Old 01-10-2017   #41
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Murphy View Post
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
This is the problem of modern times. Rich and knowledgeable guys are too rich to be bothered to make some extra money and we stupid and poor guys are, well, too stupid to know how to make money.

Sometimes there is a poor guy that is not so stupid, only to find out there are not enough rich guys to make money on them.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #42
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Murphy View Post
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
The point is that Kodak never packaged it into a ready-made kit - it always needed a chemist on stand-by. On the other hand, that it has much of its complexity in the lab rather than in the film makes Kodachrome a better candidate for a very low volume survival/revival of colour films than E6/C41, if these should ever drop out of the minimum required volume.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #43
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,061
I think the date of this message is wrong. Isn't it supposed to be April 1?
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #44
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Because I'm tired of old farts talking about Kodachrome.

"Do you remember the Model T Ford? That was a REAL car. Too bad Ford stopped making those. Nothing drove like a Model T Ford. Only real drivers appreciated the Model T ford. So Ford introduced new models for 2017? They should bring back the Model T! The Model T is was what everybody really wants to drive! No other car can compare to a Model T. Too bad the government outlawed the chemicals used in making Model T Fords. Too much regulation in the auto industry. Why can't Ford just make the car everybody wants? The Model T Ford!"

It's not the company or the product, it's that ever since Kodak discontinued Kodachrome, because nobody was buying the stuff, there has been a group of people who won't stop talking about how it was the greatest thing on earth, and how Kodak needs to bring it back, even though nobody was buying the stuff.

I miss Plus-X too, but eventually I shut up about it being dead. It's dead. Get over it and move on. And even then, bringing back plus-X would still make far more sense than bringing back Kodachrome, which was essentially dead in the water years before they finally axed it.

Now could they make an E-6 film that mimics Kodachrome and call it Kodachrome? Possibly. But then I'm sure we'd hear old farts complaining about that too.
Exactly that!

Listen to what the Kodak manager has said: They evaluated Kodachrome, but saw it is not possible.
Instead they decided to make Ektachrome again, because that is possible.
You would have to invest millions of dollars in R&D for a new Kodachrome film. And furthermore a completely new developing infrastructure (on a global level) would be needed, too.
The result of that would be an extremely expensive film. Much more expensive than all other current films.
And then all those who now are praising Kodachrome will complain about the too high price!
And no one will buy it!
Kodak would loose millions of dollars. And that could endager Kodaks entire film production, which is still quite weak.

Please don't forget what the current Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke had explained several times in interviews last year:
In 2014 Kodak was short before to stop film production completely!!
So hopefully Kodak is not so stupid to waste money on Kodachrome!

E6 films from Fujifilm and Kodak surpassed Kodachrome technilogically at the end of the 80ies / beginning 90ies.
That is why Kodachrome sales decreased: Better quality at lower prices with E6 films, and also much faster turnaround.
I switched from Kodachrome to E6 at the same time for the same reasons.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #45
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Murphy View Post
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
How detailed was this description? It is my understanding that the film has to be "flashed" with different colors of light several times, which by itself produces a huge challenge (actually probably the biggest challenge in the process), as well as developed in several different dyes/couplers, in addition to regular development and bleaching.

I suspect there's a reason that photographers, for whom the frustration of wet-plate photography was still a living memory when Kodachrome came out, were happy to let Kodak handle all the processing.

But then again, there are plenty of printing processes that are easily as complicated and tricky. But then again, again, those are basically dead these days too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #46
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
Yeah, or wet plate. It's undecided as of yet.

Actually, wetplate has been booming the past decade. It went from a handful of people (under 20) shooting it in 2006, to hundreds in most states. Europe it's even bigger. There are websites, forums, books, clubs and events all doing wetplate. I doubt Kodachrome would get as much traction. National Geographic and other mainstream magazines have published a lot of wetplate. Kodachrome is....dead.

But the thing is, wetplate collodion is a do it yourself project. It's become so popular because people wanted to be able to independently shoot large format "film", after feeling abandoned by the companies like Kodak. You make your own "film", with common chemicals. No film company ever "made wetplates." The photographers do.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #47
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
How detailed was this description? It is my understanding that the film has to be "flashed" with different colors of light several times, which by itself produces a huge challenge (actually probably the biggest challenge in the process), as well as developed in several different dyes/couplers, in addition to regular development and bleaching.

I suspect there's a reason that photographers, for whom the frustration of wet-plate photography was still a living memory when Kodachrome came out, were happy to let Kodak handle all the processing.

