New Kodak Film in 2022?

[Lachlan Young]

@Cholentpot - so you're effectively implying that the notional Panatomic-X nostalgists can't really tell the difference between Tmax 100 and Panatomic-X in a double-blind situation (which is correct, I'd suggest) and could be conditioned by marketing/ branding alone to upgrade their material choice to something that's available now?

 

[Cholentpot]

@Cholentpot - so you're effectively implying that the notional Panatomic-X nostalgists can't really tell the difference between Tmax 100 and Panatomic-X in a double-blind situation (which is correct, I'd suggest) and could be conditioned by marketing/ branding alone to upgrade their material choice to something that's available now?

No.

The folks that were born a decade after Panatomic-X was discontinued will buy gobs and gobs of it if the marketing is correct.

I'm near that generation and we're all about the marketing. Look at places like Kickstarter which is all about marketing. And then see how successful that place is.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

You are not Kodak's customer base.

I shot Kodachrome exclusively for over 20 years!

As did I. So what? Neither of us is part of "Kodak's customer base" today.

 

[Don_ih]

FPP sells copy film or something that they rate at ASA 6 or something. Cinestill has 50D floating around. Film sells on the choices and novelty nowdays. Lomopurple, redrum, Cinestill, etc and etc.

Add all that up and it might get to be 1/10 of the amount of Kodak Gold 200 sold. .... probably not. Those are novelty items. Novelty items are marginal to the interests of the main customer base.

 

[Cholentpot]

Add all that up and it might get to be 1/10 of the amount of Kodak Gold 200 sold. .... probably not. Those are novelty items. Novelty items are marginal to the interests of the main customer base.

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

If only Ilford would make a good color slide film at a more affordable price than Ektachrome.

I am never sure whenever I see those kind of statements, if the poster is joining in with the spirit of the "let's all wish for the impossible" purely for its enjoyment or entertainment or if there is at least in part just the hint of a notion that such things could happen

If only I had stuck to motorcycling 50+ years ago and taken it more seriously, I see no reason why I could not have been Isle of Man TT senior champion by my late 20s. All it would have taken is faith- the same as you need according to Curtis Mayfield in order to hear the diesels humming etc

In the cold hard light of morning I fear that my chances of this dream were about the same as that of llford doing what you suggest, George.

As I said you may just have been joining in with the "wish list" spirit of this thread and if so I understand. By the way I use your above impossible wish only as an example. You are far from being the only one.

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

Film photography is a novelty!

No. Film photography is a niche market. Only a small percentage of the population uses film. Many are not using it as a novelty but just because that's what they've always used. Those people want film like Kodak Gold - not respooled copy film. No one is grabbing Kodak Positive Release film and using it as their main film.
Well, maybe someone is. No matter what, there's always someone doing it.

 

[Cholentpot]

No. Film photography is a niche market. Only a small percentage of the population uses film. Many are not using it as a novelty but just because that's what they've always used. Those people want film like Kodak Gold - not respooled copy film. No one is grabbing Kodak Positive Release film and using it as their main film.
Well, maybe someone is. No matter what, there's always someone doing it.

As distasteful as it is, hop onto a social media app or site and see how many youngn's are shooting film. Morseso, how many people are shooting that didn't use film when film was king...because they weren't born yet.

The 'they've always used it' crowd has moved past cameras and shoot their snapshots on phones. My mother is one of those. She shot dozens and dozens of rolls a year. Once film stopped being a thing she got a digital point and shoot which was rarely used and then once the first phone with a camera came out she left cameras for good. The main user base for film were snapshots, greatest all time best selling camera was the one use disposable. Pros always made up a minority of film use. It was the Mom or Dad loading up for a trip or getting shots of Jr or Fido. It was me with my disposable and .99 one hour development with 2x prints that would go on BOGO every few months.

