New Kodak Film in 2022?

[AgX]

Interesting, to me anyway, to see the calls for faster-than-400 color films. .... But we have TMZ back, something I NEVER thought I'd see and am very glad for, as well as Delta 3200.

But for colour we had ISO 3200 (CN) and ISO 1000 (CR) resp. ISO 1600 (CR push) films

 

[AgX]

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?

There are X-ray films of all tastes, do not let you fool by the term being misused in the meaning the films being generic.

 

[Don_ih]

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?

Like @AgX said, it will depend on what xray film you get. Mine is Carestream (Kodak) with emulsion on both sides. It's different from single-sided emulsion. There are also different sensitivities. So, whatever you got, you'd have to experiment.

 

[George Mann]

The rest is just obsessive nostalgia for a product that wasn't as good at what it was intended to do as Tmax 100.

Tmax sucks. Pan X was the best!

 

[Agulliver]

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.

I used to love how Fuji Superia 1600 looked shooting rock concerts with dramatic lighting and smoke effect. I don't think digital "does it better"....different, and effective for sure but I prefer how the film looed. We've lost the Konica 3200 C41 film....Kodak Gold 1000, Fuji Superia 1600, Fuji Superia 800. The Lomography 800 is often unavailable and rumoured to be Kodak Max 800. Whatever it is, it's lovely stuff.

I take the points about Ilford FP4+ being quite low contrast. I only ever used plus-x in Super 8, so I never got to compare it in 35mm still format. From what little I know in the comfort of my armchair, I'd say it may be easier to bring Plus-X back than Panatomic X or any other emulsion not produced in 30+ years. Why not Verichrome Pan? Also colour films will be more difficult than B&W....but at least we've got Ektachrome back, which was no mean feat....and TMZ....and Gold 200 in 120.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I used to love how Fuji Superia 1600 looked shooting rock concerts with dramatic lighting and smoke effect. I don't think digital "does it better"....different, and effective for sure but I prefer how the film looed. We've lost the Konica 3200 C41 film....Kodak Gold 1000, Fuji Superia 1600, Fuji Superia 800. The Lomography 800 is often unavailable and rumoured to be Kodak Max 800. Whatever it is, it's lovely stuff.

I take the points about Ilford FP4+ being quite low contrast. I only ever used plus-x in Super 8, so I never got to compare it in 35mm still format. From what little I know in the comfort of my armchair, I'd say it may be easier to bring Plus-X back than Panatomic X or any other emulsion not produced in 30+ years. Why not Verichrome Pan? Also colour films will be more difficult than B&W....but at least we've got Ektachrome back, which was no mean feat....and TMZ....and Gold 200 in 120.

Verichrome Pan had cadium in it and that is toxic to the environment. It was easier to use new emulsions to R&D another film.

 

[MattKing]

Verichrome Pan had cadium in it and that is toxic to the environment. It was easier to use new emulsions to R&D another film.

In most of its later years, Verichrome Pan was simply Plus X emulsion coated in a way that provided less anti-halation. And Panatomic X had tiny sales.
Source: Bob Shanebrook
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/develop-the-negative-of-type-55.174246/#post-2267166

 

[markjwyatt]

I used to love how Fuji Superia 1600 looked shooting rock concerts with dramatic lighting and smoke effect. I don't think digital "does it better"....different, and effective for sure but I prefer how the film looed. We've lost the Konica 3200 C41 film....Kodak Gold 1000, Fuji Superia 1600, Fuji Superia 800. The Lomography 800 is often unavailable and rumoured to be Kodak Max 800. Whatever it is, it's lovely stuff.

I take the points about Ilford FP4+ being quite low contrast. I only ever used plus-x in Super 8, so I never got to compare it in 35mm still format. From what little I know in the comfort of my armchair, I'd say it may be easier to bring Plus-X back than Panatomic X or any other emulsion not produced in 30+ years. Why not Verichrome Pan? Also colour films will be more difficult than B&W....but at least we've got Ektachrome back, which was no mean feat....and TMZ....and Gold 200 in 120.

We still have Super XX (as Double XX) if you want it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Verichrome Pan had cadium in it and that is toxic to the environment. It was easier to use new emulsions to R&D another film.

No, VP was 135 format Plus-X's emulsions coated on 120 base throughout its life. Kodak's advertising at introduction said as much and Bob Shanebrook has confirmed it was still the case at the point that all the various VP/ PX/ PXP/ PXT variants were reduced to the final 135/120 125PX version.

We still have Super XX (as Double XX) if you want it.

No, 5222 and 4142 aren't the same. And anyway, 4142 despite all the breathless hype from people who've never cared to check the basics of its sensitometry, was really nothing more than Kodak's main general purpose B&W sheet film pre-TMax - the others having more specific purposes. That people do strange things to 320TXP (and its TXT/ TXP predecessors) to try and make it 'general purpose' is as much because of it being promulgated by weekend workshoppery in the Ansel Adams vein (essentially because it seems to have been intended to replace Portrait Pan, which Adams had described in a letter to Paul Strand in 1954 as 'perhaps the best quality for the kind of work we do').

 

[Sal Santamaura]

We still have Super XX (as Double XX) if you want it.

Today's Eastman DOUBLE X 5222/7222 motion picture negative film and the past's Kodak SUPER-XX still camera films are entirely different products.

 

[spoolman]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading somewhere that VP was a "bipack film" meaning it had two emulsions,one regular or high contrast and the other low contrast which made it ideal for use in simple or box cameras.

Doug

 

[MattKing]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading somewhere that VP was a "bipack film" meaning it had two emulsions,one regular or high contrast and the other low contrast which made it ideal for use in simple or box cameras.

Doug

At one time it had two types of emulsion, but I don't know that they differed as to contrast.
But for the last many years, just the Plus-X emulsion with less anti-halation.

 

[mshchem]

I used a lot of Ektapan sheet film, worked well. I still have a couple rolls of 120 Verichrome.

The current films offered by Kodak and Ilford are amazing. I'm good.

 

[lxdude]

The last high speed slide film I used was GAF 500, terrible stuff.

Indeed it was.

 

[lxdude]

I'm thinking of something else.
Many manufacturers currently have a problem with the black backing paper having a chemical reaction with the film emulsion.
Many films are spoiled in this way by the backing paper.
This is a problem that has existed for several years but no one seems to be able to find a solution.

Best regards
Klaus

An excellent reason to reintroduce 220 film!

 

[cmacd123]

But does Plus-X have a multi layer emulsion?

"Bi Pack" by the way means TWO films running through the camera at once, like one of the three strip technicolour processes.

 

[Lachlan Young]

But does Plus-X have a multi layer emulsion?

Blended emulsions, coated as single layer +supercoat(s) etc, at least from what I can find about the pre-B38 versions.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading somewhere that VP was a "bipack film" meaning it had two emulsions,one regular or high contrast and the other low contrast which made it ideal for use in simple or box cameras.

Verichrome (i.e. the original orthochromatic version) used two emulsions (probably pretty polydisperse) in discrete layers - Verichrome Pan (and 135 PX) had 20 years more emulsion knowledge/ technology onboard and seems to have used much more monodisperse emulsions of more selected crystal characteristic/ size (this was one of the big innovations that seems to have really come into widespread use with these materials in the mid-1950s) blended and coated as a single layer (reduced halation problems) along with improved sensitising/ acutance/ anti-halation dyes.

 

[Highlyanimated]

Like @AgX said, it will depend on what xray film you get. Mine is Carestream (Kodak) with emulsion on both sides. It's different from single-sided emulsion. There are also different sensitivities. So, whatever you got, you'd have to experiment.

Apologies for missing AgX's post. I appreciate your reply. I'll do some of my own research, I didn't know X-ray film was an option for consumer photography.

 

[abruzzi]

Apologies for missing AgX's post. I appreciate your reply. I'll do some of my own research, I didn't know X-ray film was an option for consumer photography.

I don't believe I've seen 4x5 x-ray film, however 8x10 is a common size that could be cut down to 5x7 or 4x5. One of the more popular for general photography is Fujifilm HR-U. 100 sheets of 8x10 costs about $50 shipped.

