Anybody know what year Kodacolor VR-1000 was discontinued?

[Minoltafan2904]

Just out of pure curiosity, i just found some old negatives and prints of said film and i remember it was one of my dad's favorite color films that he used a lot since it came out in 1983, but when was it discontinued?

 

[dE fENDER]

Wiki says that it was in 1986

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Thanks, didn't last long then.

 

[foc]

Fuji had both 800 and 1600 so the Kodak 1000 wasn't well placed (in my opinion).

Around the same time Konica also had a 1000 speed film but I suspect it was very similar the Kodak. AFAIK Konica bought some emulsions from Kodak and coated themselves.
From what I can remember the Kodak 1000 showed more grain than the Fuji 1600.

 

[miha]

SNIP: Fuji had both 800 and 1600...

In 1986?

EDIT: apparently there was indeed a 1600 colour emulsion available by Fuji around that time - Super HR 1600

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Konica did have a 1600 speed C-41 film in the 80s, it was known to be quite good actually, i've been reading old Popular Photography articles on Google Books.
Kodak boasted about their Tabular emulsions which meant they could make more sensitive emulsions with less grain, i have some prints of Kodacolor VR-1000 and they look similar in grain to say nowaday's Fuji Superia or Natura 1600, ofcourse though grain not only depends on the film, but also depends on the state of the chemicals the lab uses, old chemicals can cause more grain.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

I wish Kodak would bring back some fast films, i think there could be a market again for their old 3200 ISO Black and white stuff, a C-41 film that would be a bit more speedy than 800 ISO would be nice too.

 

[CMoore]

I wish Kodak would bring back some fast films, i think there could be a market again for their old 3200 ISO Black and white stuff, a C-41 film that would be a bit more speedy than 800 ISO would be nice too.

I have several of those Kodak "Self Help Books" .
They were paper back, 8x11, about 80-100 pages i guess.?
Anyway.....i was just looking at the one titled, Existing-Light Photography.. This was a second printing from 1991.
The Number Of Different Films that were available at that time is Staggering.
I WAS using a camera "back then".....but by that time, it was mostly as a family man, not as any type of serious hobbyist. I mostly bought Plus-X or Kodachrome. I never realized How Many films were made then.
Man-Oh-Man.......talk about The Good Ole Days...

 

[TonyD58]

Kodak also had a 1600 ISO film for a short time after VR-1000 was discontinued, but they didn't keep it on the market for long: Kodak Gold 1600.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Yeah apparently they did, i've also found Kodak Ektapress Gold 1600 on google.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Then, in 1989-90, Ektar 1000 became available. It didn't last long either. Same with Ektar 125, which got replaced with the old Ektar 100 (not the same as the current film we use today).

With respect to T-Max P3200, yeah, I wish it still existed.

-J

 

[railwayman3]

Wiki says that it was in 1986

The last time I used it was in late 1987 for night shots in Hong Kong (just checked some negs taken then). It was readily available in the U.K. then, but no idea when supplies finished. (The results were good, and not too grainy at all).

 

[trendland]

I wish Kodak would bring back some fast films, i think there could be a market again for their old 3200 ISO Black and white stuff, a C-41 film that would be a bit more speedy than 800 ISO would be nice too.

The only research Kodak has to do for this is a simple reformulation of Kodak Vision3 !
To make this emulsion a little more practicable in c41.
I could imagine that such a project may be posible although it is absolute not designed for - why should it not be possible with some new kind of couplers.

But it may be more complicate than a reformulation of KODAK Portra800 in direction of ISO2000 box speed.

Notice : Original KodakVR 1000 was a bad bad emulsion.
I have seen prints from this film.

But also notice : To normal "little" prints the extreme grainy characteristics of
VR1000 was not so dramatic.

AND - I would state the main reason that
nothing stand against this film to some first years : Other high speed films to this period (80th) 400 ASA wasn't only a little in the near of todays (smaler) grain characteristics. So nowbody cared about
grainy characteristics of VR.
But this was only to some first years.
Today VR 200 is a discontinued emulsion
with characteristics from resolution and other issues no other film is more bad !
The only one I personaly know is Solaris100.
Yes Solaris100 is more "grainy" than VR200 - colors a mostly "not so nice".
So VR200 is not soo bad at all ?
No but this is just from its nice color look.
Technical parameters are a little oldfashioned.
Therefore you could imagine VR1000 today would have characteristics we only
know from exotical east europe / russian
color films (also discontinued since more
than a decade).
A simple Fuji C200 today has lots of outstanding emulsion features - people dreamt of such hight tech wonder in 80th and - you will not believe : They dreamt also during the Full 90th to could
get such films !
Therefore I am a little horrified about Fuji
you know from the other threat (Superia200 )

with regards

 

[trendland]

Konica did have a 1600 speed C-41 film in the 80s, it was known to be quite good actually, i've been reading old Popular Photography articles on Google Books.
Kodak boasted about their Tabular emulsions which meant they could make more sensitive emulsions with less grain, i have some prints of Kodacolor VR-1000 and they look similar in grain to say nowaday's Fuji Superia or Natura 1600, ofcourse though grain not only depends on the film, but also depends on the state of the chemicals the lab uses, old chemicals can cause more grain.

Oh sorry Minoltafan I did not read this first - so you actually have VR1000 prints ? May I ask : wich format ?
The VR1000 prints I saw were in 30x45cm and with max. grain.
As I know from Kodak Gold200 a single
50x70cm print as the most max. from
135 I would tolerate (better max. 40 x 60 ) there was a big big difference if I remeber correct.
But as I stated before "smal enlargements" (5" x 7") prints for example - they sure make no big difference.

with greetings