 

[Agulliver]

My local camera shop, which does the majority of it's business selling NOS or used film cameras, film, processing and accessories does report that a lot of young people are coming in wanting to buy a film camera. Of course they also want to buy film with it, usually colour print film. And the bottleneck in production of things like Kodak Color Plus and Fuji C200 plus the lack of consumer grade C41 120 film has been a problem. They are delighted that Gold is coming out in 120 because it's exactly the kind of thing their customer base wants. It's going to sell like hotcakes.

 

[pentaxuser]

. They are delighted that Gold is coming out in 120 because it's exactly the kind of thing their customer base wants. It's going to sell like hotcakes.

Yes I'd agree but this statement of yours was surely never in doubt by any of us, was it? I cannot see how a 120 version of Gold could ever be in any doubt of selling well

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

The folks that were born a decade after Panatomic-X was discontinued will buy gobs and gobs of it if the marketing is correct.

Err, they don't & won't. At least not those working towards more serious creative aims (and you need to start from the understanding that they are definitely not your old cheapskate 3rd-party-lens-gobbling-AdAm's - they understand that going up in format is always going to deliver better results than trying to extort fractional improvements from a smaller format film). FX has been off the market for longer than I've been around - and I know that a large chunk of your putative market would try it once, see that it's noticeably grainier than Delta 100 or 100TMX - and closing in on 400TMY-II - & return to their 4x5 (why do you think Intrepid and Chamonix have sold so many 4x5's?). That's the reality, they'll try a roll or two of a novelty film, but for anything serious, the speed/ grain relationship has to be much better. If you were serious about this, you would know that there is another once well-known slow-speed emulsion from a major European manufacturer (that could be manufactured by one of the successor companies) that would potentially offer a significant granularity improvement for the low speed (even if less sharp than 100 TMX or Delta 100) but which was withdrawn in the late 1990s due to low demand. And while we're here, why do you think Ilford has not invested into updating Pan-F to resolve anything beyond immediate batch-to-batch manufacturing issues?

 

[Cholentpot]

Err, they don't & won't. At least not those working towards more serious creative aims (and you need to start from the understanding that they are definitely not your old cheapskate 3rd-party-lens-gobbling-AdAm's - they understand that going up in format is always going to deliver better results than trying to extort fractional improvements from a smaller format film). FX has been off the market for longer than I've been around - and I know that a large chunk of your putative market would try it once, see that it's noticeably grainier than Delta 100 or 100TMX - and closing in on 400TMY-II - & return to their 4x5 (why do you think Intrepid and Chamonix have sold so many 4x5's?). That's the reality, they'll try a roll or two of a novelty film, but for anything serious, the speed/ grain relationship has to be much better. If you were serious about this, you would know that there is another once well-known slow-speed emulsion from a major European manufacturer (that could be manufactured by one of the successor companies) that would potentially offer a significant granularity improvement for the low speed (even if less sharp than 100 TMX or Delta 100) but which was withdrawn in the late 1990s due to low demand. And while we're here, why do you think Ilford has not invested into updating Pan-F to resolve anything beyond immediate batch-to-batch manufacturing issues?

You're getting technical.

'Yo! Look! PanATOMIC-X? Woaaah, I've heard about this stuff from my Pop, you should see what it goes for on Ebay.'

Two weeks later

Youtuber JasonGGrainTonze

'Yo yo yo whatup! Jason back here to report on the pan ATOMIC ekkkks! And maaaaan that stuff has got Tonze for days. Sure it's a little pricey but it's worth it for that classic excellent look we don't remember. Here's a fast low quality slideshow of my shots that I took on an over priced point and shoot with on camera flash'

'Click on the links below to get this awesome retro inspired film!'

We don't care about 'granular quality' we want the name and awesome factor of shooting atomic film.

As to asking if I'm personally serious about this. No. It's all a joke, I soak all my film in flat beer and reprocessed canola oil. I only use lenses with fungus and rarely shoot any film that less than a decade old stored in a glove box.

