Kodak versus Fuji from Ken Rockwell

Sock and a shoe and sock and a shoe or sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe? Which is faster?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

darkosaric said:

If you think that we analog photographers are arguing about pointless details - see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

Click to expand...

"Who wipes?"

King Julian (Madagascar)

RattyMouse said:

Wow. No Acros and no 400H? No Velvia? Wow!

Click to expand...

Not in 120.

And only one roll of 35mm Velvia.

I am a Kodak brat - Dad worked for Kodak for 35+ years. In earlier times, I worked for camera retailers and professional photofinishers and handled a fair amount of customers' Fuji colour film - didn't appeal to me.

The little bit of Fuji black and white I've seen used by others seems to be quite nice, but I like the Kodak black and white materials I have been using for the last 45 years, so I have no desire to switch.

Liked some of the Agfa colour materials I saw, but never shot any.

Still have a decent supply of frozen Ektachrome. Plus about 350+ rolls of frozen 35mm Fuji E6 film that I was given and need to sell. The single roll of Velvia came from that.

By the way, Ken Rockwell is wrong about film reminders for his Hasselblad back. You can either use the flap from the 5 roll box or, for a tighter fit, cut out a reminder from the box using scissors.

page 6. Arrgghh!


Is it September 19th yet?

DREW WILEY said:

I really prefer 120 reels with a cross at the ends instead of a slot, because they're faster to load. But otherwise, I shoot Kodak Ektar for color,
and Fuji ACROS in black and white. The sweet spot for my own med format work.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, brother... That extra 30 milliseconds is a complete waste of time. If I could only get that time back I'd be a much younger man.

Roger Cole said:

Sock and a shoe and sock and a shoe or sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe? Which is faster?

Click to expand...

I give up, which is faster?

Sent from my iPhone using 100% of Roger's recycled electrons - because Roger cares.

I shoot P67, Brian. It ain't milliseconds! Those can be a pain. They're not like removable backs.

Sirius Glass said:

What really frightens me is that for once Ken Rockwell actually made some accurate observations and he is correct. ...

Click to expand...

His Nikon lens compatibility chart is excellent. I like that he sometimes reviews old film cameras and old lenses. He's a good entertainer with a touch of bombast...

RattyMouse said:

Kodak's 120 seals are miserable compared to Fuji's. Like another poster has mentioned above already, it's very easy to tear the paper when opening up a roll. I can't count how many times I've severely damaged the paper leader simply opening up a roll of film.
...

Click to expand...

Exactly. It makes me wonder if they ever use their own product. So many products today are flawed simply because the company never put themselves in the place of their customer.

MattKing said:

Not in 120.

And only one roll of 35mm Velvia.

I am a Kodak brat - Dad worked for Kodak for 35+ years. In earlier times, I worked for camera retailers and professional photofinishers and handled a fair amount of customers' Fuji colour film - didn't appeal to me.

The little bit of Fuji black and white I've seen used by others seems to be quite nice, but I like the Kodak black and white materials I have been using for the last 45 years, so I have no desire to switch.

Liked some of the Agfa colour materials I saw, but never shot any.

Still have a decent supply of frozen Ektachrome. Plus about 350+ rolls of frozen 35mm Fuji E6 film that I was given and need to sell. The single roll of Velvia came from that.

By the way, Ken Rockwell is wrong about film reminders for his Hasselblad back. You can either use the flap from the 5 roll box or, for a tighter fit, cut out a reminder from the box using scissors.

Click to expand...

I like Acros but don't shoot much of it. It does excel for long exposures though. Nothing else I'm aware of has anywhere near its lack of reciprocity failure. (Well I think TMX does pretty well but not as well as Acros.)

I never got along with Velvia. I tried. So sue me.

I do miss Agfa color neg though, particularly the Ultra 50 (holy cow was that film saturated, like a C41 Vevlia only quite possibly more so!) and Portrait 160 for the opposite reason. Optima 100 was a nice film but not significantly different or better than normal films we have today. But nothing left on the market is quite like either Ultra 50 or Portrait 160. Ektar 100 is pretty saturated but not like Ultra 50. (Ektar 100 is, however, much more accurate - but for times you really want that "Velvia-like" color accuracy isn't usually so important as long as its close enough.)

Back to arguing about 120 film packaging. It's all ok. Except Foma - I did start carrying tape because I had problems with Foma stickers. No problems loading it though.

BrianShaw said:

Ken seems to be a very detail-oriented deep thinker. I've noticed the difference in stick-em and no-lick-em tabs (and just adapat accordingly without any thought or concern), but never noticed the spool differences. I must be shallow or stupid.

