Agfa APX 100 back?

[RattyMouse]

I wish more film buyers would realize this and be more willing to spend realistic money for their film. Film photography should be important enough for photographers to give up something else in their lives in order to be able to pay fairly for the film, paper and chemistry they want. In doing so they would also help assure the future availability of these products.



Ken

I totally agree with Ken's statement above. Pay for the damn film and keep profit in the business!

But in an off topic rant here, why do people here continually use the word chemistry in place of the word chemicals?? This annoys me to no end! (I know, 1st world problem!)

I have been a professional chemist for 20 years and NOT ONCE during that time, nor at any time during my 4 years of undergraduate to get my Chem degree nor at all during my graduate education have I ever heard the word chemistry used as it is in the photography world (in place of the word chemical or chemicals).

I can only speculate that this is a corruption by non chemists. Or perhaps the word chemical is scary to the non chemist? Implying something more dangerous?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But in an off topic rant here, why do people here continually use the word chemistry in place of the word chemicals?? This annoys me to no end!

I've always used term as a collective descriptor encompassing all of the individual chemicals, chemical processes, equipment, voodoo, and magic that makes film photography possible. Sort of like the second definition here.

As in, the chemistry of photography.

PE, whadaya' say?

Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

I totally agree with Ken's statement above. Pay for the damn film and keep profit in the business!

But in an off topic rant here, why do people here continually use the word chemistry in place of the word chemicals?? This annoys me to no end! (I know, 1st world problem!)

I have been a professional chemist for 20 years and NOT ONCE during that time, nor at any time during my 4 years of undergraduate to get my Chem degree nor at all during my graduate education have I ever heard the word chemistry used as it is in the photography world (in place of the word chemical or chemicals).

I can only speculate that this is a corruption by non chemists. Or perhaps the word chemical is scary to the non chemist? Implying something more dangerous?

Yea it's collective of the film photography world, you're right it goes back to non-chemists, it's the same for a lot of things in the film and movie industry world, the head electrician on a movie set is called a "Gaffer", and the second in command is called the "Best Boy" this goes back to a time when electricity didn't exist and you lit the movie lights with a gaffing stick which was a very long stick used to light the oil street lamps on the street in city areas every night and the best boy was the best apprentice, who then was always a boy.

Chemistry is the same thing in photography, just like Hypo, isn't really hypo, which is why it's now called fixer... that one got corrected at least partially... even though the hypo-clear is still called hypo-clear instead of fixer-clear haha

Anyway there's lots of crazy confusing terms in photography that aren't correct, but it's sort of what happens when you spend your life in a dark room sniffing CHEMICALS, they all become CHEMISTRY to you

 

[lxdude]

Regular Tri-X or Tri-X Pan Profesisonal? There's a difference...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Regular Tri-X. For most of its life that's all there was. Kodak Tri-X, ASA 400.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...it's the same for a lot of things in the film and movie industry world, the head electrician on a movie set is called a "Gaffer", and the second in command is called the "Best Boy" this goes back to a time when electricity didn't exist and you lit the movie lights with a gaffing stick which was a very long stick used to light the oil street lamps on the street in city areas every night and the best boy was the best apprentice, who then was always a boy.

Stone! You dog! THAT gem was worth the wait! I love those kinds of obscure Odditorium stories!

It's like, you'd be amazed at the number of blank stares you get if you ask people why it is that every New Year's Eve they lower a giant ball on a pole to signify the end of one year and the beginning of the next. Nobody knows...



Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

Regular Tri-X. For most of its life that's all there was. Kodak Tri-X, ASA 400.

That's an incorrect statement, Tri-X was introduced in 1954, and Tri-X Pan Professional (320ASA) has been around since the 1960's...

 

[RattyMouse]

I've always used term as a collective descriptor encompassing all of the individual chemicals, chemical processes, equipment, voodoo, and magic that makes film photography possible. Sort of like the second definition here.

As in, the chemistry of photography.

PE, whadaya' say?

Ken

Yes, I can understand why the word chemistry is used and how it fits into such context. But you will never, ever hear a "proper" chemist speak that way. PE might not count because he was deeply immersed in the photography world and may have been corrupted by you people.

 

[lxdude]

That's an incorrect statement, Tri-X was introduced in 1954, and Tri-X Pan Professional (320ASA) has been around since the 1960's...

Glad to see you're paying attention!

Which is a face-saving way of saying "D'oh!"
I was thinking 320 was more recent, but can't cite anything. Interesting that Kodak claims 1954 as the introduction of 400, which is when it was brought out in 135/120, considering that Tri-X the film came out in about 1939/1940, though just in sheet form, as I understand it. So I suppose 320 being the Tri-X in sheet form these days, it could claim descendency from the original.


Anyway, don't attach much to the word "Professional". Remember that the Elitechromes were listed on the Kodak website as consumer films, but they were called Kodak Professional Elitechrome 100, 200, and Extra Color 100.

