Plus-x 35mm will be discontinued.

Mackinaw · Nov 2, 2011

Kodak is probably trying to rationalize their film production. Why make two films that are (about) the same speed? I love Plus-X but am not surprised that Tmax 100 is the mid-speed film they picked to make.

Jim B.

dnjl · Nov 2, 2011

Not really a surprise, but sad nonetheless. I really liked Plus-X

Dave in Kansas · Nov 2, 2011

Darn, but I'm sorry to see Plus-X go away. I'm not that surprised since they pulled the plug on the 120 version. However, local stores near me stock a fair supply of 35mm Plus-X so I was thinking students must buy it and that might create enough demand to keep it in production.

I'm also worried about TMZ and it seems to me there would be more demand for a medium speed film than a specialty film like TMZ.

Dave

MDR · Nov 2, 2011

Maybe photo engineer can tell me if Plus-X or classic cubic films are more expensive to manufacture than T-max.

Thanks Dominik

MDR · Nov 2, 2011

Micheal this might very well be but the manufacturing process for hybrid films can still be more expensive than the one for t-grain only films. And I am in full agreement you observation that Tri-X users are sometimes fooling themselves and that the emulsion has changed a lot.

Dominik

brianmquinn · Nov 2, 2011

A little off subjust but they also just gave Elite Chome the AX.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2301052&pq-locale=en_US

lensworker · Nov 2, 2011

I hate to see any film discontinued - especially a black and white film.

Kodak's grim slow slow motion self inflicted demise marches on.

wblynch · Nov 2, 2011

lensworker said:
I hate to see any film discontinued - especially a black and white film.

Kodak's grim slow slow motion self inflicted demise marches on.

Suicide by a thousand cuts

tomalophicon · Nov 2, 2011

I don't know why you think it's self-inflicted. They can't force people to buy the film.

Ken Nadvornick · Nov 2, 2011

tomalophicon said:
I don't know why you think it's self-inflicted. They can't force people to buy the film.

That's not the "self-inflicted" part...

Ken

Roger Cole · Nov 2, 2011

No but Ilford is doing ok. Kodak could have done a lot more to promote film and slow the demise, at least. Whether they could do more to right-size and stay profitably in film is another question.

But as someone said, FP4+ is at least as good if not better in most ways, and fortunately is still readily available and looks to be going forward. I shoot FP4+ (and Tri-X and Delta 3200) in 120. This probably would have been Plus-X except that by the time I bought a medium format camera Kodak had stopped making it in 120.

mrred · Nov 2, 2011

The single biggest reason for the demise of film was the cheap crap called cameras delivered to the low end market. The fact is even the simplest digital camera made sure the image was in focus. The reality is the 'Joe schmo' wound up taking better pictures with the digital in hand than what he/she had for film. And yes, Kodak was the biggest seller of cheap crap they called cameras. It was how they stayed in business for so long and why they are in this position now.

You just have to go through someones box of pictures to see this in action. Apple will put that final nail in the coffin.......

I will just keep buying up as much of the good stuff while I can. There will always be film, but perhaps not the ones I prefer......

MDR · Nov 2, 2011

FP4 as Plus-X substitute? I always felt that Plus-X gave creamier tones than FP4+ at least at EI 50 in Microdol-X. Under the right conditions Plus-X was one of the most if not the most beautiful B/W film just ask Peter Lindbergh and Demarchelier (Tri-X and Plus-X users) and even though I consider Plus-X one of the best and most beautiful B&W films in existence I use Ilford FP4+ a lot more simply because it's easier to get in Austria (hear that Kodak distributor it's all your fault). I also believe that Kodak's decision to cut Plus-X from its program is a sad but necessary step in order for Kodak to survive and to be able to provide great film material to the not so large masses in the future.

Dominik

Dave in Kansas · Nov 2, 2011

mrred,

Your comments are so true regarding cheap cameras and I agree that even cheap digital cameras have improved the quality of pictures taken by the average and less than average user. And that is the vast majority of the consumer market.

Dave

wblynch · Nov 2, 2011

Most recently it seems Kodak Plus-X 35mm sells for around $6.79 a roll in the US. It is easy to buy equivalent films for half that or less.

It's an old strategy, When one doesn't want the business, you overprice the product.

Kodak may not be able to force people to buy Plus-X film but with realistic pricing they most surely could have encouraged it.

Dave in Kansas · Nov 2, 2011

You may recall that around a year before Plus-X in 120 was discontinued, Kodak offered rebates on the pro packs of Plus-X 120 in an attempt to get people to buy it. Apparently they didn't sell enough.

Dave

Plate Voltage · Nov 2, 2011

I was considering starting to use Plus-X a few months ago when I took up black and white photography again so I'm kind of glad I chose a different film instead of building a workflow around something that just got discontinued a short time later. I remember kicking myself in 2002 because I'd been shooting Kodachrome 64 for about two years and I decided to test a few rolls of 25. I was happy with it and figured out how to shoot it for best results over a number of test rolls, and had just started heavily using it along with a coup,e of friends who decided to take it up based on the results I was getting, when the discontinuation rumors started up. I emailed Kodak to ask if there was any substance to those rumors and was told oh no, no plans to discontinue it at this time. A couple of weeks later the discontinuation notice Went out saying that Kodachrome 25 had ceased manufacture and it sold out within days.

I've shot a number of E100G test rolls in 120 and 35mm with good results and I'd really like to use them a lot more but I'm hesitant to become deeply invested in a Kodak workflow because I just narrowly missed getting hit and previously getting hit several times with discontinuation notices followed by rapid product sellout and the necessity of starting out again with different film stock.

hobbes · Nov 3, 2011

MDR said:
FP4 as Plus-X substitute? I always felt that Plus-X gave creamier tones than FP4+ at least at EI 50 in Microdol-X. Under the right conditions Plus-X was one of the most if not the most beautiful B/W film just ask Peter Lindbergh and Demarchelier (Tri-X and Plus-X users) and even though I consider Plus-X one of the best and most beautiful B&W films in existence I use Ilford FP4+ a lot more simply because it's easier to get in Austria (hear that Kodak distributor it's all your fault). I also believe that Kodak's decision to cut Plus-X from its program is a sad but necessary step in order for Kodak to survive and to be able to provide great film material to the not so large masses in the future.

Dominik

For a moment I considered the Adox ART line (CHS 25, 50, 100) as (probably) the richest films in silver for the moment ..but what puts me off from it is its extremely thin and fragile base. Actually, I don't care for how much silver is in as long as I get results that satisfy me and doesn't abuse my whole development/enlargement process.

cheers
The-Trix-n-Plus-x user until the stock dries up.

2F/2F · Nov 3, 2011

hobbes said:
Actually, I don't care for how much silver is in as long as I get results that satisfy me...

Exactly. Why obsess over technical specifications that don't really mean anything in the end? Just because the film has more silver doesn't mean it is any "better." Today's technology allows film manufacturers to do more with less, which is more efficient. And the films of today are "better" than films have ever been, at least on a technical level. IMO, the thing that gives Efke/Adox 25/50/100 the unique look is the spectral sensitivity far more than the amount of silver used. As PE has mentioned, adding lots of silver is a way that low-end film manufacturers often use to "cheat" more contrast from a poorly-made film. I love the Efke/Adox for it's look and for it's price, but T-Max it is not...not by a long shot.

michaelbsc · Nov 3, 2011

Roger Cole said:
No but Ilford is doing ok. Kodak could have done a lot more to promote film and slow the demise, at least. ....

Therein lies the rub. Kodak has made a very public and concerted effort to kill its film business, and it's succeeding admirably. But like most entities that commit suicide, the choice appears to be nonsensical and bizarre to outsiders.

BrianL · Nov 3, 2011

I suspect they will continue to with draw from the b&w market until only CN400 is left and then they can discontinue all of the chemicals but E-6 and C-41. For me, the death of Kodak started with the withdrawal of Tech Pan and the old Kodachrome 25.

Tim Gray · Nov 3, 2011

I like Ilford as much as the next guy, but don't forget that ILFORD WENT BANKRUPT! They were NOT doing ok. They had to restructure to get where they are today. And it's looking like Kodak might have to do that too, and it will probably be more difficult for them to do since they are (were) a bigger company. Whether or not they make it out of the other side is any one's guess.

I'd also like to point out that since that time (2005?), while Kodak has discontinued some of it's films, they've also released quite a few new/updated emulsions. TMY-2, Portra VC/NC/800-2, Portra VC/NC/800-3, Portra 400, 160, and Ektar 100. They've also revamped their motion picture line at least once during that period with the Vision3 products - I'm not sure when the Vision2 stuff came out.

Yes, Kodak has done some stupid stuff with it's business. They've also looked to transition from film to other things - which only makes sense for a large company trying to survive and escape from being shackled to a dying niche of business. However, to say they were trying to actively kill their film business is a bit disingenuous.

sepiareverb · Nov 3, 2011

Tim Gray said:
However, to say they were trying to actively kill their film business is a bit disingenuous.

That was the paper business.

As I've said before, I think the problem is that Kodak is too big to care about any one thing except the stockholders bidding. That's where Ilford has the edge over Kodak and Fuji- scale and ownership.

Mackinaw · Nov 3, 2011

Well, Kodak's film-making plants are too big. Plants made to produce massive amounts of film for the boom-times 1980s' just don't cut it in today's world where digital rules the roost. A small capacity film-making plant is what they really need, but that ain't going to happen.

Jim B.

BrianShaw · Nov 3, 2011

Dave in Kansas said:
You may recall that around a year before Plus-X in 120 was discontinued, Kodak offered rebates on the pro packs of Plus-X 120 in an attempt to get people to buy it. Apparently they didn't sell enough.

I suspect that they really DID sell enough. That was a method of clearing space in their warehouse. It probably WAS NOT a way to prepare for another production run.

Plus-x 35mm will be discontinued.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency