Kodak Royal-X Film - History ?

[aoresteen]

Back in the 70's when I got infected by the photography bug, I would use Kodak Royal-X 120 film once in a while. At the time it was the fastest 120 size film available at ASA 1250. I grew to like it but I found that it needed to be exposed at 640 or lower to get decent negatives. I ran accesses some Royal-X negatives today and got thinking about it.

Does anyone know when Royal-X film was introduced? And when Kodak discontinued it?

Thanks!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I believe I have a few rolls of 120 myself. I found it to be very grainy and not very sharp. They were made in the '90s but IDK when the manufacture started or stopped.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

If I remember correctly, Royal X Pan Recording Film became available in the late 1950's - perhaps around 1956. I remember it in 35mm and cut film sizes.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is a different Royal X Pan then. It was a high speed film from the '90s. It is not a recording film.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I think they may have simply dropped the 'Recording Film' part of the name.

 

[BrianShaw]

I thought there were two " Royal" films: one 1250 and the other 400.

 

[Kyle M.]

About two weeks ago I bought a Grafmatic on eBay and when I got it one of the labels on it said "Kodak Royal Pan 4141 ASA 400." When I googled this I turned up the 4141 Royal Pan that was ASA 400, and the Royal X pan that was ASA 1250. I didn't turn up anything about Introduction or Discontinuation dates though.

 

[railwayman3]

I have some 120 negs taken by my late Father in 1961 of views inside a factory, marked as "Royal-X, Unitol". (Unitol was a liquid developer marketed by Johnsons of Hendon, with the slogan "One ounce, one film, use once only"....so you diluted one oz of the concentrate and developed to the time and temperature per the instructions. I've read somewhere that it was probably an MQ formulation.)

The negs are well exposed, good contrast and easily printable or scannable; the grain is prominent but not too awful, it actually could have been quite pictorial for atmospheric low-light shots.

 

[DWThomas]

My 1965 Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide lists Royal Pan ASA 400, available in sheet and 70mm long rolls, and with "Estar Thick Base" in some long rolls and film packs. I believe I actually shot some of that in my 4x5 around that time period. Royal-X Pan shows as ASA 1250 in sheets and rolls. So there's a vague data point or two!

There's quite a pile of assorted and sundry B&W material shown back in those days.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There was a Royal Pan and a Royal X Pan. There were recording films and consumer / professional films. We are talking about Royal X Pan in the OP, which was sold in 120 and 220 rolls and was intended for the consumer / professional market for use in extremely low light levels.

PE

 

[aoresteen]

There was a Royal Pan and a Royal X Pan. There were recording films and consumer / professional films. We are talking about Royal X Pan in the OP, which was sold in 120 and 220 rolls and was intended for the consumer / professional market for use in extremely low light levels.

PE

220? I never knew that Royal-X Pan was spooled in 220. Neat!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Royal X had grain the size of basket balls. It was used by one professional photographer to produce some vary distinctive images. I cannot remember his name but the images included models dressed as nuns and priests in them. Very atmospheric with the use of a fog machine. Anyone who likes grain would love this film. Sadly even with special development today's films cannot produce the same effect.

 

[fotch]

I used Royal X 120 in the late 50's. It was grainy however, not all that bad for what it could do.

 

[wiltw]

Someone wrote about finding Royal-X with 1959 expiration date. In the mid-to-late 1960s I had shot a lot of it in 4x5 format in a Graflex, our high school had that camera and we used it on the sidelines of the football field at night to shoot Royal-X Pan for our high school newspaper. Shot at that size, grain was not an issue in the shots.

 

[Nokton48]

I used to shoot 120 Royal-X film back in the middle seventies. It was 1250 ASA, I used to soup it in DK-50. Our local camera shop kept it in stock. It was good film for low light and I liked it; Yes it could be grainy but it was ASA 1250.

 

[cmacd123]

I recall seeing data for Royal-X but it was before my time. There was a 1200 ASA recording film on an estar base in 35mm which was rather grainy.

I also remember buying one roll of Ektapress either 1600 or 3200 Colour negative, but by the time I had a good chance to try some street Photography with it, it seemed to disappear. (was only sold in 50 roll packs but some local stores would sell it by the roll.)

These high speed films all had horrible shelf life compared to Tri-X and so they were probably the first to go. Closest is Delta 3200 now, but it is actually about 1000, but with low contrast and the development recommendation is effectively a push process.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have been thinking about this.

Who cares?

PE

 

[MattKing]

I have been thinking about this.

Who cares?

PE

Ron:

Only those who are older than both of us!

Which in a strange way, might make us both feel good.

(I'm too young to have used in date Royal-X Pan).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ron:

Only those who are older than both of us!

Which in a strange way, might make us both feel good.

(I'm too young to have used in date Royal-X Pan).

I have been inflicted with that too.

 

[Arklatexian]

Kodak Royal-X Film - History?

This is a different Royal X Pan then. It was a high speed film from the '90s. It is not a recording film.

PE

P.E., I don't remember a Royal-X roll film. I do, however, remember Royal-Pan sheet film from that period. As I remember the emulsion was similar to rollfilm Tri-X ASA 400 films. Different from Tri-X ASA 320 sheet film
in use today. Could we be talking about Royal-Pan?......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

Kodak Royal-X Film

I have been thinking about this.

Who cares?

PE

Couldn't we ask that about much of what is discussed in these Forums?.......Regards!

 

[railwayman3]

I have been thinking about this.

Who cares?

PE

You might just as well say that about any history.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Royal X Pan film was made as a sheet film and in 120 sizes from the mid '70s until the early '90s IIRC. The cutoff may have been sooner though. It was, as stated, a high speed film with an ISO of about 1200 and high grain. In 120 and 4x5, those problems were mitigated by the ability to expose under low light.

When I moved into Emulsion Research (the first time) my new lab had a refrigerator filled with this film. I kept a few rolls frozen and used it with disappointing results.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

And about this "who cares" comment of mine.... Who cares what I say!

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

Ha ha ha... Some of us care!

So what was the diff between Royal-X and the 35mm recording film I recall using occasionally in the 1980s?