What Films Would You Like To See Kodak Re-Introduce Again? And why?

[braxus]

It’s a recurring theme. People seem to just want older films for nostalgia maybe? Otherwise I don’t get it. TMX outperforms Pan-X, has virtually the same characteristic curve (or “tonality”), all this at ISO 100 instead of 32, and yet people still want Pan-X.

Its the grain structure of the TMAX films vs traditional grain. Plus you can still actually see the grain in Pan X, while TMAX is almost virtually grainless. It looks too much like digital for film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Its the grain structure of the TMAX films vs traditional grain. Plus you can still actually see the grain in Pan X, while TMAX is almost virtually grainless. It looks too much like digital for film.

Panatomic-X was barely better than contemporary Plus-X on visual granularity etc, you can see this quite clearly, and Kodak's own data firmly backs this up. The last version of Plus-X outperformed it. A lot of the hand wringing and canards about granularity are more about people messing up the basic fundamentals of exposure/ process, and not wanting to disclose the major MTF limitations of their imaging chain (especially when digital reproduction is involved).

The way they render contrast to my eyes is the biggest difference I see.

That's more about the width of latitude for baseline user ability than anything inherent to the films. TMax is not difficult to use if you have the absolute basics of process control.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The way they render contrast to my eyes is the biggest difference I see.

If the curves are the same, how is that possible?

 

[George Mann]

If the curves are the same, how is that possible?

Measurements cannot adequately measure fine differences and therefore fail to tell you the whole story.

 

[Agulliver]

Its the grain structure of the TMAX films vs traditional grain. Plus you can still actually see the grain in Pan X, while TMAX is almost virtually grainless. It looks too much like digital for film.

This is why I Prefer Ilford FP4 over Delta 100. The Delta is, no doubt, an amazing achievement but it looks too clean for my style of photography. If I were doing landscapes like I used to 15 years ago, I might well go for Delta 100 or TMAX 100.

I miss Plus-X. And I don't think it's just nostalgia.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Measurements cannot adequately measure fine differences and therefore fail to tell you the whole story.

What fine differences are you referring to?

 

[George Mann]

What fine differences are you referring to?

Think about how two audio components can measure the same but sound distinctly different. Measurements do not tell the complete story.

These films clearly fail to render identical images.

 

[BrianShaw]

If the curves are the same, how is that possible?

Apparently there are characteristics that either currently aren't being measured or can't be measured because they are exceedingly ethereal.

 

[thinkbrown]

Think about how two audio components can measure the same but sound distinctly different. Measurements do not tell the complete story.

I'll take the same stance here as I do with audio gear: everything can be measured. If you think something can't, you're either not measuring correctly or it's the placebo effect.

 

[George Mann]

I'll take the same stance here as I do with audio gear: everything can be measured. If you think something can't, you're either not measuring correctly or it's the placebo effect.

You can believe what you want to. But my lifelong expertise in audio has clearly led me to a different conclusion.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm with George. The curves can't tell it all, and even if they could, it's common for people to look at those curves casually, or in abbreviated fashion, not understanding how subtle differences, especially in the toe or nearing the shoulder, can translate into significant visual outcomes in the print.

Then there are often also subtle spectral sensitivity differences between pan films, certainly different with respect to how grain and edge acutance come out, which the human eye might easily detect in an actual print, but only an expert could spot using a microscope, and even then, not necessarily in relation to its own final visual effect.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm with George. The curves can't tell it all, and even if they could, it's common for people to look at those curves casually, or in abbreviated fashion, not understanding how subtle differences, especially in the toe or nearing the shoulder, can translate into significant visual outcomes in the print.

Then there are often also subtle spectral sensitivity differences between pan films, certainly different with respect to how grain and edge acutance come out, which the human eye might easily detect in an actual print, but only an expert could spot using a microscope, and even then, not necessarily in relation to its own final visual effect.

Cannot disagree totally. It helps, though, when those differences can be explained using existing data and/or examples. It also helps when the scope and extent of htose differences are not expressed solely with disproportionate or hyperbolic description.

 

[George Mann]

Cannot disagree totally. It helps, though, when those differences can be explained using existing data and/or examples. It also helps when the scope and extent of htose differences are not expressed solely with disproportionate or hyperbolic description.

I have not had a chance to do a technical evaluation of these two film stocks, so naturally, we are left with "disproportionate and hyperbolic" descriptions in an attempt to explain these differences.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I'll take the same stance here as I do with audio gear: everything can be measured. If you think something can't, you're either not measuring correctly or it's the placebo effect.

I'd agree that this is pretty much the case here. Kodak seems to have done a lot of research into psycho-optical phenomena and the science of perception. Many of those who think they are seeing differences that are not reflected in the FX/ TMX equivalent data are often really only seeing the (quite significant) difference in user-competence-latitude between the materials and their own below-the-baseline-that-Kodak-thought-users-had real-world ability. This is of course a depressing prospect for those who fancy themselves artists, so blaming the tools (which, to be fair, sometimes have less than clear instructions to those not skilled in the art) is an easy recourse, or else they promote chemistry that merely grossly widens the margin for significant user error.

I'd like to see some of the FX claimants subjected to a double blind test against contemporaneous 1980's PX (not PXP or PXT) and the B38 125PX (never mind 100TMX) and see how wide of the mark they end up. I have some reasonably well founded suspicions that they would really struggle to pick out the FX particularly well, if at all, especially if the Plus-X had gone through something like Microdol-X or Perceptol.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, some of this chatter began with claiming TMax film "looks too digital", whatever on earth that means, and that it is virtually "grainless", another ambiguous remark. A lot depends upon the specific developer and degree of enlargement too, when claiming to compare different films; and of course, how much work one has actually put in, in order to optimize this or that film relative to one's own expectations. When that hasn't occurred, the expression, "hot air", would be even more appropriate than "hyperbolic".

 

[BrianShaw]

... are often really only seeing the (quite significant) difference in user-competence-latitude between the materials and their own below-the-baseline-that-Kodak-thought-users-had real-world ability. ...

Isn't it possible that some might be seeing above-the-baseline differences? At least that's the impression I sometimes get...

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Baseline" itself is like a rubber band which can be stretched somewhat, depending on specific development and reproduction techniques. It also depends on what one considers qualitatively acceptable. A high end scanner can pick up all kinds of things way down in the basement which are detectible, but otherwise might equate to useless junk.

 

[George Mann]

TMax film "looks too digital"

I agree.

 

[GregY]

Its the grain structure of the TMAX films vs traditional grain. Plus you can still actually see the grain in Pan X, while TMAX is almost virtually grainless. It looks too much like digital for film.

IMO character has more components than just grain. I really like Delta 100 /TMY with older lenses. Here TMY & Perkeo ll Color Skopar... 16" print. I like it with the Tessar in my Rolleiflex too. Smooth doesn't necessarily mean "like digital."

 

[Lachlan Young]

Isn't it possible that some might be seeing above-the-baseline differences? At least that's the impression I sometimes get...

If you drastically narrow the margin for operator carelessness, but the pre-eminent influencers/ workshoppers for many decades have built and enforced on their students entire systems that essentially rely on getting away with exploiting that margin (without ever considering why it might not work universally), you're going to get problems.

The people who believe they can see things in FX (or staining developers) are... a very specific demographic in my experience. They struggle when confronted with material evidence that process controls (and pot. ferri. on prints) rather than magic beans (or new imperial clothes) are the actual answer.

 

[Milpool]

Isn't it possible that some might be seeing above-the-baseline differences? At least that's the impression I sometimes get...

What they’re seeing is any difference in graininess plus what they expect to see (bias). Actually it’s worse than that because the claims are almost never based on any kind of proper comparison.

The “character” of a given granularity (ie the morphology of developed silver) is a function of various things, and all other things being equal you can’t see any difference in character between a cubic (eg Pan-X), tabular (eg Delta) or mixed (TMY-2) emulsion. Realistically if someone says TMX is too “digital”-looking in comparison to another film all they can really mean is they find the grain too fine. There isn’t anything else that holds any water. A simple solution in that case would be to use Delta 100 which is grainier but otherwise virtually the same.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, how dreary are your predictable assessments, Lachlan. Many a modern medicine has been inspired by some old shaman's or with doctor's brew. The modern heart medicine digitalis began with a Welsh foxglove tea. Of course, more people died than were cured; but all of them would have died anyway, without it. Modern quantification and dosage methods have made all the difference, but the path to that began a lot more sketchily.
And how many decades of successful photography were there before densitometers were ever invented?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Greg - I presume that shot was somewhere in the Dolomites? I've seen that same scene published a number of times, but never with your level of poise and accent, with the tip of the spire pointed directly upwards to the tip of
an especially sharp pinnacle, right through a conspicuous dip in the dark forest middle distance. Perhaps the dip in green sensitivity in your pan film migrated right there by itself? ... Then the slope in the break in the clouds replicating the slope angle on the distant peaks... You took a potentially predictable postcard scene and made it into something special and well nuanced instead. ... Bold weighty blacks counterpoised by luscious delicate highlights - real TMY expertise.

 

[bfilm]

Measurements cannot adequately measure fine differences and therefore fail to tell you the whole story.

This is along the lines of something I have mentioned before, that most people consider things almost solely quantitatively now instead of qualitatively, whereas the word quality should be a big hint.

 

[skahde]

Kodak HIE high speed infrared in 120 for its unique sensibility for deep (or at leaster deeper than anything else available) IR.