that other note, larger format film can smoke the resolution you can get out of 35mm film, but while no one was looking, 35mm film (even print) went and got very, very good. Overall, for the right balance of some convenience, very high quality and consistency, excellent dynamic range, and an induplicable experience, 35mm and my favorite cameras are what does it for me.
Take care and Happy New Year!
I shoot both digital and now once again film. I use Canon cameras and lenses. I just recently went thru a roll of Ektar and I am IMPRESSED with the pop of the color and the sharpness. I shot with an Elan II-e and a nice 24-85 lens. VIVID is the term that comes to mind in all catagories I am going to use the 1 “L” lens that I have to shoot the next roll.
Bob Sprinkle
Ektar again! Wow.. I shot Ektar back in the dark ages before Kodak Gold came around. The grain was the best, the photos out of this world. If you knew your stuff, you really couldn’t take a bad picture. Then they dropped it and pushed Gold, which sucked IMHO. I switched to Afga print film, which was better but not Ektar..
But I’ll have to say, I don’t think I’ll switch back from digital. The biggest reason is processing. I hate dropping off the film and hope nothing happens to it. I lost several rolls that way. At the time, Costco was the cheapest, but they’re machines like Kirkland (Afga) film.
For those that never did experance this film, your gonna love it..
Scanning a print photo is going to be sharper than uploading the pic directly from the digital camera set at maximum resolution? Think about it.
Chase, what are you talking about? OF COURSE scanning film — even 35mm print film — can blow the doors off uploading a pic directly from a digital camera. But it will depend on what you’re using to scan, what film you are using, what digital camera you suggest pitting against the film, how big you enlarge the print, and other factors.
For example, I assume you’re staring at your monitor to see how “sharp” a photo is. Chances are you’re looking at something showing you about 100 pixels per inch, which is far too little for you to tell. A high quality magazine would print 300 dots per inch on glossy, heavyweight paper.
Let’s say you shoot a roll of Ektar and scan the negatives at high resolution using an Epson V700 or V750. You’ll end up with around 32 megapixel images. Is your digital doing that?
It’s obviously far less convenient to have to discipline yourself and have enough faith in your own skill to shoot film instead of digital. But I like that discipline and challenge, and I love the timeless film machines that were made just before the world shipped all its manufacturing to Hong Kong and Shanghai. For me, photography happens when I have the right “feel” like something magic can happen, and something like a Contax RTS III gives me that feeling exponentially more than the predominantly petroleum distillate disposable junk that’s pushed on you these days as “cameras.”
And Art, I’m also processing my C-41 film at Costco, and I’ve never had anything go wrong. I’m lucky enough to live right by a major “film center” Costco. They’ll process without making prints — that is, develop your film and scan it to disk (giving you decent quality 6 megapixel images) — for about $5.00. If I want, I can even get them to just develop the film for like $1.49…maybe it’s even less than that…which I may do if I’m just planning on making high-quality scans myself.
Anyway, people should just shoot whatever they like and whatever inspires them, but you’re closing yourself off to an entire world of affordable goodness if you ignore film. At the end of the day, we’ll see who brings home the groceries and who brings home the cheese.
Have fun out there
Aaron
I appreciate the process and the cognitive stimulation of film, and I enjoy the free-flowing convenience of digital.
But which is better? There’s only one way to find out!
FIGHT!!
….but seriously, it’s all very well saying that you can scan a 35mm neg at x megapixels. Of course you can. You can scan a 35mm negative a 500 megapixels and take it out for dinner if you like, just as you can tell photoshop to open an 11mp raw file at 30mp. How do we actually empirically test this? Because I suspect that a 35mm 8-sprocket negative holds less detail than everyone claims, but I’d love someone to prove me wrong….
Ed – loving film, and not relying on my prowess with a lens to pay the bills enough to care that digital means, in short, that it’s a damn sight easier to take a very good photograph.
I’ve shot several rolls of Ektar 100, and I love it. It has a little bit of a “cold” tone to it, but the color saturation is absolutely incredible. It’s hard to describe…it’s just “different” and has a unique look to it that I’ve never seen with any other film (or digital, for that matter). It’s the perfect film for landscape and architectural photos. I would post a link to my pictures on Flickr, which I took with Ektar, but that might be considered spamming if I did that here. But anyway, just look on Flickr, and there are hundreds of groups for people who like shooting with film, and there is even a group just for people who like Ektar!
Also, since this article was written, Kodak actually started making it in 120 size rolls! No one thought that would ever happen and we would just have to be satisfied with 35mm. Well, it happened! There was so much demand and so many people asking for it, that I guess Kodak finally did it.
Long live film! It’s brilliant that Kodak is still releasing new film stock. I hope film will go on forever…
Cheers,
Simon
Kodak really scored a home run with this film! I’ve shot about three dozen rolls of it so far and it has become my favorite film.
The film or digital argument again? Bottom line for me is that film is more challenging. Being out on a hike with only so many rolls of film forces me to give more critical thought to things like composition, exposure, and depth of field. I actually like having to wait to see the result of my efforts, it forces me to practice patience. Plus, I just like the “film look”. That being said, I have to admit that digital definitely has its advantages, or it would not have become so popular.