But for colour we had ISO 3200 (CN) and ISO 1000 (CR) resp. ISO 1600 (CR push) films
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.
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?
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?
The rest is just obsessive nostalgia for a product that wasn't as good at what it was intended to do as Tmax 100.
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.
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.
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.
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').We still have Super XX (as Double XX) if you want it.
We still have Super XX (as Double XX) if you want it.
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
Indeed it was.The last high speed slide film I used was GAF 500, terrible stuff.
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
But does Plus-X have a multi layer emulsion?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?