Kodak Portra 400 Film Made Exclusively for Scanning -- Not Printing

I still have a small pile of Kodachrome 64 in the freezer to finish before the end of the year, but I look forward to trying this afterwards.

Thank God Kodak didn't give up on film! :) I'm a photographer, but I wouldn't dream of shooting a wedding, or any formal portraits, with a digital camera. I don't care what anybody says--digital cameras do NOT produce the same high quality photos as a 35mm camera with Kodak film. (sorry, Fugi, but I won't shoot photos of my neighbor's dog with your film--for me, it's Kodak all the way) I sincerely believe that digital cameras are nothing but expensive electronic toys...partial proof being that if digital cameras are so great, why do they make a computer program designed to make those digital photos LOOK as though they were shot on film? Sadly, with the 21st Century being so co-dependant on computers, many people fell for the hype, and now seem to believe (or try to convince themselves?) that their digital cameras are better...but a true photographer knows that this is false information force fed to us by the people who make computers and digital cameras. If my only option was to shoot paid jobs with a digital camera, I'd quit the business, because I will maintain my stand until the day I die; digital cameras are for children...real photographic artists know that the only way to preserve their art is to shoot on film. Anybody who tries to convince you otherwise is either lying to you, or to themselves. Those of us who truly care about our photos will only use film--so Kodak, God bless you for allowing us to continue to do so! :)

I used to love film prints submitting them to fotomart or equal and waiting for the surprise of what I shot.
The digital instant stuff today for me just isnt the same. Its like I lost a comfort blanket. I like to touch and feel my prints and somehow having them in virtual wotld has lost majic. Both is good, even the old polaroid has a place today. These new guys have lost something and no idea the fun of the feelings the film brought.

Finally !! I thought I was the last person left still shooting 35mm. I constantly argue my love for my old Nikons and nice selection of lenses. There is a real art to shooting b&w 35mm, with various filters and different lenses that is lost in the simplicity of a high tech digital camera. Thanks Kodak.

Having grown up in the shadow of Kodak in Rochester, it's encouraging to see that Kodak products still have relevance in today's confused world. I too feel that pictures developed from film remain superior to those generated by even the finest Nikon/Canon DSLR's and large format digital cameras available today. Porta 400 however seems to be a bit transitional and might have a limited lifespan. To me it seems to point out that the weak link between a perfect (chemically processed) picture and a less than perfect digital copy of that same picture lies in the digital camera's sensor versus that piece of celluloid behind the lens of a film camera. Porta 400 images shot with conventional film cameras will be chemically processed and then enter the digital world similar to digitally generated images. They will be scanned by a high resolution scanner to produce a digital image likely many megabytes larger that something produced by a digital camera, processed on a computer, and printed on a high end digital printer. Will the end product match the quality of a traditional photograph? For some, probably not. But digital camera sensors and processing power continue to evolve and at some point they will likely be able to produce the same image quality as a scanned Porta 400 image. When that happens Porta 400 will no longer be relevant. I hope is anticipating that eventuality.

Well,well......I too am a 'real photgrapher'. I have been shooting 35mm and 4x5 view cameras for 40 years.....(You know where it has to come out of the camera Right the 1st time...called composition) I also owned a photo lab and specialized in 'chrome' processing and printing (Fuji supergloss).
If you have never seen 'chrome prints' on supergloss you have no idea of what you are missing. I have hundreds of prints in 16x20 and 24x24 that would knock you socks off. It is interesting to me that Kopda's new film is designed for scanning to produce digital prints which are a joke compared to chrome printing. Get out to a galary if you can find one and see some chrome prints....which by the way are no longer available because Fuji and Kodak quit making chemistry and print materials. Oh and if you hung up a digital print of....say you kidds graduation and it has been there awhile tell me this stuff can hold a candle to even print film prints not to mention chrome which blows it out of the water.

Of course, film is superior in almost every way. Digital photography is just a passing fad with hardly any manufacturers left that produce the "cameras" or the electronic memory for them. Some of us (who know what quality is) can tell that grammophone records actually have a higher tonal quality than any of those new-fangled 8-tracks (another fad). And unlike those cartridges, the gramophone still works if the electricty goes off.

WHATS FILM?

I have a Nikon N80 SLR which is of the autofocus genre.I bought it just before the digital cameras were developed to such a fine standard.I still enjoy the anticipation of seeing my prints after processing as opposed to the instant gratification that digital photography affords. It has been disheartening none the less,to see print film missing from the shelves of Walgreens,Walmart,Costco and other stores.
I am hoping that there will be a resurgence in 35mm print film to include all ISO's.
Kodak a name as easily recognizable as General Motors,Ford and IBM must not be lost to the ages.
It has been my observation that progress so often times negates that which took forever to build.

At the last word I had, digital photographs are not accepted as evidence in any court action. only film negatives and prints can be (or could be) introduced as evidence. In my line of work, occasionally I have to appear in court and only film and prints have been allowed because the negatives can't be messed with as can digital photos.

READ THE BOX! It's Portra, with two Rs, not Porta. Portra is a hallowed name in the Kodak product line as anyone who has any history in film photography knows.

I used to buy about a undred 36 exposure 35 mm roles a month. In the last 5yearsI havebought 3 rolls of film. I am now a big believer in digital. ,t allows me to delete photos less than perfect, and to see mistakes while I havetime to correct them' I njust have a feeling tha fuure historians will have tons of photos of 60,70,80,and early 90s, but little to show of 2000 and future. can't do developing room tricks with digital I used to with print film.

Film is still far superior to digital images. I have been telling my customers that all along. As a clasically trained Camera Repair Technician w/ over 30 years experience I am still repairing the major film cameras from 10/20/30 years ago.

Not too many actual camera repair guys out there anymore, and if you still want to use film in the future, you better still find a way to keep us busy !!!

ken strauss
K&S Camera Repair
364 W, Shaw
Fresno, Ca 93704
559 222 3686