• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Special order Eastman Double-X in 4x5 sheet.

There's an old adage in contracting, if you really don't want the job make the bid so high the customer would be nuts to pay it. Sounds like Kodak doesn't want the job.
 
I already posted this at LFF but I'll repeat it here.

Everyone has to do what makes sense to them with this project. I do feel that this project is important, so I committed to 3 boxes. Now it is time to put up or shut up. I notified Keith this evening that I would order 3 boxes even though the additional cost would be difficult.

I know that many people may not be able to afford to participate. But even if you can only buy one box...or get together with a friend and split a box, I strongly encourage you to do that. I really think it is much more important than we think for this to have every chance to work. It may not, but if it does, the next time gets far easier, and less expensive. Doing something the first time is always the toughest. I hope everyone will give this particular project an honest chance.
 
$6 a sheet for black and white 4x5?? What's so special about this film again? I might - maybe - pay that much for a fresh run of HIE in 4x5.

I don't mean to be critical and I'm certainly not trying to dissuade anyone, I'm seriously wondering why it could be worth this much. I too appreciate Kodak Alaris for even taking on the project.
 
And at a risk of waste. Just what we need Kodak to do, ruin what little film they do make. Too many questions still about the film in a film holder for me, and with a half again higher price than I pay for 810, in fact a price approaching 11x14? I'm out. Not that I was ever in on this one.
 
i would have bought some of this film even at 300/ box seeing i know it stores well only if i could have afforded to buy at least 500 sheets of it
unfortunately 300 / 50sheets is out of my league and i can't afford to pawn anything i own, or give loved ones coal for the holidays.

its good to see the new kodak or alaris or the cine film division willing to take risks, even thought they pass the higher price to the consumer. the cousin of this cine film i am guessing is the rolls of plus x aero i am fond of shooting .. thinnish base but after a few processing runs
there are no kinks to iron out.

unfortunately 3000$ of film is out of my budget, and i wouldn't want to buy less because id rather shoot 1 film for a long time
than switch to the flavor of the month next month.

hope you have enough people to make the order go through.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jnanian said:
i am guessing is the rolls of plus x aero i am fond of shooting .. thinnish base but after a few processing runs
Click to expand...

No it is double-x i.e. between plus-x and tri-x, its grain is between the tabular grain 400 and Tri-x grain, closer to the tabular grain - though a subjective call, so it is close to (Ilford) FP4 in grain though seems softer working than Tri-x in Microphen/ID68, the base seems thick - for a 35mm still cassette. I don't have a 5x4 camera - so I'm not tempted...
 

You should order that many, it would make up the gap...

I wish they had given an option for example to say hey, if you can come up with double the amount of orders that you just presented us, then we could lower the margin and maybe make it available for $150 or $200 a box instead. I agree that $300 is just a little high, but I'm still going to put in for one box to cover the initial $300 I stated I would spend. But John I do agree with you, that it is hard to know that this would be a one production run, however it is possible that it would become something more regular if people enjoy it. At this point it's all speculation.
 
i hear you stone ..
to be honest its too bad they couldnt have worked UP to 4/5
by doing wider and wider cuts off the roll ..
35 mm is already there ...
so next a special run of 120/220/620
then 2/3 then 3/4 then 4/5
and that way they could have gotten their own knowledge about this film
as they went along and consulted with people within their company if they
had questions .. it might have brought the $ down or at least let the price of film catch up
to the 600/100 sheets they were asking ..

but what do i know, im just a hack buying and using film ... nothing more
 


whatever it might be the base is probably closer to aero than sheets

2nd cousin 2wice removed?
 
jnanian said:
to be honest its too bad they couldnt have worked UP to 4/5
by doing wider and wider cuts off the roll ..
35 mm is already there ...
so next a special run of 120/220/620
Click to expand...

They are a production company, this would be an experiment, bound to cost money, getting the production people to do something different, always involves risk of more expensive people getting involved, scrap, wastage,... etc.

They don't do any mono in 220 any more (?), the Trix 220 was real expensive when they cancelled.

Getting them to do a run of Trix in 220 would have been even more expensive again than the last batch, allowing for inflation even if they still had the staff who could recall the procedures. They already have the roll of film for 120, spools, (cept for 620), etc., ...

I'm more worried about, when do I need to go to Orwo, for cine cause they canceled 5222.

Noel
 
hi noel

its already a huge gamble cutting cine film into sheets
whats more risk when you are ankle deep in it?

that way they can get the whole company involved in
mini runs . you know
like hiring gift wrappers at the department store this time of year
 
jnanian said:
hi noel
...
like hiring gift wrappers at the department store this time of year
Click to expand...

They know they will only need the gift wrappers once a year, it is the norm every year and they have all the procedures to train them, wrap, and have an end of festival party, they probably hire the most of the same people every year, and they are not wrapping in total darkness, in clean room conditions.

The H bomb test at Bikini Island was a first time experiment, failed a bit for met conditions and sums, it was 300% more yield than anticipated so they damaged the instrumentation bunkers, and some personnel.

It needed the clever people in, to explain what went wrong, went a bit over budget, successful as a bomb though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

Eastman could do these things cause he was planning on flooding the world in cameras and yellow boxes and the investment and risks was small compared to the payoffs, the USAF were in the same sort of boat.
 
300$/50 for a film that's not particularly special seems pretty crazy to me. I'm not saying its a bad film or anything but for 300$ I'd rather buy Tmax or TXP. Additionally I think they know the film base will be very thin and annoying to work with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If this flies I am going to try this initially in my Grafmatics. The septums should keep the thin base under control.

I suspect the annoying part will be in the developing and printing. I may need to pick up some BTZS 4x5 tubes for this film.

I'll have to hang it with chip clips instead of regular clips.

I can also about bet it will be a curly bugger. I will almost certainly need the glass negative carrier in the Beseler.
 
Pioneer said:
I may need to pick up some BTZS 4x5 tubes for this film.

I'll have to hang it with chip clips instead of regular clips.
Click to expand...

You could easily do this in a Jobo tank and run 6 sheets or more at once...

Jobo used to make 3594 sheet film hangers with a small pin punch, long discontinued, but sometimes comes up on the auction site...
 
The profit to Kodak Alaris from this scheme, even at $6 a sheet, would be insignificant to their bottom line. The loss (if any) at $1 a sheet would be equally insignificant. If Kodak Alaris is really looking for something new to preserve their business then special order formats could be a way forward and good PR into the bargain. If I were the CEO I'd say cut, package, and sell at $1 a sheet as a trial run so all the expenses, technical difficulties, and logistics problems become well understood (instead of guessed at) and with realistic cost projections to cover future special orders.

As for expensive quality control forget it. Call the product a beta version and insist the end user deals with all the joys and sorrows.
 
Maris said:
As for expensive quality control forget it. Call the product a beta version and insist the end user deals with all the joys and sorrows.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think that will work Maris? How many posts have you read on this forum whining about the quality control of some film or another? You are starting to sound a bit like software engineer. "Get it out quick. We can always fix it later."

If I were going to put out a limited run of film I think I would want to go the other way. Charge more and do everything possible to ensure it is as good as my normal product. I think their good name is worth at least that much.

But to each his own.
 
Update, spoke to Keith today, only 18 more boxes need to be paid for to make this a go... Yes!
 
Guys it's 300$ a box. XX is not a notable enough film beyond Tri-X/Tmax to pay 3-4 times the cost for an experimental product.

If it were something like APX25, PanF, Panatomic-X, TMZ etc. (all films no longer or never available in 4x5) that might be a different story, but XX is a middle of the road film not really containing the type of "character" that warrants such a cost. I guess my point behind this is that even though something *novel* can be done if enough money is involved - perhaps it's a bit better to be putting that money towards existing products that deserve it.
 

That's your opinion.

And trust me, the movie industry doesn't use "middle of the road" film, period, they only settle for the best, which is why it's still around as the last B&W movie film available.

Anyway you have no interest, that's fine, it's happening anyway.

I do agree however that PanF+ in sheet would be pretty awesome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone wants the look and can put up the money ... All kinds of film remnants of this or that have been sliced up into all kinds of things
over the years. But a true sheet film this ain't. It's not a resurrection of Super XX sheet film, which some people would probably pay a lot for
in even larger sizes. This is thin movie film, simply slit into 4x5. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, but just reinforcing the fact that it is not what people using view cameras once identified as Super XX, and that there is more risk of it not staying flat in the holders. But in terms of the "real" Super-XX, it would do all kinds of things utterly impossible to something like TriX. There is nothing currently equivalent on the market in terms of a thick-emulsion, straight-line film capable of serious expansion without sacrificing its linearity. Commercially, TMY400 is the market replacement, the new standard. But Super XX bore that flag for decades. The movie film is a completely
different product, and is apparently being courted for its own look.
 

No this is Double-X... Haha

Drew, contact Rapakpan and buy a roll or two and try it, you of all people love to know things, aren't you dying to know what all the fuss is about? Just try some! Hurry before the sheet buying ends (you of all people both have the money, and would pay I think if you could see what it's capable of).

Respectfully,

~Stone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register