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

[chuckroast]

Wouldn't that depend on the perception of others? Can you persuade them? Is it worth the effort? Someone's wife/or husband for example may not see why you need that Ebony 8x10 camera (only $15,000)......or that copy of Ansel Adam's Moonrise... for your living room wall.

The real difficulty is more subtle.

There is a relationship between the artist and the artifact.

There are relationships between each art consumer and the artifact.

All of these relationships are "existential". That is to say, it is in the experiencing of the art that your relationship with it gets built.

And there's the rub: It's really, really, REALLY hard to share these encounters with each other. Sure, we can talk about paper and film properties, or whether we like a particular image, or not. But in the end, none of us can fully know how another person is experiencing the work.

At best, we can try to use precise language to explain what our encounter with the work feels like, but it's an imperfect transmission of that experience.

That's why all this talk of applying scientific methods to try and figure out human response to art is pointless. Not only can you not fully convey your experience with the art to other people, you may yourself have different responses to the art over time. The reduction of these encounters to some clinical-mathematical experimental method does not, and can not ever fully embrace this human experience.

(And - see my prior post, if all you want to do is measure the physical properties of a print, film, or chemistry, you don't need humans at all, beyond the lab rats doing the testing - and I say this with affection

 

[GregY]

The real difficulty is more subtle.

There is a relationship between the artist and the artifact.

There are relationships between each art consumer and the artifact.

All of these relationships are "existential". That is to say, it is in the experiencing of the art that your relationship with it gets built.

And there's the rub: It's really, really, REALLY hard to share these encounters with each other. Sure, we can talk about paper and film properties, or whether we like a particular image, or not. But in the end, none of us can fully know how another person is experiencing the work.

At best, we can try to use precise language to explain what our encounter with the work feels like, but it's an imperfect transmission of that experience.

That's why all this talk of applying scientific methods to try and figure out human response to art is pointless. Not only can you not fully convey your experience with the art to other people, you may yourself have different responses to the art over time. The reduction of these encounters to some clinical-mathematical experimental method does not, and can not ever fully embrace this human experience.

(And - see my prior post, if all you want to do is measure the physical properties of a print, film, or chemistry, you don't need humans at all, beyond the lab rats doing the testing - and I say this with affection

Chuck that's why i often bypass some of the intense discussions....
As you said "At best, we can try to use precise language to explain what our encounter with the work feels like, but it's an imperfect transmission of that experience."
Often as you suggest with your Hasselblad....it's best just to leave the verbal sphere and return to the photography.....

 

[chuckroast]

Chuck that's why i often bypass some of the intense discussions....
As you said "At best, we can try to use precise language to explain what our encounter with the work feels like, but it's an imperfect transmission of that experience."
Often as you suggest with your Hasselblad....it's best just to leave the verbal sphere and return to the photography.....

Yeah, I think we got down this rathole only because of the suggestion that the way to find meaningful results required scientific scrutiny.

I much prefer just looking at your (and others') pictures and letting the images inform me...

 

[MattKing]

Yeah, I think we got down this rathole only because of the suggestion that the way to find meaningful results required scientific scrutiny.

I much prefer just looking at your (and others') pictures and letting the images inform me...

However, in the context of a thread asking about what films should be brought back, and why, it doesn't really help a lot to respond with something akin to "because I can see the reason, even if I can't explain why to others.

 

[DREW WILEY]

More Science Fiction at this point than science anyway, dreaming about reviving extinct films and papers.

 

[chuckroast]

However, in the context of a thread asking about what films should be brought back, and why, it doesn't really help a lot to respond with something akin to "because I can see the reason, even if I can't explain why to others.

Why not? It the films *I* want brought back. Why? Because I liked them. Because I have fond memories of them. Because I liked the packaging. Because they are atavisms.

There is a certain begging of the question here when the "why" has to be a scientifically justified reason because it validates the need for scientific rigor.

 

[MattKing]

Why not? It the films *I* want brought back. Why? Because I liked them. Because I have fond memories of them. Because I liked the packaging. Because they are atavisms.