But then again, there are plenty of printing processes that are easily as complicated and tricky. But then again, again, those are basically dead these days too.
Idk, if the guys a Dywane's say it's hard to do, I believe them. Plus I don't think K14 was purely 1935 technology.

Could it be done? Sure. But only if the market is real. I would probably shoot it, but not commercially like I do with Portra. Personally, Ektachrome is good enough for me. E100G was an incredible film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #48
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 75
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
If they pull this off, then I think we will see many new film cameras being made.
I agree, and especially tripods if it comes out at asa 64 when I last used it. Lol
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #49
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 3,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
Well considering the EPA will soon be gutted, maybe they really can bring Kodachrome back. After all all those banned chemicals will be back in play .
Hey, we're supposedly going back to producing most of our energy with coal! Anything can happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMur12 View Post
The reason we're talking about Kodachrome in this thread is because Kodak is actually exploring the possibility of bringing it back, in some form, into production.
...
The fact that Kodak is exploring the possibility of reintroducing the product strongly suggests that they have good data to indicate that there is a market for it.
- Murray
Yeah but every one of us who knows what Kodachrome was and actually used it, knows that Kodak hasn't been the best judge of the market or various investments... Granted, Alaris is in charge now but if this sees the light of day it could be the most expensive "Easyshare printer" that Kodak has ever made.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to shoot some Kodachrome and get it processed as it should be but I don't think this idea will survive to actually be produced and hope it won't because it will be another nail in the coffin of big Yellow.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #50
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Murphy View Post
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
On "another network" (APUG? forget) there was a discussion on, believe it or not, using an off the shelf hair color as a color developer for both color negative film and e6 film. Some people were trying this and actually had some success with it.

There was speculation that the Kodachrome color developers could be simulated this way as well.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #51
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
How anyone could read so much into Kodak's comment is beyond me.
What do you read into it?

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #52
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is online now
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliveC View Post
I don't believe it'll make a return unless they manage to reformulate the processing chemicals. Too many steps, and some of the chemicals have been banned by the EPA in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
Yeah, agree. Kodachrome was harder to process than Ektachrome to begin with. Unless they reformulate (meaning it wont be the same) I dont see it as a realistic option. Lets remember that Kodachrome was a mainstream product (albeit for professional/serious amateur users product) and right now, although it has grown lately, films is and will be a niche market.

Ektachrome, on the other hand, can be easily processed at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Mongey View Post
Hey, if the process could be modernized maybe it could be done although it is more than likely that old kodachrome would still be unprocessable if they came out with a new kodachrome
I don't think a re-introduced Kodachrome would use the same process as before, for reasons already stated. I could see Kodak introducing a "Kodachrome III" that can be processed in E-6 chemicals, or maybe a modification of E-6. They might be able to make it more archival than E-6, even if not as archival as Kodachrome was. And it would have the warm Kodachrome balance and enhanced resolution. And I'm sure it would be more environmentally friendly. And if they could do all that, what's not to like? It might be Kodachrome in name only, yet if it offers much of the functional advantages of the original Kodachrome, it could be a success.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #53
Faintandfuzzy
Registered User
 
Faintandfuzzy's Avatar
 
Faintandfuzzy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Because I'm tired of old farts talking about Kodachrome.

"Do you remember the Model T Ford? That was a REAL car. Too bad Ford stopped making those. Nothing drove like a Model T Ford. Only real drivers appreciated the Model T ford. So Ford introduced new models for 2017? They should bring back the Model T! The Model T is was what everybody really wants to drive! No other car can compare to a Model T. Too bad the government outlawed the chemicals used in making Model T Fords. Too much regulation in the auto industry. Why can't Ford just make the car everybody wants? The Model T Ford!"

It's not the company or the product, it's that ever since Kodak discontinued Kodachrome, because nobody was buying the stuff, there has been a group of people who won't stop talking about how it was the greatest thing on earth, and how Kodak needs to bring it back, even though nobody was buying the stuff.

I miss Plus-X too, but eventually I shut up about it being dead. It's dead. Get over it and move on. And even then, bringing back plus-X would still make far more sense than bringing back Kodachrome, which was essentially dead in the water years before they finally axed it.

Now could they make an E-6 film that mimics Kodachrome and call it Kodachrome? Possibly. But then I'm sure we'd hear old farts complaining about that too.
Are you feeling OK? Old farts? If you dont like the fact that Kodak istalking about it, maybe find another thread.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #54
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
Exactly that!

