• 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

The mystery - the magic - I sure wish they still made XXX

The only photographic product that I really miss that is no longer available (in a meaningful way) is Kodachrome. Yes, you can still buy it from the secondary market; yes, processing is still available until the end of the year. But in a few months, it will be impossible to shoot this film and get it processed.

E6 films are terrific and I use them a lot, but they are not the same. Kodachrome has unique advantages.
 
I used to love printing on Kodak Ektalure but it's been gone for years.
 
rthomas said:
I used to love printing on Kodak Ektalure but it's been gone for years.
Click to expand...

Some of the foma FB papers and some of the Emacs FB graded papers can give you a similar feel - not exact but no better no worse - a little different but in the same vein. Try um.

I have a box of 500 sheets of ektalure that has a bit of fog I am now using with lith developer that looks great - doesn't look at all like ektalure but it is cheap enough to play with and looks really cool when lith'ed. I will scan some prints when I have time.

RB
 

Mostly: urban legend. The silver content myth has been discussed at length here. Your last point is correct, I'm sorry to say. Beautiful prints happen mainly because the person making them knows what they are doing. But that means there is still hope for the rest of us, right?
 
I suspect much of the "glow" from one or another photographer's use of a given paper comes from that person being a great photographer or that their work is a natural fit to that paper. That maybe tells me more about how so and so can make great use of a paper or that so and so's negs are better suited to that paper than mine, and less about how good or bad a paper is. That said, I suspect that the variations between different papers are overall lessening, and that lessening looks like a loss to me.
 

Absolutely!

However - The number and type and look of papers AND paper developers obtainable today is fantastic. Way better than just a couple years ago from my standpoint - if you have not tried the various Foma, Fotokemika, Emacs, etc, etc, etc - you really should give a bunch of them at opposite ends of the spectrum a try - both VC and Graded. They players for US buyers has changed but I can tell you there is a huge variety.

RB
 
One film I really do miss and consider truly unique and (so far) irreplaceable is Polaroid Type 55. Let's just remember how amazing it is to get both a 4x5 positive and a usable negative, and a ridiculously fine grained one at that, instantly. There's a film I can truly fawn over wistfully. Oh, the memories!
 
I miss Panatomic X. It seemed to be to have a longer toe than PanF. It was a long scale, fine grain, film and I could pull detail out of the shadows and hold the highlights better than PanF.

Now the closest I have found for my work is PlusX. I like TX and Neopan 400 for 400 speed films, HP5 is my favorite if it is overcast. Neopan 400 seems to have TX beet a bit in the shadows but I prefer TX in the midtones.

I miss Portriga Rapid paper, too.

I have a bunch of 4x5 Super Panchro Press in the Deep Freeze...

~Steve Sloan
 

Polaroid is a different story - all of it is a whole CLASS of products that you just CANNOT make yourself in the basement or in a dark tent. Believe me I am sorry Polaroid is gone. The same way I would be sorry if all of film and all of paper disappeared.

I was talking about one product out of a gaggle of similar products.

RB
 
aside from technical pan, which i love but understand why kodak d/c'ed it. the one film id like to see come back and think theres a market for is panatomic-x. kodak and ilford seem to match each other on every film, i.e. Super High Speed: TMX 3200 vs. DELTA 3200, Medium-High Speed: TX 400 vs. HP5 & TMX 400 vs DELTA 400, Medium-Slow Speed: PX125 vs. FP4 & TMX100 vs. DELTA 100......but when it comes to < ISO 100 films Ilford has PAN F and kodak has no competitor at all, that is one thing i dont understand. i am not one to get on kodaks back for getting rid of films, its business and they need to stay afloat but i honestly think a panatomic-x or another ISO 25-64 speed film would sell, maybe not like hotcakes, but def. more than TMX3200. although i have to admit, id stop a lot of my PX125 purchases if a sub ISO 100 film was to come out.
 
kauffman v36 said:
but i honestly think a panatomic-x or another ISO 25-64 speed film would sell, maybe not like hotcakes, but def. more than TMX3200.
Click to expand...

I for one would buy more TMZ than panatomic-X.

