PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Comeback, Quick Read



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Roger Cole
03-22-2012, 06:50 PM
Uh, well - they might get a separate revenue line from the processing, if they didn't just farm it out to Dwayne's!

clayne
03-22-2012, 07:03 PM
Not even sure if it's worth it at this point, but perhaps let me to try explain my post with the discussion of the ADOX film in it.
I have almost always bought Kodak whenever they had what I wanted, ever since my Dad gave me an X-700 for my first camera. Like you, I also feel - and hopefully always will - that Kodak film/chem products are the finest quality in the world.
My post was not to say they should do everything like ADOX. Far from it. My statement was that ADOX is already manufacturing film in this manner, and if they can do it - Kodak certainly has (perhaps had) the R&D knowledge and muscle to figure out how to do this as well. Now, whether they want to - that is a different question altogether. Some of us are very excited that at least someone in the company "gets it".

Lastly, a bit of an aside, but it is truth - what film has Kodak to compare to CMS20 that I may purchase instead? It is non-existent. I have done the tests myself. TMax100 does not hold a candle, if what you want is enlargement capability from a small piece of film.

Why would one consider CMS20 to be some pinnacle of excellence that no other film can approach? It's a special purpose film. I could argue curves, latitude and a bunch of other mumbo-jumbo for other emulsions that are not CMS20. I'm pointing it out because I think it's a dumb and simple comparison to try and compare Tmax100 against CMS20. Different beasts, different usages.

Sirius Glass
03-22-2012, 07:44 PM
Can't we all just get a Bong?



Hey, is this stuff [Read: single emulsion coat Kodachrome] legal?

Steve Smith
03-22-2012, 08:02 PM
Hey, is this stuff [Read: single emulsion coat Kodachrome] legal?

What on earth is single emulsion coat Kodachrome?

Sounds about as viable as a tin of striped paint.


Steve.

Ken Nadvornick
03-22-2012, 08:05 PM
Hell, we're on a roll! We've already got purchase commitments for $1,500 in 8x10 Kodachrome, and requests for several other discontinued products.

No demands yet for Super-XX though. C'mon, I know you guys are out there...

:cool:

Ken

Sirius Glass
03-22-2012, 08:16 PM
What on earth is single emulsion coat Kodachrome?

Sounds about as viable as a tin of striped paint.


Steve.

I agree. We are on the same page.

I put it on par with screen doors in submarines.

also Steve

georg16nik
03-22-2012, 08:23 PM
What on earth is single emulsion coat Kodachrome?
Steve.
Kodachrome made in China :D

Thomas Bertilsson
03-22-2012, 08:34 PM
Hell, we're on a roll! We've already got purchase commitments for $1,500 in 8x10 Kodachrome, and requests for several other discontinued products.

No demands yet for Super-XX though. C'mon, I know you guys are out there...

:cool:

Ken

My gast is still flabbering that nobody mentioned Panatomic-X yet.

David Brown
03-22-2012, 08:46 PM
My gast is still flabbering that nobody mentioned Panatomic-X yet.

Dang! I was just about to ...

Ken Nadvornick
03-22-2012, 08:58 PM
My gast is still flabbering that nobody mentioned Panatomic-X yet.

I've got most of an ancient 100-foot bulk roll in the fridge. Expiration date is right around the Cuban Missile Crisis, I believe. I did once roll a 6-frame short cartridge, just for fun. Dug up a matching dev time recommendation from the same period for D-76. Guess what? It came out very nice. A little edge fogging, but nothing in the business portion of the frame.

This stuff will probably still be usable in a hundred years...

Ken

eddie
03-22-2012, 09:10 PM
As much as I'd like to see some of the wishes posted here come true (especially Pan-X), I've often wondered (if, indeed, Kodak is committed to film) why they don't have a presence here, on APUG. Talk about the target market... If a Kodak rep was as accessible as Mr. Galley is for Ilford, we wouldn't need to speculate. Seems like a no-brainer, to me. One of the reasons I'm using more Ilford products than in the past is Simon's presence here. His participation speaks volumes about Ilford's commitment, and the increasing loyalty I have for Ilford products.

nickrapak
03-22-2012, 09:16 PM
Hell, we're on a roll! We've already got purchase commitments for $1,500 in 8x10 Kodachrome...