Listen to what the Kodak manager has said: They evaluated Kodachrome, but saw it is not possible.
Instead they decided to make Ektachrome again, because that is possible.
You would have to invest millions of dollars in R&D for a new Kodachrome film. And furthermore a completely new developing infrastructure (on a global level) would be needed, too.
The result of that would be an extremely expensive film. Much more expensive than all other current films.
And then all those who now are praising Kodachrome will complain about the too high price!
And no one will buy it!
Kodak would loose millions of dollars. And that could endager Kodaks entire film production, which is still quite weak.

Please don't forget what the current Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke had explained several times in interviews last year:
In 2014 Kodak was short before to stop film production completely!!
So hopefully Kodak is not so stupid to waste money on Kodachrome!

E6 films from Fujifilm and Kodak surpassed Kodachrome technilogically at the end of the 80ies / beginning 90ies.
That is why Kodachrome sales decreased: Better quality at lower prices with E6 films, and also much faster turnaround.
I switched from Kodachrome to E6 at the same time for the same reasons.
I think it's reasonable to write off anything Kodak says about bringing back Kodachrome as marketing lip service. They know it's a famous brand, so saying something super vague and non-committal like "we thought about it" is still a good tack to take if you want to get people talking about Kodak. That's just good marketing. The reality of the matter though, as Kodak have said time and time again before is that it's not practical to bring it back. And that's that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #55
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is online now
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I

I miss Plus-X too, but eventually I shut up about it being dead. It's dead. Get over it and move on. And even then, bringing back plus-X would still make far more sense than bringing back Kodachrome, which was essentially dead in the water years before they finally axed it.
I miss Plus-X too, but I will not go quietly into the night. I want Plus-X back! I don't know what I will do when my stash runs out. Don't tell me FP-4 is just as good! If Kodak can bring back Ektachrome and Kodachrome, then I insist they bring back Plus-X!
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #56
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 504
Yes, Plus-X and Kodachrome for me, please. One can dream. I'm happy about Ektachrome too.

I still have plenty Ektachrome (E100VS) in the freezer as well as Kodachrome actually, but no Plus -X
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #57
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 34
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by plummerl View Post
I'd trade the return of Kodachrome for your three and raise you one, Obama.
And I'd take 8 more years of Obama in exchange for a week of Trump.


Concerning film and things I actually want to discuss, a Kodachrome-like E-6 film would be great. But the K-14 process was to complex, too costly, and too toxic. No thanks!

And I agree with above, Plus-X needs to come back. If Kodak is willing to bring back an entire process-type by bringing slide film back, maybe we can get our favorite slow B+W back too?
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #58
d.keljikian
Registered User
 
d.keljikian is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 34
If I could get this damn time machine back in service, I'd be shuttling back and forth purchasing/processing Kodachrome 25 every week.

Now where'd I leave me wrench and industrial pixie dust?

Doug
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #59
larmarv916
Registered User
 
larmarv916 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 415
Ok for what it's worth the only thing is Ektachrome ....I talked with a major West Coast retailer and they have been told first deliveries of Ektachrome will be late Nov. 2017....if all goes well. I touched base with some people I know back east about K2 and the real issue is that Kodak wants....like the old days to do all the processing. So the bigger issue is actual retail price and processing price. Kodak in the old days priced themselves out of the business...consumer moved to other film products that cost less and delivered as good or better value. So we will have to see what actually happens now.

All the best, Laurance ( Professor Foto )
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #60
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,410
Why do people like Plus-X so much? It was such a poor excuse for a black and white film. All it did was make a lot of grey tones. Never liked it and no big loss that it's dead. Currently, there is no real substitute for a true infrared film. And don't tell me it won't have any demand. Look at the ridiculous lomo purple emulsion
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #61
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 27
Posts: 785
Well, I highly doubt they are inventing their own E6 process so luckily you'll be able to go to other places for your processing/scanning/cutting needs. If they decided to bring back Kodachrome in it's original form, that would be a different story.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

PLUS X.....Which version, Myth & Reality
Old 01-11-2017   #62
larmarv916
Registered User
 
larmarv916 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 415
Cool PLUS X.....Which version, Myth & Reality

Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
Why do people like Plus-X so much? It was such a poor excuse for a black and white film. All it did was make a lot of grey tones. Never liked it and no big loss that it's dead. Currently, there is no real substitute for a true infrared film. And don't tell me it won't have any demand. Look at the ridiculous lomo purple emulsion
When people talk about Plus X.....you have to ask which version. Kodak destroyed the original Plus X before I graduated high school..and then proceeded to keep making it worse as then raised the amount of base fog density. Everything Kodak from the late 60's forward was all about lower costs for Kodak. When you do that the quality goes to hell. So no I would not be a fan of a Plus X coming back from the grave when so many new BW films are in the market now and more coming back with much higher silver levels. The Grain on Plus X was also not something to wax romantic about either. So Im with you Plus X ......who cares.

