It's not just the UK. Kodak stuff in Europe is just bonkers expensive. A 120 roll of HP5 is about 60% of the cost of Tri-X. Admittedly Ilford film is actually on the inexpensive side these days.
I'm cautious of ILFORD film in 120 at the moment due to the backing paper issues. I've had no problem with the "luxury gloss" backed 120 Kodak film.
Ironically I've not had any issues with Ilford film but did get bitten by Kodak backing paper in the last non-gloss batch and lost a role of some pretty great photos (by my standard for my own work).
I'm cautious of ILFORD film in 120 at the moment due to the backing paper issues. I've had no problem with the "luxury gloss" backed 120 Kodak film.
No, they are trying to avoid a re-occurrence of the wrapper offset problem that probably came close to ending all Kodak 120 film production.If only you could read the damn frame numbers on Kodak backing paper. I guess they are trying to save on ink.
The numbers remained readable on Kodak backing paper long after the US lost the ability/equipment to put people on the moon.We can put people on the moon, I think they can find a way to make numbers you can read.
The numbers remained readable on Kodak backing paper long after the US lost the ability/equipment to put people on the moon.
But films changed, and the technology of ink and printing changed, and suddenly the old inks and printing technologies were gone, and the new ones didn't work with the new films.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of the photographers who have red window cameras don't have the eyes that they used to!
I find that a low powered Dollar store LED flashlight permits me to use the films I like in the red window cameras I use.
Foma has different film emulsions, which don't react the same way with the ink.You take their excuses too readily. How does Foma manage it with (I'd imagine) a fraction of Kodak's resources?
As I understand it, Kodak struggled mightily to solve the problem. The experience they had with dealing with wrapper offset is something they refer to as an experience they "never want to go through again".
Generally speaking, I don't know that you can ever count on there never being a recurrence of a surprising and inexplicable problem like this was.Matt when companies utter that sentiment it usually means that it has taken steps to ensure there is no recurrence. Let's hope so. Another film problem is the last thing Kodak needs
pentaxuser
I wonder if laser printing would make more sense...
Matt when companies utter that sentiment it usually means that it has taken steps to ensure there is no recurrence. Let's hope so. Another film problem is the last thing Kodak needs
pentaxuser
The wrapper offset problem comes from the fact that the printing on one side of the paper is pressed hard against the chemically sensitive emulsion side of the next layer of film. You need something that won't physically or chemically affect something that is designed to suspend in gelatin components that are designed be affected by the tiniest amount of light.Possible, but that would suggest either the black side of the paper isn't really laser friendly, or they're using too much heat. The toner shouldn't bleed through, and if anything, should block light-- although come to think of it, that could actually cause a shadow on the film, if "some" light is getting through the black side of the paper.
None of the spools I have appears to have been laser printed, but I've been fortunate to avoid the issue so far. All I've encountered is a faint trace of mottling in the shadows on a roll of Bergger Pancro, and I don't know if that's film, or operator error.
Kodak Alaris only sells to distributors. And as far as I know, they don't warehouse product - the distributors get it from Rochester.
It is the distributors and the retailers that are determining the final price.
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?