Kodak's down? Tri-X will survive...

NB23 said:

Stormbyte, Yeah, you want to sound even smarter? Recommend all of us to spend 20,000$ each on some film that will ultimately expire in 2014.
Way to go.

Click to expand...

While I readily admit that results may vary with the assortment of emulsions in existence, film has been known to keep in-freezer for over a decade, regardless of expiry dates. If you're not happy with my suggestion then don't spend the money, and don't make the investment.

Either way, for Pete's sake, quit bitching about my proposition when you offer no alternative solution.

Rudeofus said:

You know, there is a sister site to APUG, aptly named DPUG for this type of discussion. Hybrid work flow is not a taboo topic, it's just relegated to the correct forum. To your great surprise you will find a user with just my user name posting there frequently

Click to expand...

There's as much discussion on DPUG in one month as there is on APUG in 30 minutes.

And you just contradicted yourself. This makes APUG a darkroom only, minilab unfriendly forum. Make your mind up.

Tri-X will not be saved by hybrid workflow discussions on APUG. It may be saved by ordered restructuring at Kodak together with a replacement of their management board.

Click to expand...

No kidding. But look at the title of the thread and OP's query. Problem is one cannot even have these discussions realistically without veering into the censorship realm. Even just workshopping or blue sky wondering about where industry and users can or will go brings up taboos topics. It's like talking about the birds in one coffee shop but having to talk about the bees in another. Where's the love?

Aristophanes said:

There's as much discussion on DPUG in one month as there is on APUG in 30 minutes.

Click to expand...

Maybe there's more to discuss about pure analog processes than about scanning ... start an interesting thread on DPUG and you'll be surprised how many familiar APUG faces suddenly come out of the woodwork. "Film is dying!" is probably a wrong start BTW ...

Aristophanes said:

And you just contradicted yourself. This makes APUG a darkroom only, minilab unfriendly forum.

Click to expand...

APUG is apparently unfriendly to a lot of topics: Nobody wants to discuss my car for instance. My kids don't want to eat their vegetables, bamm!, offtopic again. Re-tiling my bath room: not a hot topic here. Crashes of KDE window manager under Ubuntu linux: seriously annoying to many but not to be discussed here. Eurobonds? Next! Interest on my savings account well below annual inflation? Nope, not here. No snow far far this winter in my home town? Try again. Obamacare? Nope again.

It's a big world out there, lots of exciting topics. APUG is here to cover one small aspect and it does so very effectively. I don't know whether any generic forum would have answered my dark room questions nearly as quickly.

Wow, click new posts and I start on page 2 with at least four more to go.

polyglot said:

a) It's Tri-X. Frankly, while it's good, it's not *that* good. Sure it's iconic ("cult following" says it all) but frankly I think that's more in the name and history than the emulsion, particularly because Tri-X is not now what it was 10 or 20 years ago. Can you honestly tell me there is something you can do with Tri-X that you absolutely cannot do with some other film like HP5? I would find that really, really hard to believe. I think the loss of TMY2, Portra and Ektar will be a bigger blow to photographers than an old-style B&W emulsion that isn't very different from at least one (profitable) competitor's product.

Click to expand...

But I'll answer this - yes, there is something - shoot it at EI 1250 and develop in Diafine for really good low light negatives, better than any other combo at that speed I've found. It's a good 2/3s stop effective speed faster than HP5+ in Diafine, and doesn't have the grain or contrast increase you get from pushing with more conventional developers. The ability to pull that out of my bag of tricks at need is the single biggest reason I use Tri-X instead of HP5+. Otherwise I'd be happy with HP5+. That said, I used to get a nice 1600 as per the Diafine instructions, so I'm suspicious that the changes in the film may have lost me a third stop of effective (no arguments about how "real" it is - it works for me) speed. If I need faster I go to TMZ in 35mm and Delta 3200 in 120, but both will have dramatically more grain than my Tri-X/Diafine combo.

PKM-25 said:

Some of us have no choice when a product is discontinued, especially if creative projects require it. The freezer I am using will hold 3,000-4,000 rolls depending on format, it is about 2/3rd full. It has lead sheeting on the interior and exterior, is only used for film and is at around -10F.

Click to expand...

Will lead sheeting significantly retard the degradation of film while frozen? I had thought of storing it in lead lined bags if those are still available. Lead is cheap but I'm not sure how available it is in sheeting. How much did that cost, to line the freezer? I'd think it would be a lot easier to line the interior, just stick a sheet against each wall, than the exterior, especially the rear where the coil is. What's the rationale behind lining the interior AND exterior? Is it to just get twice the thickness of lead? Any advantage versus just using two sheets, or sheets twice as thick?

