I know. I shot Kodachrome for 30 years. I've seen the movie. It's never coming back.
I know. I shot Kodachrome for 30 years. I've seen the movie. It's never coming back.Kodachrome is not just a film, it also a specialized processor, at it's height I was told that there only 6 world wide, by the last only one in Kansas. Maybe a high speed Ektachrome, 400 would be nice.
Verichrome Pan
Plus-X... 120
In 4x5 please!As I posted elsewhere, HIE.
Speculation, but not entirely unsupported speculation.
It's 2022. I didn't see any new film announcements from Kodak. So much for rumors.
I know that would make a lot of people happy.
Yeesh what a waste of effort that would be.
I don’t think anyone aside from Drew W. could tell the difference between Plus-X and FP4.
I strongly disagree, apart from the ISO they were very different films. I always found PX anemic regardless of how it was developed, VP was awesome in any developer but to see it really shine, PMK was the bees knees!135 PX and 120 VP were essentially the same thing, thus making the last 135/120 version of PX an optimal choice to kill two birds with one stone - and the material was coated pre-withdrawal in B-38 (which, realistically speaking, is likely the dividing line between a product potentially re-appearing or not).
PXP in 120 and PXT in sheets were quite different animals to 135 PX.
I strongly disagree, apart from the ISO they were very different films. I always found PX anemic regardless of how it was developed, VP was awesome in any developer but to see it really shine, PMK was the bees knees!
That is correct, although that was only in reference to the last versions of Verichrome Pan.Bob Shanebrook (whose job it was to know such things) has stated that the only differences between 135 PX and 120 VP were the anti-halation solutions used.
Ah but could you convince Archie Bunker of the similarity or the ability to get FP4+ to meet, In Matt's words "most of the needs that Plus X satisfied"I don’t think anyone aside from Drew W. could tell the difference between Plus-X and FP4.
You must be a soothsayer, telling me about differences in camera lens glare etc between my 135 and 120 cameras. Actually I had a laugh at your post as I never used either film in a 35mm camera. The last time I used 35mm B&W film was about 40 years ago and it would have been HP4.Bob Shanebrook (whose job it was to know such things) has stated that the only differences between 135 PX and 120 VP were the anti-halation solutions used. What you are really describing are the differences in camera/ lens flare and shutter/ aperture accuracy between your 135 and 120 cameras.
You might find this post by laser (Bob Shanebrook) informative:You must be a soothsayer, telling me about differences in camera lens glare etc between my 135 and 120 cameras. Actually I had a laugh at your post as I never used either film in a 35mm camera. The last time I used 35mm B&W film was about 40 years ago and it would have been HP4.
Anyway, In the darkroom, VP and PX are completely different films to print, but the Kodak rep that used to visit the camera store in Denver weekly told it best. He said that VP cost a lot more to make than PX but Kodak couldn’t stop making it because it outsold PX by a wide margin. He said that the PX at the time, early 90s, had become a test for the TMax films. (TX is now manufactured in much the same money saving way)
Anyway, I’d suggest that anyone that says PX and VP are similar has never printed them in a darkroom, totally different films.
You might find this post by laser (Bob Shanebrook) informative:
Develop the negative of Type 55
In particular:
"My assignment in 1981 was to design a family of films using tabular grain technology with Panatomic-X, Plus-X, and Tri-X Films as the benchmarks. The primary improvements were finer grain, improved sharpness, excellent tone-scale, and spectral sensitivity more closely resembling human vision. I wrote a thick requirements document. T-Max 100 Film was much better than Panatomic-X for all important characteristics.
I never paid much attention to Verichrome Pan Film. It was not an important film in 1981. At the time it was the same emulsion as Plus-X Film but on a simple acetate support with anti-halation backing but no anti-halation undercoat (AHU). This was done to provide a low-price film."
Emphasis added by me.
Here is some of Bob's biographical information:I assume this guy worked for Kodak? That is what I would expect a Kodak shrill to say.
I assume this guy worked for Kodak? That is what I would expect a Kodak shrill to say.
I assume this guy worked for Kodak? That is what I would expect a Kodak shrill to say. TMax was nothing more than a cost cutting exercise. An attempt to produce film using much less silver than traditional films. In the the process Kodak themselves would cane the older films in an attempt to get people to buy their new wonder films. Kodak spent an enormous amount of advertising money in an attempt to pare their film range from dozens to just two, it didn't really work out that way as people discovered TMax was inferior in many ways to some of the older films. But like I said, if you've ever printed the two you would know they were very different films.
It amazes me how people spring to the defence of Kodak and TMax. Kodak was a company, some would say poorly run, that, like any company was into making money. When the price of silver shot up in the late 1970s their bottom line suffered. So they set their scientists the task of making a good film that used much less silver. And a few years later along came TMax. It sold like hotcakes at first because everyone trusted that Kodak had made them a next generation amazing film. After about 6 months, after people didn't like the results they were getting TMax sales went south. So Kodak doubled down on promoting their new wonder film. They even paid people like John Sexton to promote it. The sales never recovered but it was much cheaper to produce so they kept making it and they kept discontinuing their other B&W films so that now we are left with the two TMax films and TX which is also now made with the same technology as TMax and is nothing like TX of old. I can almost always tell a print that was made from TMax, it is very distinctive, some like its "look" but many do not. I must admit that I do like Sexton's prints from it but he is such a great artist that he could make a great print from any film. But let's be objective about it.The things I read...
Fortunately Ron Mowrey can't read such kind of things. Oh, Ron, how time passes and you are sorely missed.
It amazes me how people spring to the defence of Kodak and TMax. .
When you see objective, controlled tests between Panatomic-X and TMX, or between Tri-X and TMY, you see the T-grain films being completely superior in most measures.
Everything else is nostalgia or personal preference. Of course everybody has his/her right to prefer a certain look. I like Fomapan 400 sometimes.
As for your "cost-cutting" comments, you seem to be from the "more silver = better film" credo, which Rowland Mowrey soundly dispelled in the past in this forum.
You must have an amazing densitometer. I've never seen a densitometer that can tell me that a film is "better" than another film.Densitometers can tell you how a film is different but "better" is an opinion, densitometers don't do opinions. Look, it's pretty simple, some folks love the TMax look, many do not.When you see objective, controlled tests between Panatomic-X and TMX, or between Tri-X and TMY, you see the T-grain films being completely superior in most measures.
Everything else is nostalgia or personal preference. Of course everybody has his/her right to prefer a certain look. I like Fomapan 400 sometimes.
As for your "cost-cutting" comments, you seem to be from the "more silver = better film" credo, which Rowland Mowrey soundly dispelled in the past in this forum.
In my experience, it is "Many people prefer the T-Max results, some do not".some folks love the TMax look, many do not.
In my experience, it is "Many people prefer the T-Max results, some do not".
.
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?