Best regards, Laurance ( Professor Foto )
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #63
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 3,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
Why do people like Plus-X so much? It was such a poor excuse for a black and white film. All it did was make a lot of grey tones. Never liked it and no big loss that it's dead. Currently, there is no real substitute for a true infrared film. And don't tell me it won't have any demand. Look at the ridiculous lomo purple emulsion
Because it was an excellent film. Extraordinary tonal range. It had a very long shelf life, way past the advertised expiration. It printed beautifully. It scanned beautifully. It was very predictable, in shooting and developing with regard to lens filtration and use with various developers. It pushed very well if needed and pulled fine too. The grain was very fine and there isn't anything on the market to replace it. I bought 60 rolls of 35mm and 4 pro-packs of 120 from Adorama when it was announced Kodak stopped the production of this emulsion. I still have 6 rolls of the 35mm left to expose.
When I was a photographer in Iraq, almost all the black and white I exposed was Plus-X. That touches on another thing, the ISO. There are many cameras out there with max shutter speeds that are just too low to properly expose Tri-X, at least with any creative control of aperture and focus, in very bright light. Plus-X filled that niche. No, Tmax doesn't cut it, not for me at east. I hate tabular grain films as do many. I wish that I still had some 120 or 220 Plus-X for shooting in my Mamiya 6s. I hate using neutral density filters.
It also was a fantastic option from Kodak and for those of us who want to help keep Big Yellow afloat, we would buy it because of brand loyalty in addition to all the aforementioned traits.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #64
benmacphoto
Registered User
 
benmacphoto's Avatar
 
benmacphoto is online now
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Age: 30
Posts: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Because it was an excellent film. Extraordinary tonal range. It had a very long shelf life, way past the advertised expiration. It printed beautifully. It scanned beautifully. It was very predictable, in shooting and developing with regard to lens filtration and use with various developers. It pushed very well if needed and pulled fine too. The grain was very fine and there isn't anything on the market to replace it.
I couldn't agree more.
I bought as much as I could when it discontinued.
And wish I bought more.
__________________
Instagram

Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #65
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
Why do people like Plus-X so much? It was such a poor excuse for a black and white film. All it did was make a lot of grey tones.
Let's be honest... when was the last time you tried it? High School?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #66
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Let's be honest... when was the last time you tried it? High School?
I still have a roll in my freezer .
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #67
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Because it was an excellent film. Extraordinary tonal range. It had a very long shelf life, way past the advertised expiration. It printed beautifully. It scanned beautifully. It was very predictable, in shooting and developing with regard to lens filtration and use with various developers. It pushed very well if needed and pulled fine too. The grain was very fine and there isn't anything on the market to replace it. I bought 60 rolls of 35mm and 4 pro-packs of 120 from Adorama when it was announced Kodak stopped the production of this emulsion. I still have 6 rolls of the 35mm left to expose.
When I was a photographer in Iraq, almost all the black and white I exposed was Plus-X. That touches on another thing, the ISO. There are many cameras out there with max shutter speeds that are just too low to properly expose Tri-X, at least with any creative control of aperture and focus, in very bright light. Plus-X filled that niche. No, Tmax doesn't cut it, not for me at east. I hate tabular grain films as do many. I wish that I still had some 120 or 220 Plus-X for shooting in my Mamiya 6s. I hate using neutral density filters.
It also was a fantastic option from Kodak and for those of us who want to help keep Big Yellow afloat, we would buy it because of brand loyalty in addition to all the aforementioned traits.

Phil Forrest
There's any amount of ISO 100 emulsions that are not T-grain and that will do all of what you stated BETTER than Plus-X. Even the dirt cheap Arista EDU films are better than Plus-X. I'm not even going to comment on the brand loyalty thing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #68
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 3,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
There's any amount of ISO 100 emulsions that are not T-grain and that will do all of what you stated BETTER than Plus-X. Even the dirt cheap Arista EDU films are better than Plus-X. I'm not even going to comment on brand loyalty thing.
Why can't we have a non-tabular grain slow film from Kodak, Pramod? You sound like you are getting upset about so many of us liking Plus-X. It was a good film. Kodak still doesn't have anything that hole. And this whole "can do it better" load of BS is just your particular eye. People have opinions. I'd say you're on the edge of trolling. Well, I'll throw my hat into that ring and say to you that maybe you just didn't expose or develop it right.
You should have used a contrast filter because without it, Plus-X is pretty flat.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #69
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Why can't we have a non-tabular grain slow film from Kodak, Pramod? You sound like you are getting upset about so many of us liking Plus-X. It was a good film. Kodak still doesn't have anything that hole. And this whole "can do it better" load of BS is just your particular eye. People have opinions. I'd say you're on the edge of trolling. Well, I'll throw my hat into that ring and say to you that maybe you just didn't expose or develop it right.
You should have used a contrast filter because without it, Plus-X is pretty flat.