 

[Cholentpot]

My local camera shop, which does the majority of it's business selling NOS or used film cameras, film, processing and accessories does report that a lot of young people are coming in wanting to buy a film camera. Of course they also want to buy film with it, usually colour print film. And the bottleneck in production of things like Kodak Color Plus and Fuji C200 plus the lack of consumer grade C41 120 film has been a problem. They are delighted that Gold is coming out in 120 because it's exactly the kind of thing their customer base wants. It's going to sell like hotcakes.

Look at it this way. If the brick and mortar are telling you about youngsters coming in imagine how many of these kids are buying cameras and film online. Going to a shop is quaint. Hop on online, read what cameras are cool, what looks cool to you. Hit up Ebay or marketplace get camera, order film from an online shot and blaze away. Ship film off for process and scans and that's all. Never had to step into a shop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Logic has nothing to do with it. It is all what the business models and projections tell them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not picking on you specifically ok?

Here's the problem with the film community in a shell nut.

'OH NO! My Modern Pana-X doesn't have cadmium in it! I mean it look and acts almost exactly the same but IT DOESN'T HAVE CADMIUM!'

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.

If it does not have Cadmium in it, it will not be the same film nor act the same way. Cadmium was included for a reason and without Cadmium the whole formulation would be difference and handle differently.

 

[Cholentpot]

If it does not have Cadmium in it, it will not be the same film nor act the same way. Cadmium was included for a reason and without Cadmium the whole formulation would be difference and handle differently.

And it matters zero. They could take any black and white film, slap a Panatomic-X label on it and print money.

 

[George Mann]

As did I. So what? Neither of us is part of "Kodak's customer base" today.

I now shoot Ektachrome. So what does that make me?

 

[George Mann]

@Cholentpot - so you're effectively implying that the notional Panatomic-X nostalgists can't really tell the difference between Tmax 100 and Panatomic-X in a double-blind situation (which is correct, I'd suggest) and could be conditioned by marketing/ branding alone to upgrade their material choice to something that's available now?

I don't need a double blind congame to see the obvious difference!

 

[JNP]

No.

The folks that were born a decade after Panatomic-X was discontinued will buy gobs and gobs of it if the marketing is correct.
.

The marketing team would have to call it "NEW Panatomic-X" . It can be made from a Chinese film, maybe Lucky or Shanghai or whatever is available now. This would save them bundles, just putting it in NEW Panatomic -X cassettes and boxes.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I now shoot Ektachrome. So what does that make me?

Someone benefiting from Kodak's real transparency film customer base (motion picture film users for whom Ektachrome was reintroduced).

I don't need a double blind congame to see the obvious difference!

You're ignoring reality. The difference doesn't matter to Kodak's real still film customer base:

...They could take any black and white film, slap a Panatomic-X label on it and print money.

 

[faberryman]

Whenever someone can't tell the difference in a double blind test, it is always because some aspect of the test is at fault.

 

[Cholentpot]

The marketing team would have to call it "NEW Panatomic-X" . It can be made from a Chinese film, maybe Lucky or Shanghai or whatever is available now. This would save them bundles, just putting it in NEW Panatomic -X cassettes and boxes.

iPanatomic2.0

 

[pbromaghin]

It's interesting that in the earlier threads of speculation about what new films were going to be introduced this year, NOBODY predicted Kodak Gold in 120. And now after the fact we all realize that it was the glaringly obvious product the market needed.

 

[jrhilton]

The Advanced Materials and Chemicals division of Kodak made another loss last financial year, so I guess we should be thankful for any new films.

Something like Kodak Gold with a price point to encourage people to use it and drive some volumes to stem the losses makes sense. I can't see any of the niche products ever coming back though.

 

[Don_ih]

see how many youngn's are shooting film

I'm aware of that. They mostly shoot medium speed colour film.

The 'they've always used it' crowd has moved past cameras and shoot their snapshots on phones

I'm obviously not talking about the people who have started using digital cameras or phones but the people who have continued to use film, because they've been able to. Kodak Gold -- I can buy that at Walmart today.

I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing.