Talk:Ektachrome

Untitled

I was under the impression that minilabs could do E6; perhaps I'm wrong.

But am very much doubting the statement that Kodachrome is a better film than Ectachrome. Certainly Fujichrome is better than Kodachrome.

--Cjs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjs (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 July 2005

(reply) Edited this, it was biased content. No film can be listed as 'better' than any other, it is opinion rather than fact. Added an accurate process history to the article.

--deepblue79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepblue79 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 May 2006

Agree with deepblue79, films are made for different purposes, and assessing which are best, even for a particular purpose, is subjective.

I'm concerned about the "blurred the boundaries" comment in the article. I'm trying to guess what the writer meant. The developing processes are dissimilar in cost, availability, longevity, artistic result, etc. The digital revolution hasn't altered the advantages and drawbacks of each. Perhaps the writer meant the differences are increasingly becoming of academic importance?

Jacobin Marley 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jacobin[reply]

preservation issues

Can anyone talk of long term preservation issues with Ektachrome?

Thanks,

Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.65.191 (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2005

Jim, I'd defer to the Kodak Web site on this. Ektachrome is known to hold up better than Kodachrome when used in a slide projector, but worse when in storage. Since there aren't many slideshows with the physical slide film, these days, Ektachrome is in a worse situation than Kodachrome -- or indeed most Kodak films. Years ago, I heard 25 or 35 years for Ektachrome in storage, but the question now in the digital age is whether film over that period can be restored.

Very high budget restoration (For example, "The Wizard of Oz" film) seems to be concerned, not with decomposition, per se, but ability to reverse the aging process.

Jacobin Marley 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jacobin[reply]

Actually, Applied Science Fiction's DIGITAL ROC (Restoration Of Color) scanning software and Photoshop plug-in seems to reverse dye fade rather well. Kodak bought ASF back in about 2002 or so to acquire this technology, among others, in their portfolio. Discpad 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]

By the way, if anybody has any doubts about Kodachrome longevity, see Kodachrome comes through after 42 years to help solve JFK assassination! on Photo.Net... Discpad 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Dan[reply]

Ron Andrews's contributions

Since Ron, a retired Eastman Kodak engineer, is unfamiliar with Wikipedia markup, I transcribed his post on Photo.Net to the section on Ektachrome variants Discpad 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz[reply]

Lab listings

There should be no lab listings in this article. Most any lab can provide these services. ..Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.153.126 (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2007

Temperatures

I think the temperatures should be in celsius and not Fahrenheit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.91.236 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Commercial processors are calibrated in degrees F. Discpad 13:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe E-6 specifies 100F, which rounds to 38C. Most likely previous processing systems were specified in C. The traditional temperature for B&W film is 20C, which exactly equals 68F. Gah4 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ektachrome and entire transparency line completely discontinued?!

This edit- which was there until I removed it- asserts that Ektachrome is "now discontinued" presumably because it also (later) asserts that "In December 2012 Kodak announced its discontiuance of Color Reversal Movie Film [6]. Thus, after 77 years (1935-2012) Kodak no longer manufactures any Color Reversal Film (aka: "Slide Film" and "Film for Color Transparencies")."

The problem is that the referenced document only asserts that a *particular* version of Ektachrome in *certain* *motion picture* (not still) formats is discontinued. Nothing more than that.

Given that this was added at the start of this year by a random editor and the article has had no major edits since, and I've not heard about this elsewhere, I'm not prepared to leave this in unless there's clear and reliable evidence to support the assertions (that the editor's *own* reference doesn't give).

My gut reaction is that this person has misread this and jumped to conclusions. Of course, if this was Kodak's last transparency product then, in effect, it would be correct, but it's up to the editor to cite that, too.

79.70.195.34 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Kodak and their response time promises 48 hrs. I said they may provide input on this talk page or directly to me. If someone from Kodak shows up here then just click the edit button at the top right of this section and enter your text at the bottom. You can paste urls here as well. Just hit save and we can fix any format problems if it looks funny.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They emailed back within the 48hrs and told me to contact a different company. I couldn't be bothered.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK THIS: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2156493/kodak-discontinues-colour-reversal-films http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58490 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.160.110 (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

It seems that the article has been converted to past tense, but is that necessary?

It seems to imply that Kodak no longer owns the trademark for Ektachrome, is that true?

It seems to imply that it isn't possible to process Ektachrome, though as I understand it the E6 chemicals are not discontinued, and the rolls in my freezer could still be processed in those chemicals.

An indication that it is no longer in production seems reasonable, but putting everything in past tense seems, to me, too much. Gah4 (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-6 processing is still widely available. Film using such processing is still in production, and is not looking like it'll go away soon. I seem to recall it's possible to do it at home, if you have a proper darkroom. K-14 process, OTOH, not so much. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

127 size

Noting availability of Ektachrome in 127 size via New York Times, "A Small Rollieflex", March 24, 1957. For when someone adds all the different historic types of Ektachrome films to this page.

-- John Shriver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.206.21 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was

Does Kodak not own the Ektachrome brand name anymore? Gah4 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Ektachrome trademark now owned by KodakAlaris? Should the page be updated to reflect the new name? Gah4 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Variants

What's currently in the variants section are only different Ektachrome processes to develop different types of Ektachrome. What's missing: I came here to find out about the differences between Ektachrome 100, Ektachrome 100 VS ("Vivid Saturation", as I've found out now via googling), Ektachrome VPP, Ektachrome EPY, Ektachrome 100 HC, Ektachrome SW, Ektachrome P, Ektachrome 100 G ("Fine Grain"), Ektachrome 100 D, Ektachrome 100 GX, Ektachrome 100 S, and Elitechrome. --2003:48:2E4C:B155:7057:6D5E:E590:EC3F (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done some research on at least the highly saturated line of Ektachromes since the 90s. When Kodak axed Kodachrome around 2006, they originally recommended E100 VS ("Very Saturated") as its replacement in 35mm slide films, only available as 100ASA, which originally was a re-branding of Ektachrome Panther aka Kodak PRP (which had been available since circa the mid-90s, from 50 up to 1600ASA). When E aka Ektachrome films were then rebranded as Elitechrome, the highly saturated line was re-named Elitechrome ExtraColor aka Ektachrome EBX.

So, basically: Ektachrome Panther (PRP) --> E100 VS --> Elitechrome ExtraColor (EBX). It all seems to be the same film, originally created around the mid-90s. The first re-naming from Ektachrome Panther to E100 VS occurred circa 1998-2002, and then the second re-naming from E100 VS to Elitechrome ExtraColor occurred circa 2006-07. -2003:48:2E4C:B164:988C:1A89:87B2:EDB3 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ektachrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ektachrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

I understand KODAchrome and FUJIchrome names from me from company names. What is an Ekta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.144.134 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ektar says it was originally a name for Kodaks range of premium lenses and later became a generic Kodak term for 'premium' things. German wikipedia claims it was an acronym for Eastman Kodak TessAR. Probably similar to the i in iPhone.--92.201.234.215 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the EKta comes from Eastman Kodak, the actual name for the company. There was also an Ektacolor professional negative film. More recently the film was named Vericolor, which I don't know how to connect to the company name. And finally Portra, presumably because it is used for portraits. I don't know of a WP:RS for the name, though, but the company was Eastman Kodak. (As well as I know, they are now KodakAlaris.) Gah4 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]