Older Emulsions still available?

[Ian Grant]

Tom, I'm a prolific user of Pan F, 2 rolls in 30 years and one of those is still unused in the drawer here in Turkey I shot more of it in the 70's.

In the 80's/90's I used to use AP25 then APX25 in a 6x9 roll film back, until it was discontinued, because tonally it matched the Tmax or APX100 I used for 5x4. You're right now I use Delta films whenever possible, I've given up trying to find Tmax (outside the UK).

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

When ADOX reintroduce the APX type films would you consider switching?

Tom

 

[marylandphoto]

Now if I could only find some EPN...

 

[Ian Grant]

When ADOX reintroduce the APX type films would you consider switching?

Tom

Possibly, I'm not keen on switching films and stuck with APX & Tmax from 1986 until when AGFA dropped sheet film sizes. Hower the market shake up has meant I now (since 2007) shoot Ilford and Foma, Foma because it's easier for me to buy here in Turkey and allows me to keep my Ilford stock for key project work.

But as I've tested all the films I'm fairly confident I can get the results I want with most and I'll certainly try the ADOX version of APX100 when it's released.

Ian

 

[removed-user-1]

Now if I could only find some EPN...

Japan Exposures has EPN in 4x5 but not roll... I used to shoot 120 EPN like crazy.

I may have to figure out if I can get some of the 120 EPR. I never thought I'd see that again!

 

[mopar_guy]

I was of the impression that EPR was discontinued in most markets because it was crap, and an embarrassment in the eyes of Kodak, rather than due to insufficient sales. It makes perfect sense to concentrate the sales in the better-in-every-way 100G instead.

I have used EPR over the last ten or fifteen years and I am of the opinion that Ektachrome 64 (EPR) is NOT crap. I sometimes wonder why photographers persist in trashing certain films. Film producers certainly do not need reasons to discontinue films, there are plenty of sales related reasons out there. What better way to drive more people to using digital that to say "Film X is crap and film Y is garbage." There are better ways to express the opinion than to use trash talk. For example, "Perhaps you could use EPN or EPP."

Sometimes I wonder why film companies bother to make any film these days because some photographers complain about nearly anything.

 

[dynachrome]

Films like EPR and EPN stayed available for a long time because they were used for long term projects. For the sale of consistency the same film had to be used. Kodak is to be commended for being able to keep its standards so high for so long that these studies could be done.

 

[John Shriver]

The EPR, EPN, EPP, and EPY films were Kodak's first E-6 films. They were "technically" bettered by the T-grain E-series Ektachromes, which have much finer grain. But the color saturation levels of the original films are lower, and thus preferred by some users. If you're shooting 4x5 (which was much of the market for those emulsions), the grain isn't really very important. EPP has somewhat enhanced saturation, very nice for landscape photography. EPN was particularly unique in having very limited spectral response into the infrared color region, so it was much less subject to anomalous color response. This made EPN particularly popular in catalog photography, as fabrics with lots of reflectivity in the IR region came out the right color. Also, many folks were "used to" using these older films for CMYK separations and printing, and didn't want to adapt to the newer films. So Kodak kept these early films in production for a long time -- but at pretty steep prices compared to the E-series Ektachromes.

Digital has taken over most of the remaining niche market for EPR, EPN, EPP, and EPY, so the films got discontinued. The few art photographers using EPP just get the shaft, there's no market to subsidize their habit...

As for Japan, perhaps the remaining type sold there was popular for photographing cherry blossoms -- which is a "big thing" in spring in Japan. It probably was just the remains of the last master roll, not like they made any more of this after announcing discontinuance.

 

[wiltw]

EPN was discontinued in recent years, but had some availability for a while after. It was a daylight-balanced color transparency film designed to meet the special demands of commercial photographers, especially those whose primary business is catalog photography. The film features very fine grain, very high sharpness, and exceptional color accuracy. It is listed in a book from 1984 about various emulsions then available (O'Neill, 1984 AMPHOTO). Kodak recomments 100G as a substitute, but I've not evaluated it.

 

[DanielStone]

why is it that EPR/EPN is still available in Japan? I mean, its coated in Rochester, why ain't it for sale here in the states? I just got some R-L EPN (4/09) off ebay for $20/box, but it'd be nice to get some fresh if possible.

-Dan

 

[marylandphoto]

EPN was discontinued in recent years, but had some availability for a while after. It was a daylight-balanced color transparency film designed to meet the special demands of commercial photographers, especially those whose primary business is catalog photography. The film features very fine grain, very high sharpness, and exceptional color accuracy. It is listed in a book from 1984 about various emulsions then available (O'Neill, 1984 AMPHOTO). Kodak recomments 100G as a substitute, but I've not evaluated it.

How does Elite Chrome 100 compare to this, and EPR?

 

[nickrapak]

How does Elite Chrome 100 compare to this, and EPR?

EPN is neutral beyond neutral. It was the only WYSIWYG film out there. Elite Chrome 100 is a little more cranked up, but still reproduces colors accurately. It also has much finer grain than EPN or EPR.