Old 02-19-2019   #41
J enea
Registered User
 
J enea is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 159
i have 4 rolls of plus-x left, but 220 rolls. so i am hoping for
1) any film in 220
2) plus x
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2019   #42
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by J enea View Post
i have 4 rolls of plus-x left, but 220 rolls. so i am hoping for
1) any film in 220
We should remain realistic: 220 is dead. And it will remain dead.
The market is too small, and the production too expensive. The manufacturers have explained that several times: 220 would cost more than double than 120. And at that price only a tiny amount of people would buy it (resulting in even higher prices to be profitable).
In the past the market for 220 film was mainly driven by fashion photographers. Most of the demand came from them, and not from the amateurs/enthusiasts.
But the enthusiasts are now the major market for medium format film. And they prefer format 120. They don't have to shoot lots of rolls "in a hurry" like professional fashion photographers.

Some time ago on APUG one of the former CEOs of Ilford (Simon Galley) has explained all that in a very detailed way. Ilford e.g. would have to invest in a complete new machine for 220 converting. This investment would even further increase the price.

For those who want more shots and shorter reloading times the best way is to use 4.5x6 format (more shots per roll) and cameras with changeable film magazines: So you can load several magazines with film and then you just have to change the magazine in a shooting, which is very quick.
The classic case in fashion photography for example.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2019   #43
JPSuisse
Registered User
 
JPSuisse's Avatar
 
JPSuisse is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 431
Jan, thanks for posting that article. I am finding that this film group here in my absence has become a bit defensive. Many threads start with "stay out if you are not a film fan," etc.

I have one role of Plus-X left. Made me quite excited to see that a re-introduction of that looks like it has a chance. I bought some P3200 last week to test that.

I have been lost since Neopan 1600 (@ 650) and Plus-X were canceled. Literally I stopped shooting as the only other film I had that I got good results from was Pan F, and shooting only an ISO 50 film just is to restrictive.

For us with low competencies in dialing in development processes, we need some stability in the film market. I played with quite a few films and developers to try find a suitable alternative but couldn't.

Let's see, at least I like what I am hearing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2019   #44
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 6,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPSuisse View Post

I have been lost since Neopan 1600 (@ 650) and Plus-X were canceled.
I was disappointed that these two films were discontinued, and doubly disappointed about losing Plus-X. I'll take this opportunity to encourage Kodak to re-introduce Plus-X. I'll buy it, and I'll shoot it! Hope Kodak reads this.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #45
Ste_S
Registered User
 
Ste_S is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 203
Rather than more B&W from Kodak (I'm perfectly happy with Tri-X and TMax) I'd like some more C41, especially higher speed. I'd like Ektar in 400ISO and for Kodak to take back the 800ISO consumer film in house that they sell to Lomography.

For Fuji of course we need the B&W back
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #46
telenous
Registered User
 
telenous is online now
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,579
It makes sense to bring back Plus-X. Not only was it an absolutely beautiful film but it also allowed for small exposure inaccuracies, par for the course when using older mechanical cameras. Kodak TMax 100 can be very nice too but it does benefit a lot more than Plus-x from AE exposure.

Kodak, just do it. We want Plus-x back.

.
__________________
- Alkis

flickr
instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #47
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,105
Looking at it having recently stopped shooting film, there aren’t many holes in the Kodak product line.

In C41 there is Ektar 100 and then Portra 160/400/800. Replacing Portra 800 with a 1600/3200 version would fill a hole (400 handles 800 well enough), and maybe adding a 400 Ektar might make sense.
In BW there is TMax 100/400/3200 and Tri-X 320/400. A slow speed traditional grain film could fit in.
In E6, a 400 speed slide film would be nice.

With two more colour films; 400 Ektar and 400 E6, and one more BW film; 100 Tri-X style film the range would have virtually no holes. I don’t think Ilford has any holes in their lineup.

Of all those, only one would get me back into film, a 400 E6. If they released that I’d buy another film camera.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #48
telenous
Registered User
 
telenous is online now
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,579
A faster Ektachrome, e.g. 200 or 400 would be very interesting, no doubt about that.
__________________
- Alkis

flickr
instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #49
ka7197
Registered User
 
ka7197 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
In the past the market for 220 film was mainly driven by fashion photographers. [...] For those who want more shots and shorter reloading times the best way is to use 4.5 ◊ 6 format (more shots per roll) and cameras with changeable film magazines ...
When I have to shoot so much and so fast that frequent re-loading would become a nuisance then I won't use medium-format film in the first placeóbut 35-mm film, or better yet, digital.

My medium-format camera is for contemplative work and for that, 120 film is just fine. So, while I'd appreciate the resurrection of 220 film (my camera can use it), I probably wouldn't buy it ... I definitely wouldn't buy it when one roll of 220 was more than two rolls of 120.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #50
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 907
I'd say Portra 400 modified would do an Ektar 400, they both share the Vision 3 tech but portra is much more tame... and did away with the NC/VC duality. Given the market, rationalizing both films into one was what they pursued.

A 400 E6 would be interesting, but given the R&D difficulties it may be quite a stretch to modify from E100.

It's interesting how they want to bring TMZ and E100 into 120, the former never existed in medium format even back on the heyday of film.

Something like HIE and EIR would be fun but an R&D strech for a niche.

Fuji let's see, positive voices say that the price increase is to help sustain the smaller production.

I'd love to see 220 again, as makes the Fuji 6x9 16 exposures. Great for travel. Got a frozen pack of 160NS 220 I got fresh. The last remaining in 220 together with Velvia 100. I guess Fuji's 220 machines are long gone, and the order of discontinuance was just from stock. kodak did some 220 up to 2014 and it was more than twice 120 in price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #51
webOSUser
Registered User
 
webOSUser's Avatar
 
webOSUser is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 234
I would love to see Plus-X back. I miss it and Verichrome Pan the most.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #52
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by webOSUser View Post
I would love to see Plus-X back. I miss it and Verichrome Pan the most.
I vote for Verichrome Pan.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #53
maigo
Registered User
 
maigo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 298
220 on an annual order basis from Ilford or Kodak would be gratefully accepted by the film community. Even if it is more than twice the price of 120 it is very useful for travel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
---------------------------------
My Flickr Photostream
My Flickr Albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #54
webOSUser
Registered User
 
webOSUser's Avatar
 
webOSUser is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 234
As long as it is available in both 35mm and 120, I would be happy with Plus X or Verichrome Pan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
I vote for Verichrome Pan.

Last edited by webOSUser : 03-15-2019 at 08:27. Reason: Making post clearer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #55
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,680
I can't see Kodak resurrecting Verichrome Pan. It was never available in 135.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #56
pschauss
Registered User
 
pschauss is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 578
+1 on Plus-X (I can dream). I am still working my way through a 100' roll (expired 1976) which I bought from someone on Photrio last summer. Remarkably, I do get printable images from it.
__________________
- Peter Schauss
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #57
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,761
I'm sure Kodak Alaris is looking forward to Fuji's price increase. With a 30% increase, we're about to find out the price elasticity of demand for Fuji films.

Also, I vote bring Verichrome back. Plus-X and PXP have been supplanted by other Kodak films in terms of function. Verichrome is a different animal, and a forgiving b/w film would be a great entree for budding film photographers.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #58
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
I vote for Verichrome Pan.
Wouldn't that be amazing? And a good one to consider as it is a) medium speed b) has great latitude and c) has insane keeping properties both exposed and unexposed.

It was made in 110 and 126, so seems like 35mm could be possible. That would be a hoot - re-introduce a film in a new format!
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #59
miha
Registered User
 
miha is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 97
This one for me:

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #60
bhop73
Registered User
 
bhop73's Avatar
 
bhop73 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Fujifilm's new marketing effort is a good step. Now if they would just stop discontinuing films. Not sure what films Kodak is considering reviving. Haven't heard much about the new Ektachrome since its roll out. Has everyone now shot their one roll out of curiosity and gone back to whatever they were shooting before?
I did that, (only two rolls) but mostly just because of the price. I don't project my photos, just scan them, so slides, while they look cool, just don't make much financial sense for me since it's harder to scan than negatives.
__________________
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #61
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
We should remain realistic: 220 is dead. And it will remain dead.
The market is too small, and the production too expensive. The manufacturers have explained that several times: 220 would cost more than double than 120. And at that price only a tiny amount of people would buy it (resulting in even higher prices to be profitable).
In the past the market for 220 film was mainly driven by fashion photographers. Most of the demand came from them, and not from the amateurs/enthusiasts.
But the enthusiasts are now the major market for medium format film. And they prefer format 120. They don't have to shoot lots of rolls "in a hurry" like professional fashion photographers.

Some time ago on APUG one of the former CEOs of Ilford (Simon Galley) has explained all that in a very detailed way. Ilford e.g. would have to invest in a complete new machine for 220 converting. This investment would even further increase the price.

For those who want more shots and shorter reloading times the best way is to use 4.5x6 format (more shots per roll) and cameras with changeable film magazines: So you can load several magazines with film and then you just have to change the magazine in a shooting, which is very quick.
The classic case in fashion photography for example.
Spot on regarding the reason why 220 will never come back. I know that I wouldn't buy it for one. I remember it being easily available a decade ago when I was in my early 20s and I didn't buy it back then exactly for the reason that it was more expensive than twice the price of 120 both for the film itself and processing. Also, I always had this (purely speculative) idea that 220 might be more prone to scratches from the pressure plate due to the lack of backing paper.

As for the use of 120 for fashion shoots, it's true that it can become a little bit of a nuisance. I shoot almost exclusively on medium format (especially for fashion shoots) and having to change every 10 shots with 6x7 is a nuisance even with multiple backs because you still have to put the darkslide in and change the backs which can interrupt the flow. However, in the long run it would still be cheaper to just have two identical cameras on hand and just switch cameras when one is full. One can always make due. Heck, there are even current fashion photographers who use 4x5.

Fun fact: A friend of mine works for one of the leading contemporary fashion photographers who only uses film and apparently on a day's shoot they will usually use around 150 rolls (6x7) which I actually think is not that much seeing that those are high budget shoots.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2019   #62
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 907
For Kodak, 220 would have avoided the imprinting issues on the film as it doesn't have the continuous backing paper. If it wasn't proposed to do a run of it back then, now it won't. The same issue of paper backing sourcing is still there, and according to Simon Galley, it was expensive. Ilford would be doing 220 if it weren't for them not having a functional machine, and it did not make financial sense to set it up again.


Can dream a bit however. Ferrania stated that they had a machine, but the early state of the enterprise means it's far from a priority. It would be up to someone partnering and setting up an occasional batch of 220.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:26.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.