Yeah, it was, at least the later version that worked well. And while I'd like to have it in FB, ANY paper that makes a really good print with normal tones from a color negative would be welcome.
Today I got a roll of portra 400. Hey, to celebrate that everything is good. Very small contribution, but it adds up.
Let Kodak Alaris settle around.
They own the Harrow plant, and that is great for paper. Making B&W paper in there could be probable.
As of the film portfolio, right now it's excellent. Lacks E6, if it would be doable to make small quantities of E100G there is a quite good range there.
I'll be buying 10 rolls or so of Porta 400 for the very same reason later this week.
Originally Posted by Prest_400
Wait, so who is Alaris and what is the Kodak Pension Plan (does it mean something else, or is it literally a pension plan?)?
I just discovered Portra 160/400/800, I can't have that disappear on me
As part of the Eastman Kodak bankruptcy process, the Bankruptcy trustee settled the claim of the Kodak Limited (aka UK Kodak) pensioners plan by transferring the UK paper manufacturing facility along with the right to market Kodak still film and paper and business scanning businesses to a separate entity incorporated by that plan (under the name Kodak Alaris) for the purpose. The pension plan also sent several hundred million to the trustee.
Originally Posted by GarageBoy
Eastman Kodak will continue to manufacture the still and motion picture film in Rochester, at least for the foreseeable future.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
hope it works out for them !
i have a feeling papers won't be back anytime soon
seeing K ditched their paper concerns 10 years ago ..
even if it was only tri x they made in a handful of sizes,
that would be nice .. but 200$ a box of 4x5 sheets is a little
too rich for my blood, even if it is xxx ...
In reference to the above post, Kodak's B&W film pricing is way out of line IMO. Is Kodak film 30% better than Ilford? I can't see how.
Some of you seem to be unaware that inflation is a fact of life if someone is going to stay in business. Constant film wars, with broad lines of
redundant products, kept popular film pricing artificially low at one time. All kinds of raw materials have gone up since then, and eventually
manufacturers have to retool and modernize their equipment. Those manufacturers who didn't have that kind of profit reserve are now gone,
and we lost a lot of good films and papers. Do I like spending $150 for ten sheets of 8x10 color film, plus the cost of processing. No. But I'd
rather take one good shot with an ideal film for my purposes than twenty so-so ones. When funds run low, I switch to 4x5, or simply shoot
black and white more often, or maybe film a deal on film pricing somewhere. Just how many damn shots do you need anyway. I figure I have
time only to print a small percentage of what I take. Kodak films are absolutely top-notch, and so are Ilford's. But I have little patience for
Not sure if you are referring to me, but I'm not whining. Tri-X 4x5 is $172 for 100 or HP5 is $115. You do the math.
I pick the film best suited to the application and output media. All these films have different specific personalities. Paying a little more up front is still a lot more cost effective than wasting several more sheets of paper, or getting compromised results, when one gets down to actually printing it. You do the math.