I always like the folksy way he writes. I assume it reflects how he speaks: "28 January 2016, Austrailia Day"

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking Brian! I've recently come back to film after being away since 2002, and I have to say how surprised I am with the way Fuji has handled the changing film landscape. In 2008 when I'd heard of all the issues Kodak was going through, I didn't fully understand it. Today things make much more sense. Fuji was never a market leader in the 90's but they've always been very attentive to the market. They undercut Kodak on it's home turf and consistently produced a competitive professional product. I've been using every film I can get my hands on to compare/contrast these past few months and Fuji has consistently impressed me. Ilford seems to excel at consistency and I appreciate them for it, but they have never been innovators. I truly hope Fuji doesn't abandon film. Who else could have introduced a smaller polaroid negative in the 21st century and succeeded. I'm not sure analog processes could continue to advance without them. They're the only company consistently introducing analog innovation. Yes Ilford introduced a positive paper, but they had positive paper before - just resurrected something old. Fuji has culled their lineup, but I feel like that's been wise business decisions at work, ensuring long term viability. I'll miss 3000b pack film, 400 acros, and Fuji Reala, but can live with a Fuji that can continue innovating for another 50 years.

ps. Does nobody else carry rubber-bands with them for this very reason?!

Yep.. but always wondered if rubber banding a roll of film one had to be careful not to have it to tight, as it might effect the emulsion ..

I've only had to do that on rare occasion but never had a problem.

peter k. said:

Yep.. but always wondered if rubber banding a roll of film one had to be careful not to have it to tight, as it might effect the emulsion ..

Click to expand...

If the rubber band is too tight it will cause marks on the film. It will waste some of the negatives or slides.

Kind of a negative subject with some positive thrown in.

fotch said:

Kind of a negative subject with some positive thrown in.

Click to expand...

It is only positive if one lets it slide.

Prints from negatives: Proof that a double negative really is a positive!

I find the Kodak usable but the Fuji really is nice. Nice enough that it would be a significant factor in my decision to use the film, but they don't have a 400-speed film anymore .

pdeeh said:

I insist on using only wooden-cored vintage reels for 120.

Fresh stock is re-rolled onto these, as it increases film flatness across the plane and as there is no outgassing from the plastic reels within the camera, microcontrast is thereby increased.

I wouldn't expect many people to notice the difference, but then of course I have extremely refined aesthetic vision.

Click to expand...

I knew it! Finally I found the important aspect missing in my photography. Gotta get me some of those wooden core reels for 120 and start respooling my fresh stuff. After this I'll be an artist for sure....

BetterSense said:

I find the Kodak usable but the Fuji really is nice. Nice enough that it would be a significant factor in my decision to use the film, but they don't have a 400-speed film anymore .

Click to expand...

A real shame, for sure. Sigh.........

pdeeh said:

I insist on using only wooden-cored vintage reels for 120.

Fresh stock is re-rolled onto these, as it increases film flatness across the plane and as there is no outgassing from the plastic reels within the camera, microcontrast is thereby increased.

I wouldn't expect many people to notice the difference, but then of course I have extremely refined aesthetic vision.

Click to expand...

What is the gas in the outgassing and how does it decrease the microcontrast. How does a wooden-cored reel increase film-flatness, are the plastic ones not as round?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The gas would be styreen.

But if there was residue monomer it would be in the factory conversions too anyway.

We should not overlook that film itself is outgassing and a very, very complex itself.

pdeeh said:

I insist on using only wooden-cored vintage reels for 120.

Fresh stock is re-rolled onto these, as it increases film flatness across the plane and as there is no outgassing from the plastic reels within the camera, microcontrast is thereby increased.

I wouldn't expect many people to notice the difference, but then of course I have extremely refined aesthetic vision.

Click to expand...

pentaxuser said:

What is the gas in the outgassing and how does it decrease the microcontrast. How does a wooden-cored reel increase film-flatness, are the plastic ones not as round?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

AgX said:

The gas would be styreen.

But if there was residue monomer it would be in the factory conversions too anyway.

We should not overlook that film itself is outgassing and a very, very complex itself.

Click to expand...

Folks - it was a joke, poking fun by exaggeration at the rather absurd lengths some people will go to trying to explain or strive for effects that, if they exist at all, are utterly and insignificantly minute.

"Absurd lengths"? Now you are the one exaggerating Mr Cole. They are merely ridiculous lengths... Which is slightly shorter than absurd and a lot shorter than ludicrous.

BrianShaw said:

"Absurd lengths"? Now you are the one exaggerating Mr Cole. They are merely ridiculous lengths... Which is slightly shorter than absurd and a lot shorter than ludicrous. 

Click to expand...

Ok, well, in that case that's alright then.

Fuji rolls are by far the fastest loading. No fingernail needed. Just pull the tab to start. Just pull to seal when you finish the roll. Ilford is a tie. The cross spool key slots make dropping in the spool a bit faster. Also just pull the tab to start the roll. But then you have to lick and stick at the end or else Ilford's product would surpass Fuji in convenience. If I recall Agfa rolls were similar to Ilford's.

Kodak needs nails to start the roll and the single key slot slows me down. So does the lick and not so stick end tab.

Foma rolls are the slowest. Sharp fingernails to break the seal. The peel and seal end tape is a joke. The backing paper peels off in little bits making it worse than just the old lick and stick type.

None of this makes any difference to me under most conditions. But try fumbling with a Kodak or Foma spool in the field with frozen hands or when it's raining horizontally and you'll see why anyone might care!