Also, the 400TX box says Professional on it.

 

[zsas]

C'mon Ratty - be a trend setter, tell all your colleagues it is "chemistry" all the cool folks are doing it....

Now here's one to "prove" it is chemistry:

A brick layer uses.....bricks
A painter uses.....paint
A pianist uses.....a piano
A speaker uses.....speech
A chemist uses..........

*shrugs his shoulders/palms out in wonder/dopey grin*
[loud applause]
[laughing]
*have a great evening ladies and gentlemen, it's been a treat....*
[cutain falls]

 

[StoneNYC]

Glad to see you're paying attention!

Which is a face-saving way of saying "D'oh!"
I was thinking 320 was more recent, but can't cite anything. Interesting that Kodak claims 1954 as the introduction of 400, which is when it was brought out in 135/120, considering that Tri-X the film came out in about 1939/1940, though just in sheet form, as I understand it. So I suppose 320 being the Tri-X in sheet form these days, it could claim descendency from the original.


Anyway, don't attach much to the word "Professional". Remember that the Elitechromes were listed on the Kodak website as consumer films, but they were called Kodak Professional Elitechrome 100, 200, and Extra Color 100.

Also, the 400TX box says Professional on it.

Haha no worries, I would say that 400TX is its own animal since its a reformulation and is obviously much finer grained etc (it's possible they just made all the "regular Tri-x into Pan Professional too and bumped the sensitivity hehe)

Regarding the TXP 320 stuff, I honestly wouldn't have known if this weren't in my fridge...





Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RattyMouse]

C'mon Ratty - be a trend setter, tell all your colleagues it is "chemistry" all the cool folks are doing it....

Now here's one to "prove" it is chemistry:

A brick layer uses.....bricks
A painter uses.....paint
A pianist uses.....a piano
A speaker uses.....speech
A chemist uses..........

*shrugs his shoulders/palms out in wonder/dopey grin*
[loud applause]
[laughing]
*have a great evening ladies and gentlemen, it's been a treat....*
[cutain falls]

I dont work with anyone cool.

 

[marcmarc]

Speaking of film prices, yesterday I went into Freestyle to pick up more Fuji Acros in the 120 five roll pack. I was not prepared for the price increase; I thought it had already taken effect previously. Prices jumped up for 135 as well. So now I find myself once again trying to convince myself to stay with film even though the prices are at a point where it just doesn't make sense for me. I'm just a working class guy living paycheck to paycheck. As prices have risen over the past few years I had to make adjustments; I no longer shoot Delta 3200, I gave up on Adox/Efke because the spotty QC didn't justify their prices even though I loved the look these films produce. I tried to simply shoot less, but that didn't work out. I'm shooting more now then in years previously; I'm shooting about 65-75 rolls a month combined 120 and 135. I even gave Freestyles Arista.Edu line a try and although I didn't like the results I got in 135, the 120 size fed through my RZ67 blew me away! Amazing sharpness and great tonality. I bought 100 rolls and shot about 50 before I noticed some scratches on the face of a portrait. Further issues appeared in the way of splotchy highlights. So I gave up on Arista/ Foma. So I felt good that Fuji could always be counted on for stellar QC at a affordable price point. From what I've read, what they make in profit in their other products is what keeps their film division on life support. Now that their prices are no longer affordable for me, once I use up what I have in my freezer I'll have to look for alternatives. I want to stay with film for as long as I can, but I may have to switch to digital unless prices start coming down a bit or the QC from some of the smaller companies improves.

 

[StoneNYC]

Speaking of film prices, yesterday I went into Freestyle to pick up more Fuji Acros in the 120 five roll pack. I was not prepared for the price increase; I thought it had already taken effect previously. Prices jumped up for 135 as well. So now I find myself once again trying to convince myself to stay with film even though the prices are at a point where it just doesn't make sense for me. I'm just a working class guy living paycheck to paycheck. As prices have risen over the past few years I had to make adjustments; I no longer shoot Delta 3200, I gave up on Adox/Efke because the spotty QC didn't justify their prices even though I loved the look these films produce. I tried to simply shoot less, but that didn't work out. I'm shooting more now then in years previously; I'm shooting about 65-75 rolls a month combined 120 and 135. I even gave Freestyles Arista.Edu line a try and although I didn't like the results I got in 135, the 120 size fed through my RZ67 blew me away! Amazing sharpness and great tonality. I bought 100 rolls and shot about 50 before I noticed some scratches on the face of a portrait. Further issues appeared in the way of splotchy highlights. So I gave up on Arista/ Foma. So I felt good that Fuji could always be counted on for stellar QC at a affordable price point. From what I've read, what they make in profit in their other products is what keeps their film division on life support. Now that their prices are no longer affordable for me, once I use up what I have in my freezer I'll have to look for alternatives. I want to stay with film for as long as I can, but I may have to switch to digital unless prices start coming down a bit or the QC from some of the smaller companies improves.