I don't have a dedicated film freezer yet but I will, I will - and I like the "buy up all you can afford then as you shoot ten rolls replace ten rolls" idea. Keeps the stock full while supplies last and keeps the orders rolling in to the makers. (Well for sheet film it would take me a long time to shoot ten boxes so I might start with ten boxes and replace one or two as used up, but it's the same principle.)

Sal Santamaura said:

Lead sheeting won't help. It's transparent to the background cosmic radiation that, cumulatively, will fog film. Rate of fogging depends on film speed and emulsion, with conventional-grain types often less susceptible at a given speed than tabular or core-shell flavors.

Click to expand...

Kept reading and found this. Can someone confirm this? It sounds plausible - cosmic rays are, after all, very high energy. These aren't incidental x-rays from a poorly shielded CRT we're talking about.

Thin lead foil or bags will protect from X-Rays at airports but you need something better to protect against high energy cosmic rays!

PE

Aristophanes said:

The world HAS changed. it's the denial of that reality among some (often very bitter) filmophiles that is part of the problem. They are stuck in a 1987 time warp. The nostalgia about how film may come back vs. digital is ludicrous. It's like saying we'll use the internet but with typewriters. Or if we all spend $4,000 on hard copy encyclopedias we'll bring back that industry.

Click to expand...

I couldn't comment on bringing back encyclopedias, as I don't know very much about these. I was deprived as a child and the closest I ever got to a volume of Britannica was the occasional visit to my cousin's house.

Bug I digress...

It would be foolish and yes, perhaps even 'evangelical' to argue the longevity of film, as a going concern, on the basis of its aesthetic merits or historic (mass) appeal. Still, there are tale-telling signs even in the new, digital paradigm, confirming the existence of continued and even renewed interest in the medium, even if on a smaller (or vastly different) scale.

Film is an 'organic' medium for capturing likeness. It exudes true, 'continuous tone', which in some inexplicable way seems to 'connect' with the viewer. And while the same 'connection' can be made with virtually any medium, none lend itself to this task with comparable ease.

And so, there has been, in recent years, a growing trend to recreate some of the characteristics of film in the digital sphere. The most pronounced (and monetized) of these has been DxO's FilmPack 3.1 - a now-third generation *digital* product whose sole raison d'etre is to re-create the grain and exposure scale of various emulsions.

Does this save the industry? No, hardly.

*BUT* it does show that film can-and-does occupy a formidable place in <gasp!> even the digital workflow! And while entirely irrelevant to the question of its continuity as a viable business product or its continued availability, it shows that film will always remain at the significant core of any serious creative rendering process. The question of whether the artist 'reaches' the point at which film once again becomes relevant is exclusively in function of the individual's dedication to creating images and the depths to which they are willing to make this a personal obsession. Thankfully, artists can always be counted on to obsess!

I've posted some videos below for those of us yet unfamiliar with DxO Filmpack 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr7EMwXvk68

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MTRppWe_g0&feature=related

stormbytes said:

film has been known to keep in-freezer for over a decade, regardless of expiry dates.

Click to expand...

I haven't done the maths but how much would the electricity cost on a ten year deep frozen box of Tri-X?

blockend said:

I haven't done the maths but how much would the electricity cost on a ten year deep frozen box of Tri-X?

Click to expand...

Prohibitive for one box of Tri-X. Not so bad with a chest freezer full of film.

Depends on a lot of things: local electrical rates, freezer efficiency, ambient temperature, size of the freezer and how often and for how long you open it, just for a few that come immediately to mind.

blockend said:

I haven't done the maths but how much would the electricity cost on a ten year deep frozen box of Tri-X?

Click to expand...

Nothing if you live in Antarctica.

Has anyone considered that older TriX 35mm was packed in individual foild and air tight cans?

Today's plastic cans are not air tight!

Being in a freezer, especially a modern frost free freezer will cause severe changes to the environment of the film, but in the old sealed packages they were kept isolated from the freezer environment.

So, things have changed. For the worse I suspect.

Don't get overconfident about freezers.

PE

PE, interesting statement re steel vs plastic cans. There are plastic and steel cans for 120 film available on the market, what about them?
I'm not troubled by freezers at all. I store my Fooji stock with the chooks, rissoles, bangers, peas, tripe and kanga tail. Never once have I observed a deranged film (the chooks are occasionally deranged). And some film is still waiting to be processed. Eight years after exposure. I'll get around to it eventually.

The point is - "what does a frost free freezer do to the environment that film experiences". Yeas ago, the film was sealed in a plastic bag in a cannister at 70 deg F (20 C) and 50% RH at EK. Today, the same is true but the containers are not air tight!

So, unless you seal your film containers, there is no protection from swings in humidity and I suspect you may experience dryout, cracking and water spots among other possible long-term effects. I have not given this enough thought until this thread came along!

PE

I put all my film into air tight plastic bags if they are going into the freezer. Even unopened 120 or sheet film. Just in case.

Roger Cole said:

Prohibitive for one box of Tri-X. Not so bad with a chest freezer full of film.

Click to expand...

Well said!

This just shows how relative everything really is. It all boils down to what its worth to *you*;

subjective vs. objective value.

Photo Engineer said:

Has anyone considered that older TriX 35mm was packed in individual foild and air tight cans?

Today's plastic cans are not air tight!

Being in a freezer, especially a modern frost free freezer will cause severe changes to the environment of the film, but in the old sealed packages they were kept isolated from the freezer environment.

So, things have changed. For the worse I suspect.

Don't get overconfident about freezers.

PE

Click to expand...

In the modern day, if someone went to the bother of stocking and refrigerating large quantities of fim, they should consider going the extra mile to vacuum seal each pro-pack (5 roll bundle) individually. The plastic sheeting is meant to withstand long periods of sub-zero temps (freezers) to food standards, without degrading.

Sorry, but vacuum sealing may be just as bad, as it can "dry" the film too much. There are organic chemicals in coatings that help plasticize it and help with keeping of the emulsion.

The idea of air tight plastic bags is a very good one.

PE

Perhaps Kodak could be broken up? The film division claimed to have strong sales in 2010 and 2011. With more effective management, perhaps they can be spun off and have a go on their own?

I didn't know the plastic cans weren't air tight. What about the 120 and sheet film foil?

Seems simple enough to seal in plastic zip locks or the like, but I don't know about getting the humidity just so in them.

Unopened 120, 220 and Sheet films in foil wrappers are air tight!

PE

Would Kodak sell off their film division?..Would someone even buy it?

Ektagraphic said:

Would Kodak sell off their film division?..Would someone even buy it?

Click to expand...

The problem is "buy the film plant, buy a billion dollar fight with the environmentalist."

Sort of kills the profit.

michaelbsc said:

The problem is "buy the film plant, buy a billion dollar fight with the environmentalist."

Click to expand...

Then just buy the rights to manufacture and the machinery and make it somewhere else.


Steve.

Steve Smith said:

Then just buy the rights to manufacture and the machinery and make it somewhere else.

Click to expand...

According to sources here this may not be possible. The superstructure is fields long and mounted into bedrock for stability. The cost to relocate would probably exceed the value of the equipment, especially in a market where film is still declining. It's hard to put money into moving a depreciating asset. That machinery makes those films, and cannot be readily duplicated regardless of license. It's a custom job.

The problem is "buy the film plant, buy a billion dollar fight with the environmentalist."

Click to expand...

I am not sure that the environmental liability attaches to new ownership of the asset. The Court likely has the power to sever that relationship (land title) and attach it to the originating ownership or compel it back to the owner of the environmental regulation (the taxpayer; socializing the liability) if the assets do not cover the liabilities of the bankrupt.

I didn't know the plastic cans weren't air tight.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I suspect they are air tight enough, but more importantly, they are tight from water vapour infiltration. Water vapour will form on a thermal break, but the original contents gas accompaniment likely have near-zero water vapour, and the whole point of freezer storage is a constant environment, so no thermal break. Unless the container is stored in liquid, there is likely no chance of capillary intake either.

I performed the kid's game of tissue paper, baking soda, and vinegar on some new canisters from Kodak this summer. Lots of fun. The cannisters easily resisted the substantial increase in pressure for 20 sec. before a 15 ft. launch. This indicates that the seal no the cannister is capable of holding a seal in ambient air pressure, such as in a freezer. If that is the case, then I see these seals being quite durable and no reason why they would break in a constant environment. I am 25 years rusty on my gas laws knowledge, but I suspect the design of those containers, considering that they contain a perishable item from a company known for its QC, went through such analysis.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that freezer storage for film works for quite a few years with little to no degradation due to environmental ingress. I thought that fogging was caused by background radiation.

Aristophanes said:

Anecdotal evidence suggests that freezer storage for film works for quite a few years with little to no degradation due to environmental ingress.

Click to expand...

If there is fresh film available in 10 years, everyone will say that 10 years of freezing was detrimental to film.
If all makers go out of business or stop making film in the mean time, everyone will say that frozen film holds up nicely