Having never shot Panatomic-X, doesn't TMX or Acros fulfill the fine grained
role of Pan-X?
 

Of course this is only my opinion but... my experience with Panatomic-X was what you could consider substantial. When Kodak discontinued it they were recommending TMAX 100 as the replacement. After a bit of a tantrum when I had to learn a new film I have to say ever since I did TMAX 100 is more than a worth successor to FX. Shot and processed appropriately it looks a whole lot like FX with a ton more speed and even more flexibility.

I will say that the ONE thing that you hear about TMX that happens to be true (most of the stuff is NOT TRUE and has been magazine bullshit passed on by internet armchair quarterbacks that have probably shot less then 100 frames of it - if that) is that it will and does look far different on the light table than what you may be used to. A really good let's say perfect TMX negative always looks thin (underexposed and underdeveloped) compared to most other films and especially FX.

One thing that is not true is that it is hard to process - it has an insanely long development time relative to films like FX or Pan-F. Hence you have far more flexibility in developers and developer dilutions at your disposal than say FX while maintaining consistency.

The second thing that is absolutely positively FALSE is that TMX "blocks" highlights - bullshit. Panatomic-X and Pan-F block highlights extremely easily in the sense that they shoulder off very quickly if overexposed and or over developed. TMX absolutely does not do this in any range of reasonable circumstances - and definitely not under the circumstances that Panatomic-X and Pan-F do. If you are having trouble developing TMX change your developers as TMX is has very different time/temp/expansion characteristics in different developers - some developers it is almost impossible to get beyond N+1 with TMX with any development times and temps in the realm of reasonability (like Pyrocat HD 1+1+100) - even HC110 has a hard time over developing TMX compared to what HC110 does to other films with a little extra times.

Sorry for the diatribe on TMX but... similar grain appearance (or lack there of) + 2 stops more speed + more "latitude" + more processing flexibility + far far better reciprocity characteristics = better Panatomic-X/FX.

What more could you ask for in a substitute product? Less speed? If Kodak discontinued TMX today and replaced it with FX would everyone be happy about it because FX is soo.... much better?

RB
 
RalphLambrecht said:
The 'good old times' are nothing but a sign of a failing memory.

It's photo and darkroom heaven out there. We got great films, great paper and dirt-cheap equipment every on sale.

Quit wining, start shooting!
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I may buy another 4x5 enlarger just because I see them on craigslist for a 100 bucks with a bunch of other crap thrown in. Come on 100 bucks? I would by a dozen if I had a place to put them.

RB
 
Tim Gray said:
I for one would buy more TMZ than panatomic-X.

Having never shot Panatomic-X, doesn't TMX or Acros fulfill the fine grained
role of Pan-X?
Click to expand...

On that note - TMZ is probably more "unique" in it's look and characteristics than 90% of other products out there. I personally love the way it looks for some subjects and shoot it just because of that rather than pure speed. If it went away I could probably get something similar from TX but I would have to "play with it" for a while to get something similar in look.

RB
 
rwboyer said:
Sorry for the diatribe on TMX but... similar grain appearance (or lack there of) + 2 stops more speed + more "latitude" + more processing flexibility + far far better reciprocity characteristics = better Panatomic-X/FX.
Click to expand...

Where is "beauty" in that equation? I think that people who prefer Panatomic-X to T-Max 100 think that it is a more beautiful film to their eyes than TMX, and no list of the physical properties of the material will trump that.

Pastel, pencil, Rapidograph, quill, brush, ink, acrylic, oil, which is the most viscous? Which is the most saturated? Which is the shiniest? Most archival? Which is the most precise? Which is the most beautiful? Different visions call for different materials.
 
TMZ is still around and I've seen no indication that it's going anywhere. I used Panatomic-X only a little and that was many, many years ago. I still have the negatives, and incidentally was going through them not long ago. The films you mention and perhaps a couple of others are very good replacements for the old Panatomic-X. Add PanF+ and (maybe) Delta 100 to the list. Are they exactly like Panatomic-X was? No, but one of them will surely deliver what you're looking for.
 