8x10 in. Fuji X-Ray Film

8x10 Fuji Medical X-Ray film available in Green Sensitive and Full Speed Blue. 100 sheets per box. Fuji Reference Numbers: HRU 47410 12976 RXN 47410 19291 HR-U Medium Speed Green Film RX-N Full Speed Blue Film

www.zzmedical.com

The RX-N also at that link isn't very commonly used since apparently its sensitivity is only in the blue realm, while HR-U is blue and green sensitive. Neither are red sensitive (not sure about other emulsions). If you find 4x5 I'd be curious to know.

 

[AgX]

As with all other halide films, the offer of X-ray films is shrinking too.

 

[markjwyatt]

No, VP was 135 format Plus-X's emulsions coated on 120 base throughout its life. Kodak's advertising at introduction said as much and Bob Shanebrook has confirmed it was still the case at the point that all the various VP/ PX/ PXP/ PXT variants were reduced to the final 135/120 125PX version.

No, 5222 and 4142 aren't the same. And anyway, 4142 despite all the breathless hype from people who've never cared to check the basics of its sensitometry, was really nothing more than Kodak's main general purpose B&W sheet film pre-TMax - the others having more specific purposes. That people do strange things to 320TXP (and its TXT/ TXP predecessors) to try and make it 'general purpose' is as much because of it being promulgated by weekend workshoppery in the Ansel Adams vein (essentially because it seems to have been intended to replace Portrait Pan, which Adams had described in a letter to Paul Strand in 1954 as 'perhaps the best quality for the kind of work we do').

Today's Eastman DOUBLE X 5222/7222 motion picture negative film and the past's Kodak SUPER-XX still camera films are entirely different products.

I guess I am listening to too much marketing hype. I do have a roll of the Cine-Still in 120 to try in any case.

 

[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 came back to this thread to say that I was finally clued in to how much cheaper it is to get Foma films, at least if you order in quantity, direct from Germany via Fotoimpex. Man - even including shipping 8x10 Foma is close to 1/2 the price of the Arista branded version from Freestyle. Not quite THAT much discount, but closer to 1/2 than full price. That just made me more interested in getting into 8x10 in the coming year or so. I can still experiment with x-ray but the Foma 8x10 from Fotoimpex is somewhat affordable - a lot more so than any other conventional film sourced from anywhere I'm aware of this side of the pond anyway. I've shot a fair amount of Foma 400 in 4x5 and never had any QC issues or similar. It's not a stellar film but it wasn't "bad" if one can live with the horrid reciprocity failure (possibly more of an issue shooting on 8x10 with a very stopped down lens, granted.)

 

[WD4AON]

Yes! Exactly!

Film photography is a novelty! It's a hobby like working on classic cars or playing vintage guitars. Why would anyone play a 50's tele when things have come so much further and better over the last 70 years? Because there's a novelty is using it! There's a novelty in using manual shift, bolt action, CRTs, tube amps, SLRs, incandescent bulbs, HAM radio, 80's PCs etc and etc.

There are a few serious artists photographers out there still using film as their work medium but the vast majority of people - including me - are shooting film for the novelty and hobby aspect. Sure there are other things that are great about film but it's not an irreplaceable medium that if it goes away we won't be able to capture images anymore. As soon as the big players in the industry pivot hard to this idea the better. Why do you think Fujifilm only really cares about Instax? Does anyone buy up instax and use it for pro work? I'm sure some do, but 99.99999% of sales are for novelty reasons. It's fun! It's novel! It's interesting!

I take my hobby seriously. Maybe I've moved out of novelty territory and into 'geek in basement' zone. I've not lost sight of what is selling film though. It's fun, quirky and nostalgic for my gen. And the cameras are freaking cool.

Right On! As many motorcyclists will tell you, it is the ride not the destination that counts most...

 

[Cholentpot]

Right On! As many motorcyclists will tell you, it is the ride not the destination that counts most...

Need more weird cameras and odd formats.

My daily bike ride is an 80's Panasonic. No motor, just feet and legs though. It is bright yellow so it makes it faster obviously.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't shoot film for novelty factor, it's certainly no novelty to me having been shooting film since 1977 or 1978. But it certainly is a hobby. And yes, it's a niche thing to go to a jazz club with a 65 year old camera and shoot B&W film....or to fly to a Spanish island and shoot ortho film.