• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Neopan 400 in 120 going away?

If I freeze Neopan 120, how long would it last. It is my favorite 400 B&W film in 120. How long to defrost at room temperture if taken from the freezer? Just bought 150 rolls but may get more if it keeps a very long time frozen.
 
To me there is no point in stock piling a ton of film that is going away, besides getting you by until you can run tests on a new film. The end is gonna come at some point. I'm assuming this is true, and am rather upset with Fuji after supporting them all these years. I've already begun running tests with TMY-II. Great film!
 
BetterSense said:
In my experience B&W film keeps for at least 10 years when frozen.
Click to expand...

At least!

That is my experience with color pos and neg films.

B/w I have never kept that long to find out! Though I know it is better than with color, in general.

I did recently try some older Delta 3200 in 120 that was given to me (perhaps expired Y2K, and not cold stored), and it had thick fog, but produced printable pix.

Without printing papers and chemicals, however, I see little point in stockpiling color films any more. I hope that the minilab and Lightjet markets at least keep RA paper and chems around even if films go away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BetterSense said:
In my experience B&W film keeps for at least 10 years when frozen.
Click to expand...

Easily. Depends on the speed. But frozen we're talking multiple decades. Even with high speed films the issue is usually one of base fog rather than the film's performance. For instance, I just threw a friend a roll of TMZ3200 from 1997 that I had in my bag, and he shot (EI1000) and developed it later in the week:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61966933@N00/4404345899/

Another shot of his on TMX, 1993:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61966933@N00/4405199763/

There's always a lot of talk on here about "don't use old film, grainy, foggy, blah blah blah" but it's usually from the same kinds of people who have their nose in prints examining the grain rather than the photograph itself.
 
2F/2F said:
Without printing papers and chemicals, however, I see little point in stockpiling color films any more.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The magic of colour for me is in the print. They look nothing like commercial digi prints. In these precarious times, I keep about a year's worth of materials which I replenish with new - it's enough to ease the transition into a new product should the need arise.
 
Tony-S said:
Any updates on this?
Click to expand...

If you haven't already, see Scott Shephard's recent posts in the "Interesting news about Fujicolor..." thread. At least in USA, and perhaps worldwide, Neopan 120 is gone.
 
I was really hoping to move to Neopan 400 to shoot in my folders, in view of the demise of TXP.
 
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
 
Ross Gunn, Fujifilm UK: "In the case of Neopan 400 120 our hand has been forced by environmental concerns over one of the raw materials used in its production."
 
Dirk-san said:
Ross Gunn, Fujifilm UK: "In the case of Neopan 400 120 our hand has been forced by environmental concerns over one of the raw materials used in its production."
Click to expand...

huh?

what on earth could that possibly be that is unique to Neopan 400 in just the 120 format?
 
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=873759

This is what the British Journal Of Photography statement says... Truly sad that this is true, and as others have said. What on earth is the environmental issue that they continue it in 35mm and not 120? The emulsion is the same, isn't it?? IF that's the case, it seems VERY strange!
 
I wonder if other manufacturers of 120 film will face the same problem with the environmental concerns. My guess is that since environmental concerns can be dealt with at a cost, they have decided that the cost outweighed the benefit of making it.
 

Paper vs non-paper are the only differences I can think of. On the flip-side, 120 doesn't have a metal canister. It's probably emulsion related.
 
It could have something to do with the base, or the subbing to the base.

Remember, LF is on a different base than 120 which is on a different base than 35mm.

Matt
 
john_s said:
I wonder if other manufacturers of 120 film will face the same problem with the environmental concerns. My guess is that since environmental concerns can be dealt with at a cost, they have decided that the cost outweighed the benefit of making it.
Click to expand...

It must be that pesky paper and no recyclable spools!
 
"Remember, LF is on a different base than 120 which is on a different base than 35mm."

Does the Acros 120 base, paper, and spool differ from that of Neopan 400? This is a big mystery!
 
jmcd said:
Does the Acros 120 base, paper, and spool differ from that of Neopan 400? This is a big mystery!
Click to expand...

Why not just take their word for it? Not every corporate statement must be a lie. This is the only Japan-made 400 b/w film here, surely it is selling well, especially since the imports Kodak and Ilford cost more... and there are rumors of a replacement later this year. I heard it on the INTERNET!
 
According to an individual who reportedly got in contact with Fujifilm JP, they claim the material they can no longer use is called PFOS and apparently illegal for manufacture use. I've asked him to post here personally, but the Flickr thread: http://www.flickr.com/groups/neopan/discuss/72157623596550024/#comment72157623478226823

PFOS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanesulfonic_acid

more interesting links:

http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/prepdocs/annexFsubmissions/PFOS Imaging Industry.doc
http://www.fujifilm.com/sustainability/report/pdf/index/ff_sr_2009_001.pdf
http://www.fujifilm.com/sustainability/report/pdf/index/ff_sr_2004_001.pdf
 
If production of this film really violated their CSR code, and we all know that current film sales will not exactly bulge the bottom line, or of course a law, then the film division may have faced "find a substitute or kill it" order from higher management. Why this only affected 120 400 and not 135, no idea, but they will probably have had their reasons.

Nonetheless, they could communicated this a little better (a lot better) and instead of p*ssing people off scored some save-the-planet sympathy points.
 
Dirk-san said:
Why this only affected 120 400 and not 135, no idea, but they will probably have had their reasons.
Click to expand...

My initial, unqualified impression is that the troublesome compound (PFOS, if the information is correct) is used as a measure against the build-up of static charge, which could somehow be related to the backing paper of 120 film.
 
PFOS is typically used as a charge-control agent - basically an antistatic agent that controls spark discharge during film manufacturing and use. If you don't use a charge-control agent, sparks can occur during production and use which show as spots and feather-like images on the film after development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register