Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

Rolleiflexible · Feb 9, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Add edge fog, piping (curling) of support and a few with uneven coatings with ripples. Right? I have seen all of these complaints on APUG but not ever for a Kodak or Ilford product.

Actually, Ron, I shoot Foma 200 in 35mm because
it lies flat when dry, whereas Tri-X does pipe/curl
in 35mm. And, also, because I prefer Foma's look
in 35mm. Not everybody chooses Brand X for the
bargain.

Otherwise, it's Tri-X in rolls and TXP in sheets for
me, all day, every day.

clayne · Feb 9, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
Actually, Ron, I shoot Foma 200 in 35mm because
it lies flat when dry, whereas Tri-X does pipe/curl
in 35mm. And, also, because I prefer Foma's look
in 35mm. Not everybody chooses Brand X for the
bargain.

Otherwise, it's Tri-X in rolls and TXP in sheets for
me, all day, every day.

Perhaps for you, Sanders. However, here in California, Tri-X rarely curls with any significance. Most Kodak films lie very flat and resistant to curl in my experience. I'd say it's not really the film that much as it is the relative humidity where it's handled.

Ektagraphic · Feb 9, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak and Ilford are losing sales to the economy brand films.

Everyone loves a bargain.

PE

It seems like a lot of places places have an ecomony film that is relabled Fuji.

Ektagraphic · Feb 9, 2010

I was just looking at some of the Kodak tech-pubs and the even listed Plus-X in 220.

Photo Engineer · Feb 9, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
Actually, Ron, I shoot Foma 200 in 35mm because
it lies flat when dry, whereas Tri-X does pipe/curl
in 35mm. And, also, because I prefer Foma's look
in 35mm. Not everybody chooses Brand X for the
bargain.

Otherwise, it's Tri-X in rolls and TXP in sheets for
me, all day, every day.

I am generalizing about the "complaints" I read on APUG. Thats all. And, some seem to agree with me.

PE

Matt5791 · Feb 10, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak and Ilford are losing sales to the economy brand films.

Everyone loves a bargain.

PE

Absolutely - but some of these "economy" films are extremely good quality, such as the Rollei stuff made by Agfa Gevaert.

And then there is Fuji - in the UK at least, Fuji seems to be very agressive indeed in the pricing of their products - whereas Kodak is just too expensive. Saying this, Portra is popular with many people (including me) and I think this is a testament to the sheer greatness of this range of films - people will pay significantly more for it. But unfortunately not everybody will.

As for Kodak reversal - it's just a crazy price. Sad because I think E100G is almost the perfect film.

kristopher_lawrence · Feb 10, 2010

Matt5791 said:
Absolutely - but some of these "economy" films are extremely good quality, such as the Rollei stuff made by Agfa Gevaert.

And then there is Fuji - in the UK at least, Fuji seems to be very agressive indeed in the pricing of their products - whereas Kodak is just too expensive. Saying this, Portra is popular with many people (including me) and I think this is a testament to the sheer greatness of this range of films - people will pay significantly more for it. But unfortunately not everybody will.

As for Kodak reversal - it's just a crazy price.

Well, maybe that it is time for Fuji Canada to follow what is done elsewhere...

They are just the most terrible rip off ever imagined...

Some examples:

Instant Pack Film 3.25 X 4.25 : 25$ (US price, 9.50$)
Provia 400x 36 exp....... 20$ (US price, 8.95$)
I once got a quote for 20 rolls of Provia 120...... 200$ (US price, 75$)
Acros 120........ 5$ (US price, 2.69$)

I get the feeling that Fuji Canada is just buying from Adorama and B&H, then they mark up the stuff 200% of the US price...

Well this is just another exemple of the retail market in Canada which is generally a total ripoff. EVERYTHING is overpriced here.

Fortunately, I get 100 foot of TriX at 46.50$ and this is my most used 35mm film.

K

verney · Feb 10, 2010

I have been thinking about trying some 220 film to save in chemicals and films backs are very cheap. However price of TXP320-220 in Europe is about the same as three rolls of FP4+ in 120 so it doesn't make much sense.

Rolleiflexible · Feb 10, 2010

clayne said:
Perhaps for you, Sanders. However, here in California, Tri-X rarely curls with any significance. Most Kodak films lie very flat and resistant to curl in my experience. I'd say it's not really the film that much as it is the relative humidity where it's handled.

It must be the New York Tri-X 135 that curls, then.

Mind you, it curls nowhere near as bad as films
like Efke, that curl up like a spring. But it does
pipe (curl longitudinally) enough to be a pain to
keep flat when printing or (especially) scanning.
Foma 200 (in 135, not 120) stays flat as can be,
in the same relative humidity.

With 120 roll film, my experience is exactly the
opposite -- 400TX stays flat while Foma 200 curls.

Aurelien · Feb 10, 2010

But Sanders, there are ways to avoid Foma's curl... in 120

Matt5791 · Feb 10, 2010

kristopher_lawrence said:
Well, maybe that it is time for Fuji Canada to follow what is done elsewhere...

They are just the most terrible rip off ever imagined...

Some examples:

Instant Pack Film 3.25 X 4.25 : 25$ (US price, 9.50$)
Provia 400x 36 exp....... 20$ (US price, 8.95$)
I once got a quote for 20 rolls of Provia 120...... 200$ (US price, 75$)
Acros 120........ 5$ (US price, 2.69$)

I get the feeling that Fuji Canada is just buying from Adorama and B&H, then they mark up the stuff 200% of the US price...

Well this is just another exemple of the retail market in Canada which is generally a total ripoff. EVERYTHING is overpriced here.

Fortunately, I get 100 foot of TriX at 46.50$ and this is my most used 35mm film.

K

It certainly sounds different in Canada! Fuji are astonishingly agressive here - some of their B&W films retail at similar prices to Foma.

Ektagraphic · Feb 10, 2010

Matt5791 said:
As for Kodak reversal - it's just a crazy price. Sad because I think E100G is almost the perfect film.

In the states we get it at a pretty good price. Not cheap but manageable.

Ektagraphic · Feb 10, 2010

Naturally, it is all out of stock at B&H right now.

kraker · Feb 10, 2010

I've placed an order at my usual address, I hope they (and as a consequence: I) can still get some 5-packs.

Photo Engineer · Feb 10, 2010

Matt5791 said:
Absolutely - but some of these "economy" films are extremely good quality, such as the Rollei stuff made by Agfa Gevaert.

I never said there were not good films out there from other manufacturers. I have just directed people to read the complaints here about film defects and see who has the most complaints.

PE

Ian Grant · Feb 10, 2010

Foma is no longer an economy film, the company's products are not budget prices except perhaps when rebranded in the US.

However in some parts of the world Foma B&W films are now far easier to find than Kodak's and yet that was the opposite a few years ago when Foma films where almost unknown. I've just returned from my nearest film/paper/chemistry stockist, (an hours drive) and there was Ilford, Foma and Fuji B&W film on the shelves and no Kodak at all. It's not just here in Turkey, I've seen the same trend in other countries as well.

Ian

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 10, 2010

Ian Grant said:
Foma is no longer an economy film, the company's products are not budget prices except perhaps when rebranded in the US.

However in some parts of the world Foma B&W films are now far easier to find than Kodak's and yet that was the opposite a few years ago when Foma films where almost unknown. I've just returned from my nearest film/paper/chemistry stockist, (an hours drive) and there was Ilford, Foma and Fuji B&W film on the shelves and no Kodak at all. It's not just here in Turkey, I've seen the same trend in other countries as well.

Ian

Foma stuff, under the Foma brand, is only about $3 a roll in the USA from Freestyle. That's cheap! Kodak films (Tri-X, Tmax 400) cost over $5

lxdude · Feb 10, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
I never said there were not good films out there from other manufacturers. I have just directed people to read the complaints here about film defects and see who has the most complaints.

PE

No complaints here about Kodak's quality-except their Kodachrome labs. (Not Dwayne's) It got so bad at one point I stopped shooting Kodachrome until I found good independent processing.

A woman I used to work with had worked for Kodak for many years. She assembled copiers for a number of years. She told me that if the assembly manual was not open to the page related to the step being performed, it was grounds for immediate dismissal. No matter if a person had done the step thousands of times before.
Sounds draconian, but it demonstrates the disciplined approach to quality that Kodak was known for.
When I worked as a QA inspector I always drilled into trainees the need to always check the print, always check the paperwork-take nothing for granted. There was no guarantee a change notice would get to us.
So I understand completely why Kodak did things that way.

In the mid 70's I worked for a company that made aerospace electrical connectors. The products went into aircraft, missiles, etc., for the military, into commercial aircraft, and into the anti-lock braking systems of one of the major large truck manufacturers, and a standard line was offered as well. I was amazed and sometimes appalled at what went out of there.

One day I got wind of a large order that a new customer had made. The entire order had been rejected by that customer, with a detailed report of every defect and out of conformance condition found in the sample parts. Boxes of rejected parts were stacked in hallways outside the QC office, there were so many. They had never seen anything like that before.

The customer was Kodak. My company's solution? Don't sell to Kodak.

Made me proud to be a user of Kodak products.

I already had no pride in my company, so nothing changed there.

Tim Gray · Feb 10, 2010

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Foma stuff, under the Foma brand, is only about $3 a roll in the USA from Freestyle. That's cheap! Kodak films (Tri-X, Tmax 400) cost over $5

Tri-X is only $4 (3.99) at Freestyle. It's $3.45 at B&H. I consider that to be pretty cheap. Comes out to less than 10 cents a frame. All my other costs in photography are larger than that (chemicals, water, neg sleeves). The film, 400TX, is the cheap part. I'm not even talking about paper.

fotch · Feb 10, 2010

After reading all the "scratches or defects on my film" post, the last thing I would waste my money on, is second rate film. I have been tempted to try some Fuji B&W but seem to recall it curls quite a bit. Maybe I am wrong but its what I remember reading here, somewhere. Anyway, it boils down to Kodak or Ilford for me. Kodak would be first choice. I have used it longer and its made here. However, Ilford is priced lower sometimes and its also a reliable film, and I also like it.

Price is important but I didn't buy expensive high quality gear to run experimental film through.

JMHO

fschifano · Feb 10, 2010

My experience with Foma products, rebranded as Arista.EDU Ultra, has been fairly positive. I like the VC paper. It's slightly warm and tones nicely in selenium. I'm good with Foma 100. I really like the film and have had nothing but good experiences with it. It works well at box speed for me in XTOL, so no complaints there. The 200 and 400 speed films, not so much. Maybe it's just me, but I can't seem to get my head around Foma 200 at all. No matter what I do, I can't seem to get the contrast to a manageable level without rating it at 100-125 and pulling back on the development. It works ok at box speed in Diafine, but only just. What's the point when the results from Foma 100 are as good or even better? Foma 400 has it's charms, but it's no Tri-X. I find myself rating it at 250, and compared to Tri-X, the grain is off the charts. That's a nice feature when I want it, so I'll continue to use it. But I'm not often looking for that grainy, soot and chalk look that seems to be all the rage with some photographers.

Ektagraphic · Feb 10, 2010

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Foma stuff, under the Foma brand, is only about $3 a roll in the USA from Freestyle. That's cheap! Kodak films (Tri-X, Tmax 400) cost over $5

Tri-X 400 35mm 36exp. $3.99........ $0.99 more than Foma..........NOT over $5

viridari · Feb 10, 2010

Ian Grant said:
Foma is no longer an economy film, the company's products are not budget prices except perhaps when rebranded in the US.

You're kidding, right?

Fomapan 100 (120) - $2.99
ILFORD Delta Pro 100 (120) - $4.19
Kodak TMax 100 (120) - $3.99

viridari · Feb 10, 2010

fschifano said:
I can't seem to get my head around Foma 200 at all.

It doesn't matter anyway; 200 is gone now.

mikebarger · Feb 10, 2010

Been reading the posts on marks on the film? Those stories match my one trial with Foma, bought 10 rolls, gave seven away.

For "me" 3.99 Tri-X is cheap at twice the price.

Mike

Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency