New Kodak Film in 2022?

[Sirius Glass]

What are you talking about? The current versions of Portra are the NC version. Its the VC version that is no longer with us. Just look how flat the current Portra is in saturation, especially the 160 version.

I still have my Ultra Color 400 in 120 and 35mm that I bought up and stored in my freezer to keep them from the hoarders.

 

[Roger Cole]

Note - I pretty much drifted away from photography in 2013-ish, got interested right after my divorce in 2015 and stocked up on paper and chems, then didn't really do much with it. So it's been nearly 10 years since I shot film even half seriously. From that perspective:

Interesting, to me anyway, to see the calls for faster-than-400 color films. To me, digital has pretty much nixed the need or even desire for that. It just does very low light so much better. I hate to admit that, because I do photography because I enjoy it, and it's much more about the process than the artifact for me, and I just don't enjoy working digitally that much, but it's true. Black and white is, maybe anyway, a little different because of the look of real grain versus digital noise. You just get a look with high speed ( > 400) black and white films that I've not quite seen from any digital. But we have TMZ back, something I NEVER thought I'd see and am very glad for, as well as Delta 3200, the latter in both 35mm and 120, which sorely tempts me to find an 80 f/1.9 for my Mamiya 645 Pro.

Ektachrome 400 would be welcome, at least to me. I still have a stash of frozen Provia 400X but frozen film stashes are never enough film, and I don't know how well it's kept (probably well enough.) It seems maybe within the realm of possibility so I would like to see Ektachrome in 400. Faster would be welcome but in the past the faster than 400 color films I've shot have not impressed me much (exception - Portra 800, and unlike a lot of folks I preferred the results from it to those from the 400 underexposed by a stop, with or without pushing processing. It isn't great, but it is pretty good, and often that's good enough.) I don't see the need for a VERY fast color film anymore given just how much better digital can do at those speeds, but 400 is a very "comfortable" speed for me for regular shooting, much more so than 100. We have 200 and 400 in C41 but it would be very nice to have in E6 again as well.

What I'd REALLY like to see is a good color film in 4x5 sheets at a much less outrageous price than today's sticker shock inducing ones . If we can get Kodak's 120 C41 films at $12 a roll or so - expensive, even a bit of a shock returning to photography after several years away, but still something I can afford to shoot - we should be able to get the same films in 4x5 for $3 a sheet. Heck, Gold 200 is $8.99 a roll (all prices from a quick look at Freestyle just now) so given a 4x5 sheet has about 1/4 the area of a roll of 120 that'd be more like $2.25 a sheet. I know, I know - it's a very different film base, much less economy of scale etc. But it also doesn't need backing paper or film spools and I can dream, can't I? As it is, my return to photography will mean color is limited to my medium format cameras or in cases where I really want view camera movements a roll film back on my 4x5.

The same reasoning applies for me to E6 film in sheets. We have Provia 100 and Ektachrome 100, but both are around $6 a shot in 4x5 - pretty prohibitive, especially when I can get a 120 roll for as "little" as $13 (Provia 100, 5 roll pack is currently $64.99 at Freestyle, expected in stock Aug 5) and get 10 shots from that with my roll film back on my 4x5, or in my RZ 67.

While I'm semi-ranting about cost, how about a good black and white film in 8x10 that doesn't break the bank to shoot? I'm interested in dabbling in 8x10 but if I do that's going to mean x-ray film. And given how medical imaging has gone, if I do that I'll stock a small chest freezer with the stuff if I can dial in results that suit. 4x5 I can still, sort of, justify shooting, given how slowly I work in 4x5 anyway.

I'm about a 90% black and white shooter, but those comments are all about color with the exception of the bit about TMZ and D3200, but that's just because I'm pretty happy with current offerings in black and white. Maybe, as others have said, a real infrared film might be fun. Other than that, we are fortunate to still have a pretty vast selection of good black and white films on the market already.

 

[Roger Cole]

I still have my Ultra Color 400 in 120 and 35mm that I bought up and stored in my freezer to keep them from the hoarders.

Anyone else remember Agfa Ultra 50? Good lord was that film saturated. I think it was more saturated than Velvia. THAT is one I'd love to see again, knowing the chance of that is precisely zero. (Yeah I know the highly saturated Kodak films like VC were much more accurate. Ultra 50 was not something one chose for accurate color. But the saturation would "knock your eyeballs out" as one friend described it.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Anyone else remember Agfa Ultra 50?

Shot my last roll of Ultra 50 two weeks ago. What a film, I love the prints I've made with it. I might do a thread on this film in the winter. Another crazy film: Fuji Fortia SP

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Another crazy film: Fuji Fortia SP

I never had a chance to shoot this film. How does it compare to Velvia 50?

 

[braxus]

I never had a chance to shoot this film. How does it compare to Velvia 50?

I have shot a few rolls of this stuff when it was introduced and later on made again. It was basically an all out saturated film to exaggerate color to extremes. They said they made it for the cherry blossoms in spring time. Its quite the film, where colors can shift a bit. I ended up selling the stash of it I had, as I didn't want to use what remaining rolls I had. It was only available in Japan, and you had to have someone there export it to you.

 

[Don_ih]

how about a good black and white film in 8x10 that doesn't break the bank to shoot?

Shanghai 8x10 is decently affordable and, from the sheets I've shot, good enough for dabbling. Their film is more reliable than it used to be (and more expensive).

 

[perkeleellinen]

I never had a chance to shoot this film. How does it compare to Velvia 50?

As Braxus said, very saturated, imagine having a dial on Velvia that went to 11. I struggled to find a good subject for it, everything was over the top. Flower macros or abstract colour studies would work well. You don't want to see my portraits taken in the summer with already reddened faces!

 

[perkeleellinen]

I never had a chance to shoot this film. How does it compare to Velvia 50?

Found a roll in my files, apologies, I have no other way to digitise - IPad photo:

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

@perkeleellinen and @braxus, thanks for the information. It sounds like a film that might be (have been) great for a trip to the US southwest, really punching up the blue skies. Unfortunately, it looks like I'll never have the chance to try it.

 

[Roger Cole]

Shanghai 8x10 is decently affordable and, from the sheets I've shot, good enough for dabbling. Their film is more reliable than it used to be (and more expensive).

Where? I just checked eBay and the cheapest I see it is $75 plus $11.75 shipping, which brings it to $86.75, and that's for 25 sheets of 2014 expired film and even so that totals $3.47 a sheet. The cheapest I see fresh film, in fact the ONLY listing I see for fresh 8x10, is $126.99 for 25 sheets with free shipping, or right at $5.08 per sheet. Granted I don't see an easy way to estimate shipping costs but I can get rebranded Foma from Freestyle for $4.99 a sheet. Probably a wash considering shipping and I've shot plenty of "Arista" aka Foma in 4x5 and know it. X-ray, OTOH, is closer to 30 cents a sheet though it does have its own challenges including a more or less ortho response (can be good though, depending) and the ease of scratching the double sided variety, which is all you can easily find now from what I read.

 

[Don_ih]

I just checked eBay and the cheapest I see it is $75 plus $11.75 shipping, which brings it to $86.75, and that's for 25 sheets of 2014 expired film and even so that totals $3.47 a sheet.

TriX is about $15 a sheet- so at least it's not that.
I didn't say it was cheap. I said it was decently affordable - as opposed to obscenely expensive.

As for where, it's possibly cheapest on AliExpress. Every now and then, it's discounted.

 

[abruzzi]

xray is great for practice, but for me the jury is still out on whether its useful for general purpose photography. I've seen others get great results from it, but my personal results have been less than stellar.

 

[Don_ih]

xray is great for practice, but for me the jury is still out on whether its useful for general purpose photography. I've seen others get great results from it, but my personal results have been less than stellar.

My results have mostly been scratched to hell. However, every now and then I have been careful enough with it to get good results. I used some yesterday (Carestream with emulsion on both sides):
https://www.instagram.com/p/CgU7L3Jpw21/?hl=en


Scratched but I liked how it ended up. (8x10 contact print)

I think a lot of what you see online (that's not contact printed) has had the scratches fixed post scanning.

 

[Roger Cole]

TriX is about $15 a sheet- so at least it's not that.
I didn't say it was cheap. I said it was decently affordable - as opposed to obscenely expensive.

As for where, it's possibly cheapest on AliExpress. Every now and then, it's discounted.

I'll check there, thanks. But I never once remotely considered shooting Tri-X. I won't even shoot Kodak in B&W in 4x5. The prices are insane compared to Ilford, same in 8x10. For quality film in sheets I go to Ilford. For play around film in 4x5 rebranded Arista Foma. But even that is kind of nuts in 8x10 though, no, not nearly as nuts as Tri-X (or color, yikes!)

 

[Highlyanimated]

Very few months left in 2022, I'm skeptical this is more than Gold 120

 

[braxus]

I don't think there will be more films then Gold 120 either. The most obvious choice to come out next, at least in my book, would be Plus X. I'd love if Panatomic X would come back too, but at the speed Kodak is reintroducing old discontinued films, Im not hopeful it will ever return. Pan X, Plus X, and Tri-X would make the trio of old cubic grain films come about again. But it seems Tri-X is all we'll get for now.

 

[Highlyanimated]

I don't think there will be more films then Gold 120 either. The most obvious choice to come out next, at least in my book, would be Plus X. I'd love if Panatomic X would come back too, but at the speed Kodak is reintroducing old discontinued films, Im not hopeful it will ever return. Pan X, Plus X, and Tri-X would make the trio of old cubic grain films come about again. But it seems Tri-X is all we'll get for now.

I bought a roll of Panatomic X 120, no idea how it was stored. I am hoping I get usable images off of it when I shoot it. It really seems like quite an amazing film base on what I've seen other users produce.

 

[faberryman]

xray is great for practice, but for me the jury is still out on whether its useful for general purpose photography.

What exactly do you mean by practice?

 

[Agulliver]

I don't think there will be more films then Gold 120 either. The most obvious choice to come out next, at least in my book, would be Plus X. I'd love if Panatomic X would come back too, but at the speed Kodak is reintroducing old discontinued films, Im not hopeful it will ever return. Pan X, Plus X, and Tri-X would make the trio of old cubic grain films come about again. But it seems Tri-X is all we'll get for now.

I have read that part of the reason for the demise of Panatomic X over 30 years ago was down to one of the chemicals used in making the emulsion. I cannot imagine that it has become easier to obtain or safer to the environment...which ever the problem was.

Plus-X, being axed only a decade or so ago, might be less difficult. I assume there's a good market for a medium speed B&W film as Ilford, Kentmere, Foma, and possibly Bergger all seem to do well with 100=125ISO films. Though does Plus-X offer anything unique that FP4 doesn't?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have read that part of the reason for the demise of Panatomic X over 30 years ago was down to one of the chemicals used in making the emulsion. I cannot imagine that it has become easier to obtain or safer to the environment...which ever the problem was.

If it had been selling in adequate quantity (and wasn't being faced with replacement by a significantly technologically superior product that was considerably more consistent in manufacture - i.e. more challenging to make but massively lower wastage) those problems would have been solved. The rest is just obsessive nostalgia for a product that wasn't as good at what it was intended to do as Tmax 100.

As for other films, if it was coated in B38 then it's probably got a decent chance of re-introduction if there's sufficient demand (and, more importantly, converting capacity). The conversion capacity bottleneck is probably more of an issue in any re-introduction currently.

 

[cmacd123]

it is one thing if something is made using all ingreedients that are already stocked. And yes, I recall that at least one of the ingredients for FX was something that the Kodak folks were no longer able to use. Compared to the Similar XT Pan movie film where the demand had gone way down. (Eastman XT Panchromatic Negative Film 5220/7220, ISO 25)

 

[abruzzi]

What exactly do you mean by practice?

anything where I'm not expecting usable results...

 

[Highlyanimated]

My results have mostly been scratched to hell. However, every now and then I have been careful enough with it to get good results. I used some yesterday (Carestream with emulsion on both sides):

View attachment 310971

Scratched but I liked how it ended up. (8x10 contact print)

I think a lot of what you see online (that's not contact printed) has had the scratches fixed post scanning.

Do I just throw a sheet of X-ray film into a 4x5 for example and shoot like normal B&W film? What exactly is the optimal ISO?

 

[braxus]

Though does Plus-X offer anything unique that FP4 doesn't?

Plus X is one of my favorite B&W films. I never really warmed to FP4+ to be honest. The Ilford film looks totally different to Plus X. Plus X was an excellent outdoor film, especially in sun. It darked the skies a bit, which the odd B&W film does. It also brings out the detail in wood, like wood grain. Its a higher contrast film then FP4+. FP4+ looked flat to me in comparison. The contrast in Plus X is one thing I liked about it. Sort of similar to what Ilford Pan F+ does, but Plus X has better mid tones. And the grain of Plus X was just enough to give it character, but not be overly present.