Are there really so few choices?

[Donald Qualls]

I'm not talking about a new emulsion. I'm talking about a different base and cut for an existing emulsion (like Gold 200 or UltraMax 400). The rolling equipment obviously still exists, and Kodak is apparently using the same backing paper for all their 120 films now, so that's not an obstacle. But if you don't make it, no one can buy it.

We've seen discontinued products come back. But now I think about it, I don't know that there's been consumer color film in 120 since Kodakolor went away...

 

[BradS]

Considering that virtually all professional photographers have long since abandoned film (for their professional work), I'm amazed and grateful for the existence of any color negative film in 120...and we seem to have many very excellent choices. I really do not see any reason to complain here.

 

[reddesert]

Here's a link to the B&H ad film page in Popular Photography from November 1994, at the height of film:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yUCq55hT0RoC&lpg=PP1&dq=popular photography&pg=RA3-PA21#v=onepage&q=popular photography&f=false

There was a much larger selection of 120 film available, of course, but the selection in 120 was already less than 35mm, most especially in consumer C-41. Because 120 was largely the province of professionals shooting E-6 or professional C-41 (and B&W). Kodak consumer C-41 in 120 probably started to die when 620 film went away.

You can see that in 1994, the only Kodak consumer C-41 film in 120 was Kodacolor 100. No Royal Gold 120. (There were a lot of kinds of pro C-41 and E-6 in 120.)

From other manufacturers, Fuji did make CN100, 400 HG, and Reala in 120, and there were also a number of kinds of Konica and Agfa consumer C-41.

Also bear in mind that inflation is 1.75x from 1994 to 2019, so a $3 roll of film isn't as miraculous as it looks.

 

[BradS]

Here's a link to the B&H ad film page in Popular Photography from November 1994, at the height of film:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yUCq55hT0RoC&lpg=PP1&dq=popular photography&pg=RA3-PA21#v=onepage&q=popular photography&f=false

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

[reddesert]

Many back issues of Popular Photography are scanned and freely available on Google Books. It's an interesting historical resource, including the ads. I just went to google books, searched for 'popular photography,' picked the first issue from the 1990s that came up, and then scrolled through to find the B&H ad (which was many, many pages long).

 

[PhotoJim]

We've seen discontinued products come back. But now I think about it, I don't know that there's been consumer color film in 120 since Kodakolor went away...

Superia 100 was made after Kodacolor... as recently as about 2005 or so. But I'm not sure it was all that easy to get in the North American market. (Some retailers in the US like B&H had it, though.)

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, I guess having a choice of five or six emulsions in 120 color film isn't a disaster -- but they all cost about the same. Back when 35mm was all I used (mid-80s to late 90s), it seemed like the camera stores always had a big selection of 120 color stocks -- but then, they had half a dozen Polaroid peel-aparts, SX-70 and 600 integral films, Spectra -- in short, LOTS of stuff that's vanished since 2000. And there were price point choices. There still are for 35mm and B&W 120 -- I can use Foma or Kentmere, rebranded Foma from Freestyle, or cagey Ultrafine who still haven't confirmed their source (and may have recently changed), all for half to 2/3 the price of Kodak or Ilford; or, in color, I can get both Fuji and Kodak consumer films for 1/3 or so less than the professional stocks.

But I guess I'll have to shell out $8-10 a roll, give or take, to get 120 color. Or if I want to take my chances, $13 for Lomography. At least the Kodak isn't terribly overpriced like the Lomography...

 

[MattKing]

Who would distribute the "consumer" 120 colour film?
In the old days, when the distribution volumes were much higher, film retailers could buy either the professional emulsions or the consumer emulsions from the same, high volume, full service sources. In addition, the consumer emulsions were available from distributors who specialized in supplying grocery stores, drug stores, tourist venues and the like.
It was the high volumes that made the consumer films more reasonable in cost.
Now, with film being so much more a niche, low volume product, there really wouldn't be any substantial cost savings involved if Kodak or others produced a run of "consumer" coated 120 film.

 

[BradS]

Okay, I guess having a choice of five or six emulsions in 120 color film isn't a disaster -- but they all cost about the same. Back when 35mm was all I used (mid-80s to late 90s), it seemed like the camera stores always had a big selection of 120 color stocks -- but then, they had half a dozen Polaroid peel-aparts, SX-70 and 600 integral films, Spectra -- in short, LOTS of stuff that's vanished since 2000. And there were price point choices. There still are for 35mm and B&W 120 -- I can use Foma or Kentmere, rebranded Foma from Freestyle, or cagey Ultrafine who still haven't confirmed their source (and may have recently changed), all for half to 2/3 the price of Kodak or Ilford; or, in color, I can get both Fuji and Kodak consumer films for 1/3 or so less than the professional stocks.

But I guess I'll have to shell out $8-10 a roll, give or take, to get 120 color. Or if I want to take my chances, $13 for Lomography. At least the Kodak isn't terribly overpriced like the Lomography...

Yes. Things have changed.

 

[Вormental_old]

But I guess I'll have to shell out $8-10 a roll, give or take, to get 120 color.

If you are willing to buy 10-20 rolls at a time, Uniquephoto is hard to beat. Ektar is $6.75 a roll. Fuji 400H is $7.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you are willing to buy 10-20 rolls at a time, Uniquephoto is hard to beat. Ektar is $6.75 a roll. Fuji 400H is $7.

I'll have to give them a look -- I bought chemicals from them recently (they have a pretty complete line on Flexicolor) but hadn't thought to check their film offerings. I've been getting film from Freestyle since about 2004.

 

[Agulliver]

As far back as 1979 the amateur lab I was using (one of the biggest in Europe happened to be 5 miles from home) was of the opinion that 120 was going out for amateurs and they were no longer offering 24 hour processing....by mid 1980 it was taking a week. Their advice was to switch to 135 or....get this....110 !!

How things have changed. Today I have a lab I can walk to from home....which will develop/print/scan C41 120 in 24-48 hours...index linked the cost is less than in 1979! But I know I am lucky. The fact is that 120 C41 must be a niche within a niche. If you're looking for no-nonsense "film look" than go for Lomography CN 100, 400 and 800. They're Kodacolor VR as far as anyone can tell - the stuff available right before Gold was launched....sold in 135 by Kodak as "Color Plus 200"...probably why there's no 200 speed Lomography branded CN film. Not as saturated as Gold but I never liked Gold for that reason. I'd take Ultramax in 120 though, it's tamed a bit for better skin tones. When I want popping colours, Ektar has probably never had any rivals. It's quite beautiful in certain circumstances....sunny days, lots of colour about (flower gardens, racing cars, kids in colourful clothes).

 

[pentaxuser]

If you are willing to buy 10-20 rolls at a time, Uniquephoto is hard to beat. Ektar is $6.75 a roll. Fuji 400H is $7.

By U.K. standards that is very good value indeed.

pentaxuser

 

[PhotoJim]

By U.K. standards that is very good value indeed.

Bear in mind, US prices don't include GST/VAT/sales taxes like UK ones do.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Bear in mind, US prices don't include GST/VAT/sales taxes like UK ones do.

But sales tax in the US is generally less than VAT in EU or UK as well, and varies wildly from state to state. Most states it's between 5% and 10%, a couple states have none (Oregon, Wyoming, I'm looking at you). EU VAT is what, 20%?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unless you're after some funky look (which can be achieved all kinds of ways using extant film choices), I don't see what all the fuss is about. Kodak's CN films are better than ever, and offer a excellent suite of speed, contrast, and saturation. Yes, if Kodak ever completely collapses, there would be a serious issue. But we can't waste our lives worrying about another asteroid extinction event. And is still plenty of amateur CN film too, especially in 35mm. 120 CN film is dirt cheap per shot regardless. Most of the machine-gunners have gone digital. C41 processing would be really easy to get here, except for the slight delays imposed by the pandemic which means things have to be mailed. 120 C41 took only a day locally from a serious lab. The only size I had to send out of town was 8x10 C41. Before I retired, I was in walking distance of a lab. Don't see why I'd want to involve a camera store, since they just send the film to the very same labs themselves; but that option still exists here too, and a lot of people take advantage of it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I process my own C-41, and soon I'll be printing RA-4 as well. It'll take at least several days (usually) until I have time to process, but cost and processing delay aren't the problem.

I'm not after "some funky look" -- but really, in C-41 and 120, we have one Fuji, four Kodak, and three Lomography emulsions, plus a couple "funky" ones from Lomography. Fuji alone used to match that selection in 120. Looks like it's back to Portra (but without the choice between VC and NC).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Porta 160 is very similar to NC, but is even better balanced. Portra 400 effectively replaces the 160VC palette in most ways, but is faster. Then Ektar 100 has been added in terms of a higher saturation, cleaner-hued, more contrasty option - not perfect, but realistically intruding into certain tasks which only chrome films once did well. Of course, it's a bit worrisome when all your eggs are in one basket (Kodak). But until recently, it was Kodak keeping a CN film selection alive, and Fuji the transparency side of film selection, but certainly not in its former healthy sense. For shooting, I'm concentrating on how to bend Ektar to my will. I handle contrast issues, plus or minus, with darkroom masking. Saturation can be tweaked that way too, entirely in the darkroom, in conjunction with RA4 printing. I don't care to get into an argument over the pros and cons of film masking versus any digital equivalents - I simply prefer the tactility of the former, and prefer the specific look in print too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My own immediate plan for contrast/saturation control in the RA-4 darkroom is the sulfite or peroxide additives, which (based on Naked Photographer's video) seem to be good for at least two grade equivalents plus or minus. If I can do what I want/need to do that way, there's no sense in getting into all the technology of mask making (which I know, in general, how to do, but have only ever had a hand in for B&W, in the mid-1970s -- and the minimum difference is that color requires a panchromatic mask film).

 

[koraks]

EU VAT is what, 20%?

Depends on the state, just like in the US EU doesn't dictate VAT. It's on average much higher than in the US though, between 17% and 27%.

My own immediate plan for contrast/saturation control in the RA-4 darkroom is the sulfite or peroxide additives, which (based on Naked Photographer's video) seem to be good for at least two grade equivalents plus or minus.

You're pretty much limited to one shot use of the developer that way though, and running very significant risks of poor print to print consistency. Despite its apparent simplicity, I'm not very enthusiastic about the concept.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'll be running the prints in a drum, which means one-shot development anyway (offset by the tiny volume needed for an 8x10). I have sulfite on hand, and peroxide is cheap (I recall the drug store 3% variety works here); if it doesn't work well enough, then I'll start shopping for a registration punch and some matching pins. I don't consider masking evil, just a bunch more work than necessary if sulfite and peroxide will do the job for me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

They don't do they same thing at all. Bleaching can be hard to predict, and might well ruin your print over time. Masking is highly predictable, but is a headache to do without a punch and registration frame. But most of the time, you can simply rely on the basic orange mask on the neg itself, perhaps try more than one paper, and certainly select from different films to begin with, which have different levels of contrast and saturation. But experimentation is often the name of the game, and you can share your opinion of at least your short-term results. And RA4 paper and chem is relatively cheap, so you don't have much to lose.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There seem to be two paper types available -- Crystal Archive in cut sheets and rolls, or Kodak in rolls only. And there really are only a few color negative films still available, often only one or two choices in a given format and film speed. Experimenting with different films also doesn't do anything for getting a better print out of a negative already in hand (and spending hundreds of dollars on roll paper that I have no reliable way to store, protect from light, or cut to a desired size doesn't seem like a bargain).

The sulfite/peroxide contrast management I've seen Naked Photographer demonstrate involves adding just a little of one solution or the other to the color developer (used one-shot in a drum); the peroxide increases contrast/saturation by enhancing developer oxidation (which is what creates the dyes in modern color materials), while the sulfite reduces oxidation (hence contrast/saturation). There's no treatment of the finished print at all; it's just a very minor alteration of the developer. You're still removing all the image silver from the print with the standard blix, still washing the same. I understand that color materials are delicate compared to silver image B&W, but I just don't see how this would lead to the print deteriorating.

 

[Jim Blodgett]

The Shot on Film Store in Seattle, WA often has 120 Fuji 160 in stock. I checked a couple days ago and they are apparently out of stock right now, but if you keep an eye on their website I bet they'll have some as soon as anyone.

Any Fuji 120 was hard to find summer/fall 2019, then everyone had it for a while. Not sure what's up with that but I have taken to hoarding. Sure miss Fuji's NPS and NPC.

 

[AgX]

Depends on the state, just like in the US EU doesn't dictate VAT. It's on average much higher than in the US though, between 17% and 27%.

Well, the EU indeed dictates VAT, at least in the sense of a minimum value to apply, of 15 resp. 5%. I did not do the math but the average is something around 21%.