On 2008-10-17 03:04:04 -0400, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) said:

wrote:

For those of us with Oldtimerz, thankfully I have files going back to
the mid-90s, where old film notes still lurk.

That makes you a "teenager" by most of our standards. Old enough to remember
when film was still the only way to go, but too young to remember it at
it's peak.

You're probably too young to remember the days you could walk into a
drugstore and pick the film you wanted based on grain, contrast, and speed.
A well stocked camera store could literally have 10 or more different
black and white films each with its own "look".


The high grain CN film that superceded Ektar was called Royal Gold. It
was pricy and came in ISOs of 25, 100, 400 and 1000 (maybe 200, too).
I shot it when I could afford it.

Royal Gold was just another color film, which incorporated "Ektar technology"
but was nothing like it. If Ektar had the look of Kodachrome, Royal Gold
had the look of Kodacolor. Ektar came in 25,100 and 1000 (or something like
that, I havent' had my coffee yet), but the 25 was "special". It was the
designed to be the closest thing to Kodachrome 25 in a negative film.
IMHO it was the closest film made to K25 ever made.

Geoff.

I agree with you. Ektar was the finest print film I've ever used. I
still can't decide if Kodachrome 25 (first called Kodachrome II) was a
step up or a step down from the venerable ASA 10 Kodachrome.
--
Michael