Phil Forrest
Not upset Phil. Just a little bewildered about why people like it. As to not exposing and developing it right. I never tried it with Rodinal. Maybe that's what I was missing
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #70
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 45
Posts: 1,262
Brand loyalty? That's cute. FP4 works pretty good.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #71
telenous
Registered User
 
telenous is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,487
I know Kodachrome is a hard/impossible one to pull off. But, boy oh boy, did this thread make me dream.

.
__________________
- Alkis

flickr

"We stopped a bit further down from Amchit and looked at the sun sinking in the quiet Sea of Phoenix. Yet, why is it that sometimes one sees things clearly -- I mean to say, as when the camera is appropriately set." George Seferis
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #72
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 27
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
Brand loyalty? That's cute. FP4 works pretty good.
FP4 is really nice. I haven't used it in a really long time since I don't have a need for slow films currently but when I need it again I'll definitely have to grab some.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #73
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
I still have a roll in my freezer .
Stop fronting... you don't even own a freezer!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #74
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is online now
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 67
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
Why do people like Plus-X so much?
Those people who are not old enough to have shot mostly Panatomic-X can be forgiven for thinking Plus-X was something special. I'd much, much rather have Panatomic-X back than Plus -X. Then again, I'd much, much, much rather be not so old that I had been able to shoot so much of both of them to come to that conclusion.
And, FWIW, speaking of the old, old days, the best user experience for Kodachrome, IMO, was when Kodak was the only option for processing Kodachrome. You bought the film, it came with the mailer. Period. Not expensive, and the processing was as controlled and ideal as possible. Then the government stepped in and outlawed the practice on restraint of trade grounds. Sigh.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #75
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is online now
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 67
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
FP4 is really nice. I haven't used it in a really long time since I don't have a need for slow films currently but when I need it again I'll definitely have to grab some.
FP4 is a slow film! OMG!!! ASA125!!! I really feel ancient now!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #76
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Stop fronting... you don't even own a freezer!
I got one for no money
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #77
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Those people who are not old enough to have shot mostly Panatomic-X can be forgiven for thinking Plus-X was something special. I'd much, much rather have Panatomic-X back than Plus -X. Then again, I'd much, much, much rather be not so old that I had been able to shoot so much of both of them to come to that conclusion.
And, FWIW, speaking of the old, old days, the best user experience for Kodachrome, IMO, was when Kodak was the only option for processing Kodachrome. You bought the film, it came with the mailer. Period. Not expensive, and the processing was as controlled and ideal as possible. Then the government stepped in and outlawed the practice on restraint of trade grounds. Sigh.
Now your talking. Pan-X was one hell of a good film!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #78
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 27
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
FP4 is a slow film! OMG!!! ASA125!!! I really feel ancient now!
Well unfortunately I live in gloomy NYC where shadows and darkness overtake everything and I need something more flexible. If I lived in sunny California it might be different.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #79
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Why can't we have a non-tabular grain slow film from Kodak, Pramod? You sound like you are getting upset about so many of us liking Plus-X...
Because I can already order 5 different emulsions of it without leaving my chair? I think the main reason is that people would like to have more choice in different types of films. Not yet another film where there are already several worthwhile alternatives. How many b&w 100 iso distinct emultions are there around anyway?

That's also why Kodachrome (and then certainly the 200) would be interesting. Another E6 at 100 iso? Why split the market that is already small again? If I want that I have Provia or Velvia depending on what I want for colours and Ferrania maybe sometime in the future. Bringing out a 200 or 400 iso might attract people that need more speed. Bringing back real Kodachrome might bring people back that wanted the archive properties and tones (and ease of getting it processed).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #80
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,365
Well I also liked Neopan SS, and I know a lot of people hated that film.

I also liked Verichrome Pan, thankfully VP is usually usable for 20-30 years past the expiration date.
  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 08:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.