Holy crap that's a lot of film a month... I shoot about 4 rolls a month.

What do you do with all the images if you're making that many photos you should be getting something worth selling? Maybe you can use the images to fund your further use of film?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clayne]

It's 5$ for a roll of ACR100 in 120 and 57$ for 20 sheets of 4x5. Doesn't seem particularly expensive to me.

Also 400TX is 4.39$ (after rebate) in 135, and 25$ for a pack of 5 in 120. 50 sheets of TMY2 is 96$, etc. Also not particularly expensive (although I wish the 4x5 were of course cheaper).

 

[StoneNYC]

It's 5$ for a roll of ACR100 in 120 and 57$ for 20 sheets of 4x5. Doesn't seem particularly expensive to me.

Also 400TX is 4.39$ (after rebate) in 135, and 25$ for a pack of 5 in 120. 50 sheets of TMY2 is 96$, etc. Also not particularly expensive (although I wish the 4x5 were of course cheaper).

Compare the Kodak to the Ilford prices in sheet film...and look at the quantity differences.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clayne]

Compare the Kodak to the Ilford prices in sheet film...and look at the quantity differences.

Yes, I realize that. But the point is the prices I quoted above are reasonable and I'll pay them without crying about it. I love Ilford, but I'm not going to exclusively only use Ilford and bullheadedly let Kodak just die when they're putting out incredible products we should all be using.

 

[Roger Cole]

Holy crap that's a lot of film a month... I shoot about 4 rolls a month.

What do you do with all the images if you're making that many photos you should be getting something worth selling? Maybe you can use the images to fund your further use of film?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, I can't imagine shooting that much film in a month unless it's your full time job. I still have months old rolls yet to develop anyway. Even if I shot fifty rolls it would take me two years to develop and proof them. I have too much other stuff going on in my life to shoot that much, much less develop, proof and print from that many rolls.

 

[StoneNYC]

I agree, I can't imagine shooting that much film in a month unless it's your full time job. I still have months old rolls yet to develop anyway. Even if I shot fifty rolls it would take me two years to develop and proof them. I have too much other stuff going on in my life to shoot that much, much less develop, proof and print from that many rolls.

Yea, especially the color. Maybe he sends it out and has the lab scan it etc.

I have 26 rolls of C-41 (I'm doing one run then I'm done with it haha) and about 6-8 rolls of E-6 waiting for me, and 3-5 B&W film waiting, oh and 2 rolls of ECN-2 that will take me a month to process it all...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marcmarc]

I've been shooting about 15-20 rolls a week on my days off. I do my own developing and printing. I'm a street shooter so that explains the high volume. I set out early morning and finish up by late afternoon. On days where I shoot at a parade or political rally it's not uncommon for me to shoot many more. I shot about 40 rolls of 135 Acros at the May Day march and about the same number of 120 rolls at the Long Beach Gay Pride parade also last may, I recently took pictures at a Trayvon Martin rally etc. So yes, I do shoot an awful lot and I don't want to shoot less, I want to shoot more; there is so much happening these days. Given the fact that I live in LA which has a high cost of living, high taxes and so fourth, it's my photography that I have to make cuts to help even out my expenses. If anything else, I'll just limit myself to Kentmere 100 in 135 until the markets and economies stabilize and I can start shooting to my hearts content without wondering if I'll have enough to pay my electric bill at the end of the month. Hey, if I don't I'll at least have a 24 hour home darkroom lol! Happy shooting everyone.

 

[marcmarc]

Correction, it was Fp4 I used at the May Day march. These were purchased in the buy 2 get one free pack that Ilford introduced some time ago. Either way, as you can see I'm a heavy film user and as prices climb it does make a difference in my budget.

 

[marcmarc]

I hope I don't sound like I'm being cheap because I don't think that I am. I'm just trying to be smart with my spending given my modest income and the high cost of living area I'm in. If I were simply being cheap then I would use the off brand films like Lucky and just accept the flaws as a part of using a cheaply made and sold film. However, I don't want to compromise quality so that's why I want to stay a customer of Ilford, Fuji and Kodak even though it's frustrating when prices go up because it makes one feel that there isn't much other choice.

 

[lxdude]

I hope I don't sound like I'm being cheap because I don't think that I am.

I don't think anyone's going to call you cheap, given the large amount of film you use.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Yes. On an absolute dollar basis you are far outspending me for film. And still outspending me even if I also throw in my paper and chemistry... err, chemicals.

Ken

 

[zsas]

Haa Ken^ don't give in to the "chemicals police"....

 

[StoneNYC]

I think Marc is a good shooter, that said, being a street photographer doesn't mean you have to be shooting like a madman, you can still shoot low volumes and pick the choice shots if you home your skills to only shoot the best.

I think wedding photographers who shoot film are the only ones who have an excuse for high volume. Maybe fashion photographers when the magazine/company is paying for the film, but they also send their film out

That is they used to..


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk