Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,956   Posts: 1,522,886   Online: 1161
      
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 140
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    572
    Images
    1
    35mm 5222 is not very curly at all actually.

  2. #92

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    MA, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,236
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    I may need to pick up some BTZS 4x5 tubes for this film.

    I'll have to hang it with chip clips instead of regular clips.
    You could easily do this in a Jobo tank and run 6 sheets or more at once...

    Jobo used to make 3594 sheet film hangers with a small pin punch, long discontinued, but sometimes comes up on the auction site...
    CatLABS of JP
    Darkroom resources and service

    www.catlabs.info | https://www.facebook.com/CatLABS.of.JP | www.jobo-usa.com

  3. #93
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    713
    The profit to Kodak Alaris from this scheme, even at $6 a sheet, would be insignificant to their bottom line. The loss (if any) at $1 a sheet would be equally insignificant. If Kodak Alaris is really looking for something new to preserve their business then special order formats could be a way forward and good PR into the bargain. If I were the CEO I'd say cut, package, and sell at $1 a sheet as a trial run so all the expenses, technical difficulties, and logistics problems become well understood (instead of guessed at) and with realistic cost projections to cover future special orders.

    As for expensive quality control forget it. Call the product a beta version and insist the end user deals with all the joys and sorrows.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  4. #94
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    967
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    As for expensive quality control forget it. Call the product a beta version and insist the end user deals with all the joys and sorrows.
    Do you seriously think that will work Maris? How many posts have you read on this forum whining about the quality control of some film or another? You are starting to sound a bit like software engineer. "Get it out quick. We can always fix it later."

    If I were going to put out a limited run of film I think I would want to go the other way. Charge more and do everything possible to ensure it is as good as my normal product. I think their good name is worth at least that much.

    But to each his own.

  5. #95
    smithdoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Clovis CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    125
    StoneNYC


    I can see why you like Double-X would like it too. It is just the price if I did photography for a living I would buy that film.
    Most of what a shot was TRI X and HP 5. If I had the money today I would buy it even at $300.00 a box.

    Keep up the good work & Godo luck
    Dave

  6. #96
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223
    Update, spoke to Keith today, only 18 more boxes need to be paid for to make this a go... Yes!
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #97
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Guys it's 300$ a box. XX is not a notable enough film beyond Tri-X/Tmax to pay 3-4 times the cost for an experimental product.

    If it were something like APX25, PanF, Panatomic-X, TMZ etc. (all films no longer or never available in 4x5) that might be a different story, but XX is a middle of the road film not really containing the type of "character" that warrants such a cost. I guess my point behind this is that even though something *novel* can be done if enough money is involved - perhaps it's a bit better to be putting that money towards existing products that deserve it.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #98
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223

    Special order Eastman Double-X in 4x5 sheet.

    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Guys it's 300$ a box. XX is not a notable enough film beyond Tri-X/Tmax to pay 3-4 times the cost for an experimental product.

    If it were something like APX25, PanF, Panatomic-X, TMZ etc. (all films no longer or never available in 4x5) that might be a different story, but XX is a middle of the road film not really containing the type of "character" that warrants such a cost. I guess my point behind this is that even though something *novel* can be done if enough money is involved - perhaps it's a bit better to be putting that money towards existing products that deserve it.
    That's your opinion.

    And trust me, the movie industry doesn't use "middle of the road" film, period, they only settle for the best, which is why it's still around as the last B&W movie film available.

    Anyway you have no interest, that's fine, it's happening anyway.

    I do agree however that PanF+ in sheet would be pretty awesome.
    Last edited by StoneNYC; 01-09-2014 at 02:41 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,489
    If someone wants the look and can put up the money ... All kinds of film remnants of this or that have been sliced up into all kinds of things
    over the years. But a true sheet film this ain't. It's not a resurrection of Super XX sheet film, which some people would probably pay a lot for
    in even larger sizes. This is thin movie film, simply slit into 4x5. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, but just reinforcing the fact that it is not what people using view cameras once identified as Super XX, and that there is more risk of it not staying flat in the holders. But in terms of the "real" Super-XX, it would do all kinds of things utterly impossible to something like TriX. There is nothing currently equivalent on the market in terms of a thick-emulsion, straight-line film capable of serious expansion without sacrificing its linearity. Commercially, TMY400 is the market replacement, the new standard. But Super XX bore that flag for decades. The movie film is a completely
    different product, and is apparently being courted for its own look.

  10. #100
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    If someone wants the look and can put up the money ... All kinds of film remnants of this or that have been sliced up into all kinds of things
    over the years. But a true sheet film this ain't. It's not a resurrection of Super XX sheet film, which some people would probably pay a lot for
    in even larger sizes. This is thin movie film, simply slit into 4x5. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, but just reinforcing the fact that it is not what people using view cameras once identified as Super XX, and that there is more risk of it not staying flat in the holders. But in terms of the "real" Super-XX, it would do all kinds of things utterly impossible to something like TriX. There is nothing currently equivalent on the market in terms of a thick-emulsion, straight-line film capable of serious expansion without sacrificing its linearity. Commercially, TMY400 is the market replacement, the new standard. But Super XX bore that flag for decades. The movie film is a completely
    different product, and is apparently being courted for its own look.
    No this is Double-X... Haha

    Drew, contact Rapakpan and buy a roll or two and try it, you of all people love to know things, aren't you dying to know what all the fuss is about? Just try some! Hurry before the sheet buying ends (you of all people both have the money, and would pay I think if you could see what it's capable of).

    Respectfully,

    ~Stone
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin