New Kodak Film in 2021?

[faberryman]

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.

I know. I shot Kodachrome for 30 years. I've seen the movie. It's never coming back.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Verichrome Pan

Plus-X... 120

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.

 

[Pieter12]

It's 2022. I didn't see any new film announcements from Kodak. So much for rumors.

 

[msage]

As I posted elsewhere, HIE.
Speculation, but not entirely unsupported speculation.

In 4x5 please!
Although after seeing the price of 4x5 Tri-x I may not be able to afford a box!

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's 2022. I didn't see any new film announcements from Kodak. So much for rumors.

There is a new thread for 2022 folk, come on if you are still posting or even looking here you are out of date.

 

[Cholentpot]

I know that would make a lot of people happy.

I would be, for one.

Yeesh what a waste of effort that would be.

That's the point, it's the least amount of effort and they'll be printing money.

 

[Cholentpot]

I don’t think anyone aside from Drew W. could tell the difference between Plus-X and FP4.

My goodman! How forward of you to presume that none of us here can ascertain the differentiation of characteristics between one stock of obviously inferior manufacture!

I said good day!

 

[markbau]

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!

 

[Lachlan Young]

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!

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

That is correct, although that was only in reference to the last versions of Verichrome Pan.
I certainly see differences between the Plus-X that I've shot a lot of and the small amount of FP-4+ I've shot, but I'm sure that I could get FP-4+ to meet most of the needs that Plus-X satisfied for me.
35mm Plus-X in X-Tol:

 

[pentaxuser]

I don’t think anyone aside from Drew W. could tell the difference between Plus-X and FP4.

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"

pentaxuser

 

[markbau]

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 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.

 

[MattKing]

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:
[URL="https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/develop-the-negative-of-type-55.174246/#post-2267166"]Develop the negative of Type 55[/URL]
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.

 

[markbau]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

I assume this guy worked for Kodak? That is what I would expect a Kodak shrill to say.

Here is some of Bob's biographical information:
http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/Author.html
He was the worldwide product line manager for Kodak films for about 20 years.

 

[MattKing]

And yes, I did print both Verichrome Pan (when I was younger) and Plus X - although way more Plus X over the years.
You should read Bob's book - "Making Kodak Film" - it is excellent.

 

[removedacct1]

I assume this guy worked for Kodak? That is what I would expect a Kodak shrill to say.

I think the word you're looking for is "shill".

 

[flavio81]

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.

The things I read...

Fortunately Ron Mowrey can't read such kind of things. Oh, Ron, how time passes and you are sorely missed.

 

[markbau]

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. 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.

 

[flavio81]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

The one test that fails for me is that I prefer the tradition grain look.

 

[markbau]

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.

 

[MattKing]

some folks love the TMax look, many do not.

In my experience, it is "Many people prefer the T-Max results, some do not".
And while the cost of silver isn't unimportant, it is relatively tiny compared to the other costs involved.
What did create problems for Kodak at the time of the "crisis" was security of silver supply.
The technology that is crucial to T-Max films was developed to enhance motion picture colour films, and then applied to the black and white still films.

 

[Arthurwg]

Just noticed that Kodak Tried-X is now over $10 a roll for 35mm at B&H. That's getting rather expensive IMHO.

 

[markbau]

In my experience, it is "Many people prefer the T-Max results, some do not".
.

When I last worked in a lab TMax was a minority film. I just went onto the B&H site and looked up B&W 120 films and sorted them by "best sellers" TMY and TMX are well down the list.