There is a certain begging of the question here when the "why" has to be a scientifically justified reason because it validates the need for scientific rigor.

All of which is true.
But with the possible exception of those contrary souls who might decide to avoid them because you liked them - - the fact that you liked them doesn't really help anyone else.

 

[julio1fer]

Plus X and Panatomic. Would immediately buy 100 ft rolls of each before they can change their minds! And how about Verichrome Pan in 120?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Plus X and Panatomic. Would immediately buy 100 ft rolls of each before they can change their minds! And how about Verichrome Pan in 120?

Pan-F and FP4 are every bit as good.

 

[warden]

Plus-X. Probably no better than the films I use now but the heart wants what the heart wants.

 

[braxus]

Tech Pan. I was just starting to get it to work for me, and Kodak discontinued it.
Royal-X Pan. I never got a chance to try that one. Same with Super-XX.

Andy. Whats the difference between Royal X Pan and Royal Pan? Its the Royal Pan I had up for sale in 4x5.

 

[Dave Lusby]

Well while we're at it, wishing for old materials. how about Portriga Rapid?
Oops, that's not Kodak...

 

[AnselMortensen]

Whats the difference between Royal X Pan and Royal Pan?

An X.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

I have a camera loaded with Panatomic-X and you can find I write about it a lot.

Have you ever shot Kodachrome 25? Film in the low ASA/ISO vicinity are often shot at moderate f/stops and shutter speeds.

Instead of the f/64 club Think 1/60 at f/5.6

You get a certain syntax. If you don’t use a tripod you will get slight softness either from focus error/insufficient depth of field or slow shutter speeds.

But if you do use a tripod you get sharpness without compare.

With TMAX 100 you don’t need a yellow filter but with Panatomic-X you should use it. We’re going to shoot 1/125 f/16 vs 1/125 f/8 at sunny 16

 

[Bill Burk]

In what way? Color sensitivity?

The grain is better looking. Panatomic-X has a traditional spectral response with a little extra red.

Even though all of it is expired, it has retained all its speed and character. It only needs longer development to reach 0.62 CI than datasheets say. And you should process promptly because it does lose latent image strength over time.

 

[chuckroast]

All of which is true.
But with the possible exception of those contrary souls who might decide to avoid them because you liked them - - the fact that you liked them doesn't really help anyone else.

Wait a second. The fact that I liked something doesn't mean I cannot discuss it, recommend it to others, and generally have a pleasant exchange of ideas with other like minded people. In fact, I have done exactly that in this forum on many occasions by submitting example photographs to demonstrate something I've discovered or am working on (and stipulating to the limitations of this medium).

The wheels come off when the only acceptable basis for information exchange is that everything must be done with scientific rigor and with statistically significant results. This "quantitative or nothing approach" (outside actual scientific questions) produces a sterile, sclerotic way to see the larger world and avoids having to investigate a whole big world for which the quants have no tools to explore. That's why I keep saying that this new "scientism" is a lot more like a religious cult than it is actual open minded exploration of our world.

 

[MattKing]

Wait a second. The fact that I liked something doesn't mean I cannot discuss it, recommend it to others, and generally have a pleasant exchange of ideas with other like minded people. In fact, I have done exactly that in this forum on many occasions by submitting example photographs to demonstrate something I've discovered or am working on (and stipulating to the limitations of this medium).

Totally agree.
Differs quite a bit though from what you have said earlier.

 

[Craig]

The wheels come off when the only acceptable basis for information exchange is that everything must be done with scientific rigor and with statistically significant results.

This all kicked off with the assertion (not by you) that two films where all the objectivity measurable qualities were identical were somehow "different" in some sort of abstract undefinable way.

If you like a film, that's great and I have no problem with you saying you like a film just because you like it; no further justification is needed.

However, I have a very large problem when someone says that notwithstanding the spectral sensitivity, granularity, and H&D curves are identical between 2 films, those films are somehow different in some way that can't be measured or described, and must just be taken on faith that there is some sort of difference. Vodo has no place in a technical comparison of films. This is chemistry, not sociology.

