Loyalty counts.
With Kodak the being the only supplier of colour negative film, I am so glad that I read the discontinuation of Pro 400H as soon as it was published. Could get like 15 boxes for €33,95 each.
A box of Kodak Gold might soon be double that price
A couple of years ago, a 3 pack of Gold 200 135 was 8,95€ at DM, or Rossman
Kodak are also not the only supplier of colour negative film.
This is an aerial photo of the Camera Heights site inn 1996 - basically at its maximum.
It comes courtesy of a source who chooses to remain anonymous:
View attachment 330210
The old employee services building was the one remaining building - the one where the fully stocked colour and black and white darkrooms were, that employees could use for minimal or no charge.
IIRC my Dad's stories, there were also a lot of other employee amenities there - e.g. a bowling alley ???
I'm not sure the building was moved. I think it was actually reconstructed as the new transit station.
Up until about 2000? that was the site where most Kodak production occurred respecting microfilm, but that was all brought back to Rochester when everything was consolidated to Building 38.
And in later years, Kodak Canada.
I watched a YouTube video yesterday from some German lady showing how her natural gas and electric bills went up 40% and 70% with the new year. Film should be our only problem.
There's a film and darkroom class at a local school. A friend is taking it, the instructor "strongly recommends' HP5+ as it works well and he knows it well. We bulk rolled a bunch last week to get him going.
I think I felt like it was "flat" when I first used it, too, especially as my first roll was scanned by the lab and I'm guessing they don't mess with it much. Definitely less contrasty than the kodak. I dev and scan myself now, so it's not just the lab. I ended up with an extra minute over the published xtol times. Someone here told me to try it, so I know I'm not alone. And I like the negatives with the extra time in the developer. Even if my process is hybrid, I am a lot closer to my idea of "good" straight from the scan.
I just assumed that's what most people did. And/or the analog crowd compensated at the printing stage. Isn't that why analog printing gurus often preach that you should learn a film really well and stick to it? So you know what to expect and can make the best of it?
I guess this is what's powering the price increase to some extent, because there WILL be overly loyal people ripe for milking no matter what the price is. Gaming industry calls them Whales.
Because in my experience "loyalty" is a rigged game to the sole benefit of employer/business - a one-way street and it has been demonstrated time and time again.
I'd like to TRY Kodak film, but they have outpriced themselves out of my field of view long time ago. This price increase just puts Kodak on the Moon for me. Meanwile I'm shooting to explore a whole variety of BW films from around the World - well, except the similarly overpriced Fuji BW. So the overpriced Kodak milk can rot to hell for all I care.
Depends on where you are. In Canada it's mid priced. Acros II in either 35mm or 120 is $15.99/roll TMax 100 in 120 is $21.36, in 35mm is $16.42 so the Fuji is still significantly cheaper than Kodak.About Acros II: I think its a shame that not that long ago, Acros used to be one of the least expensive films on the market, but now, its one of the most expensive. At $13 a roll, there's no way I will buy it again. Its minor advantages/properties are not worth the added cost, IMO.
Hm. I don't notice any problem at all with HP5+ highlights. Shrug.
There's nothing wrong with HP5. I don't find it "flat", but my complaint about it is its lack of tonal separation in the high values. Compared to the Delta films, I find HP5 lacks "sparkle" and clearly defined detail in the high values. This makes it great for portraits, but less than ideal for many other applications. I suspect what many describe as "flatness" is actually how they perceive the lack of tonal separation in the highlights.
About Acros II: I think its a shame that not that long ago, Acros used to be one of the least expensive films on the market, but now, its one of the most expensive. At $13 a roll, there's no way I will buy it again. Its minor advantages/properties are not worth the added cost, IMO.
Your Delta image is clearly, though slightly, more contrasty overall too, at least to my eye on my iPad I’m currently viewing them on. I‘d say that’s the source of the difference.
The above though is not because you scan, but because of how you choose to post-process/finalise your results, surely.
If anything, scanning is potentially able to give you the most faithful rendition of an inverted negative possible, because you can choose to scan fully linear and add no arbitrary non linearisations (unlike what you'd do with enlarger + paper, where you have a host of lens- and paper- related non-linearities to add to the mix).
I scan my film, apply exact the same workflow to all film I scan, and therefore (relative to my process) I can see the differences between film stocks immediately.
Although the developing times don't differ by much. The HP5 tech sheet suggests 8 min in Xtol and the Kodak sheet for Xtol says 8½ min. The difference in final contrast shouldn't be that much for 30 seconds difference.
From the Xtol sheet they list most Kodak films target Contrast Index as 0.56 (TMZ being the exception) and the Ilford range as 0.58.I don't know whether Kodak uses the same target contrast for Kodak and non-Kodak film.
It's not that simple. This is about local area contrast, not global contrast.Your Delta image is clearly, though slightly, more contrasty overall too, at least to my eye on my iPad I’m currently viewing them on. I‘d say that’s the source of the difference.
Well. There's very, very little else indeed. Very little...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?