Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,926   Posts: 1,556,805   Online: 943
      
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    True but it's close right? Just a difference in red sensivity, I suppose.
    More red sensitive and less blue sensitive, also faster with a different base and contrast. But still GREAT stuff. A common size is a 10x10 negative. Makes incredible prints IF YOU HAVE A 10X10 ENLARGER. The military used to and I have seen lots of HUGH prints from these negatives. They are wonderful but we are not looking for WMD here.

    The fact is Kodak loves brand loyal consumers. They find a name that they think is a winner and sell as may items under that name as possible. Even if the items are not similar at all. How may KODAK MAX items were there? Film at several speeds, batteries, etc.... Also Ektar are we talking old or new film? Maybe we are talking about a lens. Yes in the past there were may Ektar lenes.

    I love Kodak and their products but I think they are deceptive in the way they market their items. A top quality product deserves a unique name.
    Last edited by brianmquinn; 12-27-2011 at 09:55 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    670
    Also to drive home my point. Note that in the link that frobozz provided
    (#20 ) that there is more then one type of Plus-X listed.
    KODAK PLUS-X AERECON II Film 3404
    and
    KODAK PLUS-X AEROGRAPHIC Film 2402

  3. #23
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    Ansel Adams loved Plus X. Insert smiley face here.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama and Oxford, Alabama
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    453
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    I've never been much of a Kodak film shooter, but I still hate to see it go.

    What I worry about is the avaliability of the raw materials used to make film. When there's so little demand for some key components of roll film and sheet film (whatever componenets they may be), will the businesses that supply those components stop selling those componenets or even go out of business? What would happen to film then? We'd all go back to using glass plates and contact printing?

    I'm not sure if that's a valid concern or not, but in my (albeit very tired) mind, it seems so :\
    "I have captured the light and arrested its flight! The sun itself shall draw my pictures!"

    -Louis Daguerre, 1839-

  5. #25
    Wade D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jamul, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    884
    Images
    3
    It's sad to see an old friend go. I have been using Plus-X in 4x5 and 120 for 40+ years. I still have 5 4x5 boxes and a dozen 120 rolls in the freezer but they won't last long so I bought some Fuji Acros 100 in 120. I've been pleasantly surprised at how good it is.

  6. #26
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    I agree, any loss is one more blow to the analog community.

    In the early seventies I tried all that was available. My favorite was Panatomic-X, Ilford FP4 over Plus-X, Tri-X over Ilford HP-5.

    Of course Art Center and Brooks had me shooting Super XX. The developer was D76, a fairly straight forward approach. Straight or 1:1.

    I've used everything from Adox to Orwo in all speeds. The one quality I expect is consistency of quality. Kodak and Ilford speaks quality to me.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    996
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Also to drive home my point. Note that in the link that frobozz provided
    (#20 ) that there is more then one type of Plus-X listed.
    KODAK PLUS-X AERECON II Film 3404
    and
    KODAK PLUS-X AEROGRAPHIC Film 2402
    I'm not sure of the other differences, but one of the big differences between those two is the base thickness. Aerial film users love them some thin base, because then they can get much more film within the same roll diameter and weight constraints.

    Oh, and one of them has been officially discontinued, though it's probably still available out there in various distributors' stocks.

    Duncan

  8. #28
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by frobozz View Post
    Aerial film users love them some thin base
    True, but I'll just point out that I haven't had any issues using 5" panatomic x as 5x7" and 5x8" sheet film, despite the thinner base.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    996
    Images
    1
    I had a lot of trouble using it as 4x5, but I think that's because of the curl being in the bad direction that way, and the good direction when used your way. I need to try cutting my film the other way (cut off a 5" section, trim it down to 4" wide) to get the curl going the less disruptive direction, even though it wastes film.

    Duncan

  10. #30
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Yes, the curl is definitely in your favour for 5x7 and longer. I think Jim Galli uses it for 5x12 or 5x13 or something. It was he who allayed my fears about using it as sheet film.

    If it were possible to cut the aerial stuff to 220, that'd be very sweet. You could probably fit quite a few extra frames on a roll. I briefly worked on modifying an office shredder (!) to cut the 5" rolls to smaller sizes, but I just don't have enough time in my days...
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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