Ken,

Don't you mean on a sheet?:p

EASmithV
03-22-2012, 09:27 PM
Even if they just brought back Kodachrome processing... There's plenty of Kodachrome in freezers around the world which is still quite shootable, and I myself have a few rolls I forgot to shoot, sitting in the freezer all forlorn like.

Roger Cole
03-22-2012, 10:08 PM
My gast is still flabbering that nobody mentioned Panatomic-X yet.

It was mentioned on the very first page, post #5:

http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1319756

I'm not sure what's so great about it. I shot a roll or two in the early 80s but it was always so slow it wasn't that practical for me. Is it better than, say, Pan F+? Better than TMX to make its being 1-2/3s stops slower worth the sacrifice?

RidingWaves
03-22-2012, 10:13 PM
I think a 'duh' film for me to bring back would be TXP 320. Its still being made as a sheet film so the formula is current (not like the Panatomic-X which has Cadmium).
Put 1000 rolls up in 220 and I'm certain it would sell out.

Roger Cole
03-22-2012, 10:16 PM
Heck, put ANY decent black and white film up in 220 at a competitive price (slightly under 2x the price of the same film in 120) and it will sell.

mopar_guy
03-22-2012, 10:20 PM
I think a 'duh' film for me to bring back would be TXP 320. Its still being made as a sheet film so the formula is current (not like the Panatomic-X which has Cadmium).
Put 1000 rolls up in 220 and I'm certain it would sell out.

I've herd that argument before but I've also heard that Kodak didn't use Cadmium in ANYTHING after the early 1970's.:munch:

RidingWaves
03-22-2012, 10:23 PM
I think a 'duh' film for me to bring back would be TXP 320. Its still being made as a sheet film so the formula is current (not like the Panatomic-X which has Cadmium).
Put 1000 rolls up in 220 and I'm certain it would sell out.

Jedidiah Smith
03-22-2012, 11:17 PM
Why would one consider CMS20 to be some pinnacle of excellence that no other film can approach? It's a special purpose film...I think it's a dumb and simple comparison to try and compare Tmax100 against CMS20. Different beasts, different usages.

Well, obviously more people think like you than me, and as a result Kodak no longer makes Tech Pan. Not trying to start much ado about nothing here, because TMax is good for what it is. 5x the ISO for about 2.5x the grain is a good tradeoff for most. I did not say CMS20 was unapproachable, what I said was that Kodak no longer makes anything that can compete.
Why would I get the notion to compare TMax 100 to CMS20? Pretty simple. It's the highest resolution/ finest grain B&W film Kodak sells. I like Kodak and always have. I would use their product over anyone else's if it worked for my application.
Unfortunately, if you look at even a 16x20 print side by side of the two emulsions, the difference is obvious. At 20x30, it is striking.

I'm not saying any of this to dis Kodak and extol the virtues of ADOX. I happen to like Kodak, and my heart is with all their good folks who gave us so many awesome materials...only to be screwed in the end by the incompetence of the company's top brass. Those bleeps lined their pockets with millions while gutting the company, and it is today a shell of what it could have been in 2012. Hence this thread...

Roger Cole
03-22-2012, 11:54 PM
The difference might be substantial in a 20x30 print but probably only from 35mm. If you want to print 20x30 you don't need a sharper, finer grained and painfully slow film (which will also do nothing for your lens that will be sorely tested) - you need a bigger negative.

I think that's why Tech Pan is gone - TMX in 35mm is good enough that the limiting factors become other than film - to get the most from it you must lock your mirror up (if using an SLR- could also use a rangefinder of course) and shoot off a tripod AND have a superb lens, and you still have the tonality and spectral response to deal with. And if you are going to shoot off a sturdy tripod anyway you might as well use a camera big enough for the job, especially now that they are affordable.