Chemical reactions happen in predicable ways, no matter if it's done once or a million times, the results will always be the same. A particular emulsion exposed to a certain amount of light and developed in a known way will always produce the same density; no more, no less. There is no room for handwaving and BS here, it's just physics and chemistry.

 

[GregY]

This all kicked off with the assertion (not by you) that two films where all the objectivity measurable qualities were identical were somehow "different" in some sort of abstract undefinable way.

If you like a film, that's great and I have no problem with you saying you like a film just because you like it; no further justification is needed.

However, I have a very large problem when someone says that notwithstanding the spectral sensitivity, granularity, and H&D curves are identical between 2 films, those films are somehow different in some way that can't be measured or described, and must just be taken on faith that there is some sort of difference. Vodo has no place in a technical comparison of films. This is chemistry, not sociology.

Chemical reactions happen in predicable ways, no matter if it's done once or a million times, the results will always be the same. A particular emulsion exposed to a certain amount of light and developed in a known way will always produce the same density; no more, no less. There is no room for handwaving and BS here, it's just physics and chemistry.

Well it's more Craig. The art of the great photograph is more. Physics & chemistry are involved, but the product is more than the some of its parts, otherwise it would be boring as all get out and uninteresting (look at AI generated images). Have you ever gone to different restaurants and ordered the same dish .....& wondered why one or the other tasted dull or inspired?

 

[Craig]

Well it's more Craig. The art of the great photograph is more. Physics & chemistry are involved, but the product is more than the some of its parts,

Of course yes. However, when the topic was substitution of one film for another and it's claimed that one can't be substituted because it's "different" in some non-measurable, non-describable, non-repeatable way, I call BS.

Composition or choice of a particular film can be an artistic and creative process. The reaction of light with silver halide is not an emotional process.

And yes, if food is prepared in a standardized way, the results are repeatable; that's the basis of all chain restaurants - you know what you will get every time, anywhere.

 

[GregY]

Of course yes. However, when the topic was substitution of one film for another and it's claimed that one can't be substituted because it's "different" in some non-measurable, non-describable, non-repeatable way, I call BS.

Composition or choice of a particular film can be an artistic and creative process. The reaction of light with silver halide is not an emotional process.

And yes, if food is prepared in a standardized way, the results are repeatable; that's the basis of all chain restaurants - you know what you will get every time, anywhere.

"that's the basis of all chain restaurants - you know what you will get every time, anywhere."
& why some of us avoid them......& the repeatable mediocrity....

 

[Dr. no]

However, when the topic was substitution of one film for another and it's claimed that one can't be substituted because it's "different" in some non-measurable, non-describable, non-repeatable way, I call BS.

Call it whatever you want, others here have been using qualitative phrasing and been told they don’t know what they are talking about because it’s not measurable. It is repeatable, OBVIOUSLY, because the topic is producing the effect by using the same film stock and not a modern one with seemingly identical measurables. An it is describable, because it’s been described.

We don’t (yet) have units for “plus-x-ness” but I am now proposing a group of scalar measures, each named for an obsolete NLA film, ranging from 0-11 (from unalike to entangled, in positive numbers).
The units are henceforth named apugs, lower case, and denote the differences perceived between pairs of films. Since so many kodak films fave “X” in the name, I’m afraid we may be stuck with the nomenclature
“x-factor”.

And since quantum mechanics have been summoned, as this has now been named and defined, it has existence and can be ignored only at your own peril. It can be measured and therefore compared using standard statistical methods. Measurements of each pair can be aggregated within and between groups and individuals, which will make statisticians very happy.

And yes, if food is prepared in a standardized way, the results are repeatable; that's the basis of all chain restaurants - you know what you will get every time, anywhere.

And you potentially could describe the taste of food in terms of IUPAC names of the constituents and molar ratios (“ingredients” to those statistically illiterate artists/cooks) just as we could for different films, but it would be ridiculous. For each of them. “Quantifiable” is not always an absolute, even in “science”.

