You know what Kodak cares about? Selling more film. And if they can take Tmax 100, tweak it a little, slap a new label on it and sell it as Panatomic-X II then they'll do it. I'll bet you'll see Kodachrome 23 come out which is just Ektrachrome tweaked with a new label. And you know what? It'll sell like hotcakes. It won't be able to stay on the shelves.
Not counting colour film stock Kodak doesn't produce anything of interest to me that Ilford doesn't do, and do better imho.
So what I guess I'm saying is I really don't care what Kodak does.
And if they can take Tmax 100, tweak it a little, slap a new label on it and sell it as Panatomic-X II then they'll do it.
I'll bet you'll see Kodachrome 23 come out which is just Ektrachrome tweaked with a new label. And you know what? It'll sell like hotcakes. It won't be able to stay on the shelves.
Learned something new, thanks for the heads-up! I still have some Pan-X from my high school and college days. I bought it in 1973 and expired in 1975. Been in the freezer until used. I lost about 1/2 a stop developing in HC-110. I'd sure like to see Plus-X again in 120/220 for my RB gear.Since they now released Gold 200 in 120, Im more hopeful there are more releases coming. There was mention they may be working on a couple others down the pike. I don't remember where I read that. Im betting Plus X gets re-released again. That seems to be the most logical choice at this point. And its the easiest one to reintroduce, since it was only discontinued 10 years ago now.
Im also hopeful Panatomic X might get a chance again, but so far, no indication they will do that film. It would complete the triad of slow, medium, and fast B&W cubic grain films.
Since Panatomic-X had cadmium in the emulsion, it is very unlikely that Kodak would re-release the original formulation.
Kodak won't make a slow film. It's not what their customer base wants.
No offense taken, I agree with your basic premise. Honestly, at this point, anything that increases film usage is a good thing. I was just trying to keep my reply to @braxus as focused as possible.
Sacrilege!
I was just thinking that this may be possible.
While they are at it they can re-release a modern version original Kodak for their 135th Anniversary.Dump everything and just make ortho film and azo like the good old days
While they are at it they can re-release a modern version original Kodak for their 135th Anniversary.
Seriously a nice box camera that takes 120, Inst. and B, f 11, fixed focus. Brownie Hawkeye. How cool would that be? Comes with a roll of Tmax 100 in Verichrome livery.While they are at it they can re-release a modern version original Kodak for their 135th Anniversary.
Seriously a nice box camera that takes 120, Inst. and B, f 11, fixed focus. Brownie Hawkeye. How cool would that be? Comes with a roll of Tmax 100 in Verichrome livery.
Spend a couple million on tooling, maybe drive the company into Chapter 11.
Exactly, cardstock, an attractive fauxbovinehide covering, a little sheet metal for shutter and film advance. It would have to be well made, like the original.It's a cardboard box. With a magnifying glass for a lens. It's not that difficult.
Exactly, cardstock, an attractive fauxbovinehide covering, a little sheet metal for shutter and film advance. It would have to be well made, like the original.
Kodak won't make a slow film. It's not what their customer base wants.
Kodak won't make a slow film. It's not what their customer base wants.
You are not Kodak's customer base.Yes we do!
Yes we do!
I'm the idiot who rolls their own 120 film because it's cheaper
Yeah - unfortunately (or fortunately), Kodak seems to want a very young customer base. Kodak wants people taking snapshots - that's what burns through film. Ponderous old fellas using one sheet a month, taking 6 hours to wait for the right light, planning a trip to shoot 5 film holders --- Kodak has never cared about those people.
I do that, too.
You are not Kodak's customer base.
Im sure they are quite capable to reformulate the emulsion for Pan X to not use cadmium. The question would be whether they are willing to.
That will have had almost zero to do with it, despite the overwrought nostalgia here and in other threads. It was probably reformulated (if necessary) in the 1970s to eliminate the Cd. There may have been other components that needed replaced (and would have been) - and possibly wider reformulation to enable dramatically lower waste manufacturing (this became very important), if it genuinely offered real advantages over Tmax 100. Tmax 100 seriously outperforms FX at everything FX was supposed to do well, apart from resistance to significant operator error. Delta 100 offers more resistance to operator error (and was engineered as such). The reality is that the late-period market for Panatomic-X does not seem to have been operating at a level of technical ability or knowledge (and seems to have been encouraged by media-driven groupthink) to be able to understand why it was withdrawn.
Kodak won't make a slow film. It's not what their customer base wants.
New or reissue stocks have zero to do with performance these days and 100% to do with branding. We don't care if it occupies the same niche as something else. We want to shoot Panatomic-X because it has Atomic in the name and an X at the end.
Mirko of Adox/ Fotoimpex has been pretty frank about the real demand for very slow film stocks today. But there's nothing to stop you from coming up with the money and approaching any of the manufacturers with a request for a 3D-grain, slow speed, normal gradient emulsion - if you really reckon you can sell the 10's of thousands of rolls. Or just use Pan-F Plus in a timely fashion.
Which means that at one time, a long time ago, you were part of Kodak's main customer base. I was there with you.I shot Kodachrome exclusively for over 20 years!
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?