Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

[jgjbowen]

I just received a big shipment from Unique Photo in NJ. www.uniquephoto.com

I just checked and their website still lists it as in stock....

I have no affiliation with Unique Photo

[2F/2F]

Ah...This has been a bad past couple of years. I wish I had thousands of dollars to stockpile:

EPP
E100GX
TXP 120/220
Fuji Pro 800 120/220
Fuji T64 (and EPY, though I always preferred the Fuji)
Portra 100T
HIE (and also EIR)
Polaroid Type 665

Probably missed a few...but these are the ones I'll really feel the pain from.

[B&Wpositive]

Ah...This has been a bad past couple of years. I wish I had thousands of dollars to stockpile:

EPP
E100GX
TXP 120/220
Fuji Pro 800 120/220
Fuji T64 (and EPY, though I always preferred the Fuji)
Portra 100T
HIE (and also EIR)
Polaroid Type 665

Probably missed a few...but these are the ones I'll really feel the pain from.

What's with Fuji 800Z in 120/220? People are claiming it's discontinued. There's already a thread on it, so don't answer here.

[schlger]

That may be so, but with the rumors circulating around P3200, I have a feeling that this coating will be the last.

my current TMZ expires 2-2011

[dr5chrome]

PE;
I have devised a method of producing copy negs, internegs & dupes "without" image generation loss. Sometimes even enhancing but in all cases there is a 99% + retention without special film.

You are free to send me some images or call and ill share my findings,, on the house.

regards

dw





I am using a hybrid method to produce internegs in B&W, but I find that digital cannot replicate a color transparency or color negative with any degree of fidelity yet. So, duping is a real problem.

PE

[Photo Engineer]

PE;
I have devised a method of producing copy negs, internegs & dupes "without" image generation loss. Sometimes even enhancing but in all cases there is a 99% + retention without special film.

You are free to send me some images or call and ill share my findings,, on the house.

regards

dw

DW;

I know that this can be done by analog - analog methods (with normal losses predicted by mathematical models), but using analog - digital methods it is difficult to get the Dmax up there and get it black. The curve shape is right, but with normal equipment, the Dmax is wrong. Digital was designed for making reflection prints not color slides or color negatives.

Of course, you can do B&W via digital, but even there you must manipulate the curve a lot to get reasonable blacks in negatives. I have some fair B&W positives as well. Digital printing is not a good medium for making analog - digital or digital - digital transparency materials either negatives or positives, especially in color.

Thanks for your offer.

This is not the forum to discuss this topic.

PE

[dr5chrome]

your welcome.

Ill kindly ask you not post 'what you think I am doing'. :confused:

None of what you post here is what I am doing to produce.
If you would like to discuss it off-forum, feel free to contact.

I currently produce 99-100% without generation loss, copy, interpositive & dupe by optical 'or' through film-recorders. I produce them for several optical companies, photographic libraries & historical societies and photographers.
most of the work is B&W but we do get some color.

Outside our optical film output, filmrecorder output [if this is what you mean by 'digital printing'] is just an analog tool. Done correctly one can not tell a film output was made by a film recorder if the original came from a film image. You should know better than to say such a thing, and ill prove it to you if don't believe it.

If your talkin, digital negs from an inkjet.. yes, those are terrible.

regards.



DW;

I know that this can be done by analog - analog methods (with normal losses predicted by mathematical models), but using analog - digital methods it is difficult to get the Dmax up there and get it black. The curve shape is right, but with normal equipment, the Dmax is wrong. Digital was designed for making reflection prints not color slides or color negatives.

Of course, you can do B&W via digital, but even there you must manipulate the curve a lot to get reasonable blacks in negatives. I have some fair B&W positives as well. Digital printing is not a good medium for making analog - digital or digital - digital transparency materials either negatives or positives, especially in color.

Thanks for your offer.

This is not the forum to discuss this topic.

PE

[Photo Engineer]

Well, apparently we both misunderstood each other. So, I guess that makes us even. Sorry.

PE

[Tom Kershaw]

DW,


If your talkin, digital negs from an inkjet.. yes, those are terrible.

How then do you explain photographers such as Sandy King apparently achieving very good image reproduction utilizing inkjet negatives for carbon transfer and other alternative processes?

Tom

[fschifano]

I've never done anything with digitally produced inkjet negatives, so this is pure speculation. Could it be that he meant that inkjet negatives are terrible for making silver-gelatin enlargement prints? Carbon transfer is a very different process, and might just work fine.

[Photo Engineer]

My statement was that inkjet produces inferior color negatives and transparencies, IDK what others may think.

I think that inkjet can produce fine B&W negatives and fair B&W transparencies. It is a matter of the upper curve shape and shoulder (Dmax) that foils my efforts with color.

PE

[Tom Kershaw]

PE,

That makes sense. Perhaps it should be noted that inkjet negatives tend to be monochromatic for alternative process contact printing.

Tom