Cinestill launches Kodak Double-X in 120

[AgX]

No, because the backing paper interacts in effect with the anti-halation layers - it provides a very different backing than a pressure plate in a 135 camera. The light that reflects back into 120 film from the backing paper surface is very different than the light that reflects back from a pressure plate surface into 135 film.

-) The term anti-halo refers only to avoiding reflection of light within the film itself

-) Seen the sheer variety of tints, glossiness and surface structure in pressure plates, I do not see to what extent a black backing paper is different from these plates reflectionwise.

 

[BMbikerider]

If you look at a piece of backing paper in the light, that itself has a sheen, not very reflective I know but you still have an anti halation layer. In the days of 220film which had no backing paper the anti halation layer was essential. Anyone who has used Kodak High Speed Infra red film which did not have this anti halation layer will know that the pattern sometimes marked on the backing plate will reflect back through the film and appear on the negative (Olympus OM series were renown for it). In the main you cannot do without an antihalation backing on the film itself so the backing paper is possibly superfluous and will mainly be a protection against the slight risk of scratches on the 'shiny' side of the film because they both move through the camera at the same speed so the backing paper has a dual purpose.

 

[John Wiegerink]

If you look at a piece of backing paper in the light, that itself has a sheen, not very reflective I know but you still have an anti halation layer. In the days of 220film which had no backing paper the anti halation layer was essential. Anyone who has used Kodak High Speed Infra red film which did not have this anti halation layer will know that the pattern sometimes marked on the backing plate will reflect back through the film and appear on the negative (Olympus OM series were renown for it). In the main you cannot do without an antihalation backing on the film itself so the backing paper is possibly superfluous and will mainly be a protection against the slight risk of scratches on the 'shiny' side of the film because they both move through the camera at the same speed so the backing paper has a dual purpose.

I scratch my head????? Talking about backing papers dual purpose it would seem to have just one purpose. That one purpose is to supply guide numbers for framing/spacing. Otherwise we would have 120 size rolls setup exactly like 220 is with its leader and trailer papers. If there were no "red" window cameras left on the face of the earth we might not have any backing paper number bleeding issues either. When talking about the film base thickness the only cameras that I have that give me fits are my Rolleiflex cameras with their "auto-feeler" film starting. They rely on sensing film thickness to get to frame N0. 1.

 

[Cholentpot]

I can’t really take Cinestill seriously, and don’t want to support them, ever since the guys said on the Kodakery podcast a couple of years ago that (paraphrasing) “the only reason left to shoot film, was love for the process”.
That was the last episode of the (admittedly uneven quality) podcast.

Apart from being quickly disproved and empirically obviously untrue, it’s just one of the most hackneyed platitudes there is.

I agree with Cinestills take to a degree. While film does has some advantages the main reason I'm shooting it is because I enjoy it, which really comes down to loving the process.

 

[Helge]

I agree with Cinestills take to a degree. While film does has some advantages the main reason I'm shooting it is because I enjoy it, which really comes down to loving the process.

I think the second those huge (and AFAIK fundamental) advantages was not there anymore, I don’t think I could be bothered with film as much a I do now really.
I like the “process” (and the history and tactility and all those other platitudes) very much, but in the same way as with biking, riding on an exercise bike starts to feel futile and pointless after a few weeks, no matter how many podcasts and YouTube videos you try to watch while doing it.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think the second those huge (and AFAIK fundamental) advantages was not there anymore, I don’t think I could be bothered with film as much a I do now really.
I like the “process” (and the history and tactility and all those other platitudes) very much, but in the same way as with biking, riding on an exercise bike starts to feel futile and pointless after a few weeks, no matter how many podcasts and YouTube videos you try to watch while doing it.

Yes, but what if you have 100 bikes in all different shapes and styles and sizes from 100 years worth of development? What if some had motors and some had fixed gears? What if some of those bikes were in the family for generations?

I like shooting film because it's open ended. Today I shot a roll of 16mm out of a 16II, a few frames of 6x4.5 and I'm loading up an MG-1 with some weird soviet film. Contrast that to tomorrow I have two gigs and they'll both be shot on the same camera and lens.

Cinestill to me is nice, I don't buy from them because of cost and I don't need someone to roll the film for me when I'm doing it myself. I have 500T, 250D and 50D in my fridge along with DoubleX. However I understand many people don't want to break down 400 foot rolls, or find a short end supplier. They just want to load up and shoot. Good for them. Good for me. Good for you. Keep the film rolling.

 

[MattKing]

I scratch my head????? Talking about backing papers dual purpose it would seem to have just one purpose. That one purpose is to supply guide numbers for framing/spacing. Otherwise we would have 120 size rolls setup exactly like 220 is with its leader and trailer papers. If there were no "red" window cameras left on the face of the earth we might not have any backing paper number bleeding issues either. When talking about the film base thickness the only cameras that I have that give me fits are my Rolleiflex cameras with their "auto-feeler" film starting. They rely on sensing film thickness to get to frame N0. 1.

As it is easier to make 120 than 220 - confectioning with one continuous piece of backing paper is much simpler than with separate leaders and trailers - and as the large reservoir of 120 cameras are mostly set up in a way that wouldn't work well with leader and trailer equipped film, I don't think a switch is likely.

 

[Helge]

Yes, but what if you have 100 bikes in all different shapes and styles and sizes from 100 years worth of development? What if some had motors and some had fixed gears? What if some of those bikes were in the family for generations?

I like shooting film because it's open ended. Today I shot a roll of 16mm out of a 16II, a few frames of 6x4.5 and I'm loading up an MG-1 with some weird soviet film. Contrast that to tomorrow I have two gigs and they'll both be shot on the same camera and lens.

Cinestill to me is nice, I don't buy from them because of cost and I don't need someone to roll the film for me when I'm doing it myself. I have 500T, 250D and 50D in my fridge along with DoubleX. However I understand many people don't want to break down 400 foot rolls, or find a short end supplier. They just want to load up and shoot. Good for them. Good for me. Good for you. Keep the film rolling.

I think you missed my point.
If you could truly replicate/emulate the photos of a film camera precisely with a digital camera. Then why not just shoot without film, and get the capture afterwards? Or indeed, as I saw one lame dude do, put a DSLR in a large format camera.
It’s fun and theatrical to play around with, but not something to build an entire industry upon.
Biking for the exercise is all fun and dandy, but if you don’t get the added thrill of moving, feeling and seeing new stuff, then it quickly gets pointless.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think you missed my point.
If you could truly replicate/emulate the photos of a film camera precisely with a digital camera. Then why not just shoot without film, and get the capture afterwards? Or indeed, as I saw one lame dude do, put a DSLR in a large format camera.
It’s fun and theatrical to play around with, but not something to build an entire industry upon.
Biking for the exercise is all fun and dandy, but if you don’t get the added thrill of moving, feeling and seeing new stuff, then it quickly gets pointless.

Ah, I see.

It stands on it's own. It's like asking why calligraphy still exists when a word processor can do it perfectly every time. I find that shooting film does give me some 'cred' with clients. They used to think it was odd but now they view it as an arcane dark art that was forgotten in the fog of history only to be practiced by hunchbacked Igors under the flickering light of torches in the subbasement. I encourage that view and bank on it.

Thank being said, 90% of my personal work is done on film. Because I enjoy it. I think Cinestill is doing good though.

 

[Helge]

Ah, I see.

It stands on it's own. It's like asking why calligraphy still exists when a word processor can do it perfectly every time. I find that shooting film does give me some 'cred' with clients. They used to think it was odd but now they view it as an arcane dark art that was forgotten in the fog of history only to be practiced by hunchbacked Igors under the flickering light of torches in the subbasement. I encourage that view and bank on it.

Thank being said, 90% of my personal work is done on film. Because I enjoy it. I think Cinestill is doing good though.

They are not doing net harm right now. But if they, in their PR and communication, to any degree successfully promulgates the notion that film is merely a quaint, comedic sidekick to the real thing, then film is worse off in the long run.
And that’s of course really unfair apart from hurting public perception, because film is vastly superior in most ways to silicon based electronic capture.
The basic profiles are very different.
Film is better in a psycho-optical sense and in a straight technical sense.
The difference in quantum efficiency is
A. Made entirely too much of.
B. Not as big as the electronics sellers PR will have you believe.
C. Not at all fundamental to film and silver halide as basic technology.

Kodak should get their act together and release their own pre-rolled Vision3 and the other films. Either in C-41 versions or make ECN2 kits and development easier to get at.

Some will say that we are almost there with Portra 400. But that’s simply not true.
Just do a quick comparison with the hundreds of photos done on either film on Flickr.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kodak should get their act together and release their own pre-rolled Vision3 and the other films. Either in C-41 version or make ECN2 kits and development easier to get at.

Some will say that we are almost there with Portra 400. But that’s simply not true.
Just do a quick comparison with the hundreds of photos done on either film on Flickr.

No, you can get really much much better results out of Portra 400. Or 800. The problem is that people accept too many of the weirdly distorted outcomes from minilab scanners as 'truth'.

I think you severely underestimate the extent that the manufacturers do/ did psycho-optical research in determining speed/ colour balances used.

 

[John Wiegerink]

As it is easier to make 120 than 220 - confectioning with one continuous piece of backing paper is much simpler than with separate leaders and trailers - and as the large reservoir of 120 cameras are mostly set up in a way that wouldn't work well with leader and trailer equipped film, I don't think a switch is likely.

Matt, not trying to suggest anything or start an argument, but 220 sure was nice when I shot weddings. Not so important now. I have shot 220 in my Kodak Medalist I and II's with no problem and the results were great. I'm sure you could use 220 in the Kodak Monitor series cameras also, but have never tried it in mine. Now that I shoot for my own pleasure 120 is just fine with me. No use for 220 anymore.

 

[Helge]

No, you can get really much much better results out of Portra 400. Or 800. The problem is that people accept too many of the weirdly distorted outcomes from minilab scanners as 'truth'.

I think you severely underestimate the extent that the manufacturers do/ did psycho-optical research in determining speed/ colour balances used.

Vision3s colour profile lands somewhere between Ektar and Portra and the microcontrast is really impressive for an EV 500 film.
Faster Ektar was always wanted, as well as a return of the ultra high res 25.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, not trying to suggest anything or start an argument, but 220 sure was nice when I shot weddings. Not so important now. I have shot 220 in my Kodak Medalist I and II's with no problem and the results were great. I'm sure you could use 220 in the Kodak Monitor series cameras also, but have never tried it in mine. Now that I shoot for my own pleasure 120 is just fine with me. No use for 220 anymore.

I don't disagree about 220 being nice in my 220 compatible cameras.
I think the lack of an appropriate frame counter in the other cameras is an insurmountable marketing problem for the rest.
And as for leader and trailer rather than continuous backing paper 120, I expect that suitability would vary due to differences in film paths and backs. Even my straight film path Mamiya C330 adjusts the pressure plate when I switch it to 220.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, the 120 T-Max films are on a 4.7 mil base, so almost as thick as D-3200 120 and 35mm films.

T-MAX 120 films started out even thicker (5 mils, if memory serves) and caused problems in some cameras, notably Mamiyas. They were then reduced to their current 4.7 mil thickness.

As a side note, even at 4.7 mils, TMAX base thickness is why you never saw it in 220.

 

[Cholentpot]

They are not doing net harm right now. But if they, in their PR and communication, to any degree successfully promulgates the notion that film is merely a quaint, comedic sidekick to the real thing, then film is worse off in the long run.
And that’s of course really unfair apart from hurting public perception, because film is vastly superior in most ways to silicon based electronic capture.
The basic profiles are very different.
Film is better in a psycho-optical sense and in a straight technical sense.
The difference in quantum efficiency is
A. Made entirely too much of.
B. Not as big as the electronics sellers PR will have you believe.
C. Not at all fundamental to film and silver halide as basic technology.

Kodak should get their act together and release their own pre-rolled Vision3 and the other films. Either in C-41 versions or make ECN2 kits and development easier to get at.

Some will say that we are almost there with Portra 400. But that’s simply not true.
Just do a quick comparison with the hundreds of photos done on either film on Flickr.

99% of people just want an image. We're in the minority here. Maybe some Hollywood people want the extra that film gives but most people who shoot don't care. Those that are shooting film for the most part love the weirdness that can happen. How would you explain expired film going for the prices that it goes for?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Vision3s colour profile lands somewhere between Ektar and Portra and the microcontrast is really impressive for an EV 500 film.
Faster Ektar was always wanted, as well as a return of the ultra high res 25.

Used as intended in ECN-2 and with an 85B, 5219 sort of sits in the Portra 400/800 range - 800 is quite a bit more saturated than people think, and also tends to handle mixed lighting fairly well - or at least in the manner of correction to something believable, if not actuality. If the 5219 has been cross-processed in C-41, scanned, and then fiddled around with in post, and all bets are off - there are so many potential (and often uncontrolled by ) variables that make any meaningful comparisons non-starters.

And Portra 400/ 800 are considerably sharper at low frequencies than 5219, with similar or slightly higher performance at the higher frequencies. The differences you think you are seeing are likely more to do with the deficiencies of the camera lens or scanning equipment than inherent properties of the films.

 

[pentaxuser]

99% of people just want an image. We're in the minority here. Maybe some Hollywood people want the extra that film gives but most people who shoot don't care. Those that are shooting film for the most part love the weirdness that can happen. How would you explain expired film going for the prices that it goes for?

Not only that but we have seen an almost obsessive interest in any "new" film that isn't in fact new at all. I seriously wonder if "novelty" is the prime motive in buying film for film newcomers and if it is, my concern is that "novelty" is not sustainable by its definition. Ilford's Ortho 80 Plus is probably one of the few, if any, genuinely new films and yet even here the interest this sparked was no better and maybe not as good as other stuff such as Babylon 13, Fantome 8 etc

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

99% of people just want an image. We're in the minority here. Maybe some Hollywood people want the extra that film gives but most people who shoot don't care. Those that are shooting film for the most part love the weirdness that can happen. How would you explain expired film going for the prices that it goes for?

People who don’t care‽ Why should we even discuss them?
Fine if they don’t. Life is too short to sample all it can offer.
But there is a clear market for people who do care.

The moms who took a year or more to shoot a roll out of stinginess and disinterest; most people who shot 126, 110 and Disc, all the people who own a smartphone as their only camera.
They where all always only interested in photography as a way to simply document life.
Naively believing some magic or “better cameras” was the reason for professionals and enthusiasts better photos.
They where never the ones buying quality film in meaningful numbers.

 

[Cholentpot]

Not only that but we have seen an almost obsessive interest in any "new" film that isn't in fact new at all. I seriously wonder if "novelty" is the prime motive in buying film for film newcomers and if it is, my concern is that "novelty" is not sustainable by its definition. Ilford's Ortho 80 Plus is probably one of the few, if any, genuinely new films and yet even here the interest this sparked was no better and maybe not as good as other stuff such as Babylon 13, Fantome 8 etc

pentaxuser

Ride the novelty train until it ends and hopefully pick up some honest shooters in the meantime. It's a big tent.

People who don’t care‽ Why should we even discuss them?
Fine if they don’t. Life is too short to sample all it can offer.
But there is a clear market for people who do care.

The moms who took a year or more to shoot a roll out of stinginess and disinterest; most people who shot 126, 110 and Disc, all the people who own a smartphone as their only camera.
They where all always only interested in photography as a way to simply document life.
Naively believing some magic or “better cameras” was the reason for professionals and enthusiasts better photos.
They where never the ones buying quality film in meaningful numbers.

And through it all there were still people buying B&W film. The B&W film shooters of the 90's and 00's didn't move to digital in large droves I'd assume.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I am SHOCKED that people on photrio are complaining.

This speaks to me.

Yeah, great I get it, some older (sorry, CLASSIC EMULSION) types here refuse to pay $12 a roll for anything, no matter what. Okay, sure fine....guess what? That's not unusual for a LOT of people. Lots of film here in 10-12 bucks a roll and I'll pay it to support my local camera store. Know what I think a price point like that does? Filter out bulls**t.

You'd better really think about what you're doing, what you're shooting, how you're shooting it, and have a *very* specific look and feel and mood in mind for the final image. No putzing around with shots of of your old oil can or your neighbour's lawn ornament...a little discipline instilled, in other words.

In other words, like what most of us say is the advantage to shooting film in the first place! No more 'spray and pray' 10,000 photos on digital, but rather 12 well thought out and well crafted shots on film.

I'd be happy to pay 12 bucks for this emulsion. I've always heard about it, never used it. Curious to try....maybe I'll hate it (like I do Foma anything) or maybe it'll take its place as one more 'tool' in my film toolkit. Who knows? That's part of the fun of film.

 

[Cholentpot]

Convince yourself.

It's not working. Hold on, gotta spin the stuff in the fixer again. Maybe the fumes are getting to me.

 

[Cholentpot]

Ha.

Seriously though, with respect to 120 XX, why? Sure, trying things is fun. Sure, telling people you use a film most people don’t use makes you cool. But why else?

I have 70mm Plus-X Aerial coming in from India somewhere. That should make me uber coolio

 

[Colin Corneau]

An artist or anyone creating work should not have to justify their choices.

Liberty is essential to the creative act.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

My order arrived today. I'll be trying this out in the coming weeks.