 

[albireo]

I never said, nor do I think that the existential encounter that exists between a human and an artifact is "objective truth". In the area we are discussing here, no such thing exists.

Excellent. Then we agree. The "existential encounter" you experience when looking at a print because you know it was shot on an expensive, boutique film stock is entirely subjective. It is a product of your personal bias, your mood, and your expectations. That is a wonderful part of enjoying a hobby! But when you come onto a public forum and argue against double-blind testing, you are trying to elevate your subjective, unblinded "encounter" into a technical argument about material performance.

The explanations are always open to revision. (As one example, that's why gravity is still a theory, not "THE truth".)

This is a spectacular misunderstanding of basic science. In science, a theory is a comprehensive explanation of an aspect of the natural world that is supported by a vast body of empirical evidence, and not an unproven guess. It represents our absolute best, most robust explanation of reality. A theory stands as the definitive framework until, and only if, it is challenged and refined by better, more comprehensive data and rigorous, peer-reviewed science. Confusing the colloquial word "theory" with a "scientific theory" is a high school-level error.

Now the scientism bunch want to limit art to just that set of tools they understand and sneer anyone who dares to suggest that they are little more than well educated mechanics who need to stay in their lane.

And here it comes, the strawman once again. Absolutely no one is trying to "limit art." Paint with coffee, shoot with expired film, light your studio with candles, do whatever makes your creative soul happy! But if you step out of the artistic lane and cross over into the technical lane (making claims about optics, chemistry, statistics, and human perception) you don't get to hide behind a shield of "existential art" when people ask you to prove your claims under blind conditions. Asking for evidence is just basic intellectual honesty. I don't see any "scientism," an no religion.

I’m going to leave this OT discussion here as far as I'm concerned, but as a final thought: it is genuinely shocking that someone claiming a professional background in applied research would post a summary of scientific principles this backwards.

To call meta-analysis, one of the most rigorous statistical tools we have for extracting signal from noise, 'mathematical sleight-of-hand' is an incredible statement. No meta-analysis = no new treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer. No new treatments for ulcerative colitis or Crohn's Disease. No electric cars. No modern commercial aviation safety standards. No hurricane or severe weather tracking models. No stroke-prevention protocols. To claim that double-blind testing is a tool designed to measure 'material properties' rather than human perception of those properties completely misses the entire point of psychophysics (we are not testing the paper, we are testing the human eye!).

Enjoy the Hasselblad! I will own, one day. A masterpiece of engineering, a camera built entirely by well-educated mechanics on sound scientific principles, people who trusted the maths, and didn't rely on existential vibes to grind the lenses.

 

[koraks]

I’m going to leave this OT discussion here

That might be for the best as things are getting a little edgy at this point and that probably is in nobody's interest. Thanks also on behalf of the other moderators.

 

[Agulliver]

However, in the context of a thread asking about what films should be brought back, and why, it doesn't really help a lot to respond with something akin to "because I can see the reason, even if I can't explain why to others.

I was reminded recently of an artist who was asked if he could explain the meanings of one of his paintings....and his reply was "If I could explain it in words, I wouldn't have needed to paint it".

It's similar with photography, or any artform. I can tell you why I personally miss Plus-X or Kodachrome, but that might well not resonate with you or anyone else. Witness the recent discussions on Ilford newly offering Pan-F in sheets. Some people absolutely could not see the point while others were ecstatic.

We can analyse negatives and prints and even scans until the proverbial cows come home, and that information is useful...but in the end, photographs are made to be viewed. And even an apparently simple holiday snapshot will be seen differently by each individual....as they used to print on the envelopes...."A picture tells a thousand words". I can tell you the thought process that lead me to choose a specific film, camera, developer and what I was thinking when I chose the camera settings and pressed the shutter....but that still leaves the actual photo as yours to interpret, like or dislike as you will.

Getting back to the original question.....I see no chance of Kodachrome coming back and I'm not into some other product carrying the name....so I'd say Plus-X. In 135 and super 8.