New development times for Kodak Verichrome Pan

[Romanko]

When did Kodak introduce new development times for Verichrome Pan?

 

[BrianShaw]

Perhaps in the 1960’s when the ISO speed changed???

What an interesting way to notify users!!!

 

[MarkS]

From the serif typeface of the Kodak logo, that backing paper is more than 50 years old. Are you shooting such antique film?
Kodak also used that type of message to inform customers of the pending discontinuance of 127 film, c.1982. Last year or so, I was given a couple of rolls of 127 VP with such labels.

 

[Romanko]

From the serif typeface of the Kodak logo, that backing paper is more than 50 years old.

I never paid attention to the typefaces on the backing paper. Thanks for the tip. The film is from the 1950s or 1960s.

Are you shooting such antique film?

No. I developed a roll of "mystery" film and am trying to find out when approximately it was shot.

I did shoot a few frames of Verichrome Pan type 116 some time ago and the results were quite good considering the age of the film. The original Verichrome (orthochromatic) and Verichrome Pan seem to last very well both unexposed and with latent images.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, those seem to be the times provided for in the 1996 datasheet for Verichrome Pan.
@laser may have some perspective on this. That label may correspond to when Verichrome Pan changed from using its own emulsion into a revised (and lower cost to manufacture) implementation of the same emulsion as was used for Plus-X.

 

[Romanko]

That label may correspond to when Verichrome Pan changed from using its own emulsion into a revised (and lower cost to manufacture) implementation of the same emulsion as was used for Plus-X.

I believe Plus-X predates Verichrome Pan, so the new emulsion could have been introduced for these two films simultaneously. The introduction of new development times could be either due to a change in the emulsion or the way film speed was measured.

It is good to know that the "new" development times did not change till 1996. Verichrome Pan must have been discontinued a few yeas later.

 

[guangong]

Ignoring technical questions regarding manufacture, coatings, etc., as I remember, Verichrome was the film usually purchased be those less sophisticated using cameras with only one or perhaps at most only three shutter speeds and produced suitable results as far as user was concerned. Does anybody else have similar memories? It was the film sold at kiosks in zoos, amusement parks, tourist attractions, etc.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I believe Plus-X predates Verichrome Pan, so the new emulsion could have been introduced for these two films simultaneously.

Plus-X in 135 format was fundamentally revised in the mid-1950's into something that we would recognise as a 'modern' 3D crystal structure emulsion with massive performance improvements across the board. At the same time, Verichrome becomes Verichrome Pan, and the Kodak marketing of the era is pretty clear that VP in rollfilm formats = 135 Plus-X/ PX. 120/220 PXP and long roll/ sheet PXT (which radically changed curve shape in certain developers) were different beasts to 135 Plus-X, however people love to throw around generic assertions about 'Plus-X' when it's only ever a specific form/ use case of it that they are talking about.

 

[MattKing]

Ignoring technical questions regarding manufacture, coatings, etc., as I remember, Verichrome was the film usually purchased be those less sophisticated using cameras with only one or perhaps at most only three shutter speeds and produced suitable results as far as user was concerned. Does anybody else have similar memories? It was the film sold at kiosks in zoos, amusement parks, tourist attractions, etc.

Verichrome Pan was, of course, never available in 135. See Lachlan's post above about its evolution.
As I recall it from some of @laser's past posts, 120/620 Verichrome Pan was made in a more cost efficient way than Plus-X.
Which reminds me a bit of Harman/Ilford's description of the differences between current Ilford and Kentmere branded product.

 

[Paul Howell]

Verichrome pan, I was under the impression that at it was time a different emulsion, high on the red end, worked with a yellow filter but not with a red, later version were very close to Plus X,. some say it was Plux on a different film base. Kodak recommended Verichome for box cameras.

 

[guangong]

Verichrome Pan was, of course, never available in 135. See Lachlan's post above about its evolution.
As I recall it from some of @laser's past posts, 120/620 Verichrome Pan was made in a more cost efficient way than Plus-X.
Which reminds me a bit of Harman/Ilford's description of the differences between current Ilford and Kentmere branded product.

I don’t remember it in 35mm. I used it in my Donald Duck 127 camera in 1940s when a little boy. I know nothing about emulsion, but assume a film with wide latitude.

 

[Don_ih]

Verichrome didn't work with a red filter, because it was orthochomatic. The pan version came out a short time after PlusX, so it makes sense it's just the PlusX emulsion on a different 120 base (PlusX 120 and 220 had a retouching surface base, Verichrome Pan did not). Or such is what I can glean from what I can find online.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm not sure that I gleaned quite the same conclusion, but I know that I stocked up on Plus-X when it was withdrawn and wish that I had also stocked up on Verichrome Pan when it was withdrawn. I was a convicted Plus-X user and once the shop was out of Plus-X so I reluctantly bought Verichrome. It was actually a better film for general photography. Plus-X excelled in studio conditions, though. I stil have a bunch of Plus-X in 35mm and 120, which might have been a bad invlestment as I'm sure it is doing nothing but declining in quality as time passes.

 

[MattKing]

I was a convicted Plus-X user

I didn't know that it was against the law! . If so, I could have an extensive record!
As I understand/remember it, the older versions of the Verichrome films - possibly including both Verichrome and Verichrome Pan - used combinations of emulsion components that resulted in greater under-exposure and over-exposure latitude (at the expense of lower resolution and sharpness??). As such, they were great for box or other simple cameras.
Once those emulsions were replaced with the emulsion that was essentially the same as Plus-X, the exposure latitude suitability for simple cameras was achieved by using much simpler and less effective anti-halation tools.

 

[BrianShaw]

I always assumed that Verichrome was originally from an era when box camera was a significant amateur roll film application, hence the source of the enduring association of Verichrome with amateurs and box cameras. My experience with Verichrome did not indicate any reduced resolution or sharpness. That might be true for the original Verichrome, but some seem to have said just the opposite for Verichrome Pan. The data sheets seem to indicate insignificant differences in sharpness and resolution.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

It is interesting that VP/V has such good latent image retention - certainly confirmed with folks who process film found in old box cameras. Photos taken on Verichrome in the 1930's yield acceptable (this maybe a novel use of the word 'acceptable') prints when developed today https://www.westfordcomp.com/found-film-page-1/

Kodak may have baked this characteristic into the film, knowing that the 'family camera' may only get used on birthdays and holidays and it may take several years to use up a roll of film.

Many folks shot VP in their Rolleis, having discovered that, for them, it was the best film around.

 

[MattKing]

It is a bit difficult to compare Verichrome Pan and Plus-X" sharpness" experiences from my memories, because Verichrome Pan was never available in 135 or 120 sizes, and I didn't have or use a high end or even mid-range 620 or 616 camera until after Verichrome Pan was long out of production.
Verichrome Pan was very fine grain though - finer than Plus-X.

 

[BrianShaw]

It is a bit difficult to compare Verichrome Pan and Plus-X" sharpness" experiences from my memories, because Verichrome Pan was never available in 135 or 120 sizes, and I didn't have or use a high end or even mid-range 620 or 616 camera until after Verichrome Pan was long out of production.
Verichrome Pan was very fine grain though - finer than Plus-X.

That's right, the comparison must be like-to-like, which is very easy to do as the data sheets provide such data. Verichrome Pan was definitely issued in 120 size.

The rms granularity difference was only 1 in the most recent versions of each, per Kodak. I think there are some other "studies" that support the notion of Verichrome having significantly better resolution in their most recent versions.

Memory is sometimes an inexact thing to count on.

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f7-Verichrome-199611.pdf

 

[MattKing]

Verichrome Pan was definitely issued in 120 size.

Are you sure?
Verichrome was, but my memory says not when it comes to Verichrome Pan, and that is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry (at least) for discontinued film.

 

[BrianShaw]

Are you sure?
Verichrome was, but my memory says not when it comes to Verichrome Pan, and that is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry (at least) for discontinued film.

Perhaps I was editing as you typed. Please see post #18 and click the link. Kodak documentation beats Wikipedia any day of the week. And, yes... I'm quite sure as I used it. Kodak did state that sizes and catalogue numbers vary from country to country. Perhaps you live in a deprived country. LOL

p.s. You might want to go back and re-read Wikipedia ilist of disciontinued film. It indicates that both Verichrome and Verichrome Pan were issued in 120. You may have overlooked that inadvertently.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Undeleted duplicate information....

I have negatives my mother took in the early 50's on Verichrome using a Zeiss Nettar. As 620ish as Kodak was, I can't imagine they were going to ignore a much bigger market for the sake of a film spool. Kodak still makes 120 film, but no 620; guess they backed the wrong horse.

 

[BrianShaw]

Undeleted duplicate information....

I have negatives my mother took in the early 50's on Verichrome using a Zeiss Nettar. As 620ish as Kodak was, I can't imagine they were going to ignore a much bigger market for the sake of a film spool. Kodak still makes 120 film, but no 620; guess they backed the wrong horse.

I was wondering what you wrote and thought to be redundant.

In my mind, if the vintage camera re-volution is real then Kodak really should reconsider issuing film in 620 and amend their prior bad judgement to cancel that format.

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps I was editing as you typed. Please see post #18 and click the link. Kodak documentation beats Wikipedia any day of the week. And, yes... I'm quite sure as I used it. Kodak did state that sizes and catalogue numbers vary from country to country. Perhaps you live in a deprived country. LOL

p.s. You might want to go back and re-read Wikipedia ilist of disciontinued film. It indicates that both Verichrome and Verichrome Pan were issued in 120. You may have overlooked that inadvertently.

You are of course right - not sure how I missed the 120 in that long Wikipedia list. I certainly never encountered it (120 Verichrome Pan) in my teens and early 20s, when I stopped using box cameras (mostly) and started using my 35mm SLR or Mamiya TLR. It also wasn't sold in that size in the camera stores I worked in, although I do recall selling a bit in 126.
In any event, I've never used both films in the same camera, and my more vicarious experiences with other people's negatives also didn't involve both films in similar quality cameras.

 

[BrianShaw]

... I've never used both films in the same camera...

I have, but never in a "box camera", but a Rollei TLR. When I was young I seem to have thought Plus-X to be better because it was packaged in 5-roll 5ProPacks. Certainly that made it more professional! My photography mentor once laughed at me and pointed that out that logical fallicy as he recommended Verichrome but I was too arrogant to listen. And then that day happened when the camera shop had no Plus-X but had Verichrome. Dumb luck opened my eyes a bit more than they were previously opened.

 

[MattKing]

I was wondering what you wrote and thought to be redundant.

In my mind, if the vintage camera re-volution is real then Kodak really should reconsider issuing film in 620 and amend their prior bad judgement to cancel that format.

Good luck convincing Kodak to invest in new additions to their 120 film finishing equipment lines - particularly if the relative usage of 620 vs. 120 cameras is considered!