David - without getting into a long and unproductive debate I can only say my experience is that if you want to - and you put a little bit of effort into it - you can make TMX "look like" FX. So much so that it was hard for me to tell the difference when shooting side by side during my unwilling transition to TMX.

Aesthetically my experience has been that most people compare TWO completely different scenes of completely different things under completely different circumstances and declare one image more "beautiful" then make the giant leap that it is the film, without much control over the behavior of EITHER film. TMX and FX are similar enough when treated with some degree of control over both - that they are capable of beauty in circumstances and subject matter that scream for their strong suits.

Comparing the materials you list as an analogy is more like comparing TMX or FX to say TMZ or TX pushed or something very different in it's rendering characteristics than these two films. I am not saying your argument is invalid - I agree with it in general but I would use an analogy in comparing TMX and FX more like a number 2B pencil that was sharpened on 800 grit paper vs a number 2B pencil that was sharpened on a different piece of 800 grit sand paper rather than completely different mediums like a rapidograph and a brush or pencil and oil.

RB
 
first off, i was not bashing TMX100 in any way, i just dont see it in the same "level" as panatomic-x in regards to business model i guess. its competition is fp4. yes, tmx100 has little to no grain, very sharp, and all these other technical aspects. and as david said, none of those trump the "look" of the film. i hardly use tmx100 anymore because i just dont prefer the look of it for what i shoot, i opt for plus-x instead, and i am perfectly fine with that. my point was that the super slow speed film section is the one where kodak is not offering anything and it seems everybody else is, with the exception of fuji. ive used pan f, not a whooolleee lot, but enough to get a gist for it and while its extremely sharp, no grain on a 6x7 negative enlarged to 11x14 the look is def. not the look of the little panatomic ive used. for slow speed i rather shoot what tech pan i have left. little side note, while i dont particularly enjoy the look of tmx100, i do use tmx400 on occasion and it doesnt seem to bother me, maybe their identical and im crazy, idk, lol. either way, i still prefer the nitty gritty look of films like tri-x and plus-x

having just read your reply on the control of films. each person is different. i use d-76 for all my films except tech pan where i use technidol. i choose not to use other dev., even though i know they can produce better results with some films. im not looking for the sweetest spot of every film/dev combination, im looking for what works best under my conditions which are d-76 at 68 F
 
Great thread. I truly believe that great prints come from knowing your materials and what you're doing. A lot more variation will come from how you use your materials rather than what materials you use. Just make sure you know them intimately.
I've been a one paper / one film kind of guy as much as my wallet will allow. Unfortunately I like expensive materials, and when I can't afford those, I get some less expensive ones and learn those too, so that I can have a back-up for when either my finances don't allow using my favorites, or if some of them would become discontinued.

But knowledge, an open mind, experimentation, and determination will help you work with almost any material and still have great results.

I try to always keep in mind that when somebody else, that presumably doesn't know what materials or processes I use, view the prints, all they care about is what's in front of them. The print.
 

Some economic help for you regarding materials...

I do my contacts on Arista.EDU Ultra RC glossy - I hate the stuff but for contacts - cheap.

The EDU Ultra FB is a different story - for some subjects it is very very nice and dirt cheap.

The Foma papers are not super duper cheap but they are really really nice and have a good range of looks and image color and a bit below average in price.

As for film - hard to cheap out on MF and LF stuff unless you happen to like whatever the Freestyle rebranded stuff is but... In 35mm which I use a hell of a lot of (in terms of number of frames) I can tell you from personal experience:

Arista premium 400 IS TX
Arista premium 100 IS PX
Legacy Pro 400 is Neopan 400
Legacy Pro 100 is Acros 100

Not sort of like it - actually is the same exact stuff. I use both the Arista Premium 400 and 100 as well as the Legacy Pro 100 regularly and it is dirt cheap - esp in 100' rolls - like 25 bucks for the Acros.

Dektol is perfectly fine and the print yield is gigantic for a gallon - keeping properties of stock are very good as well.

TF4 is fantastic and has great capacity while seriously reducing wash time w/o HCA - test it.

The only place I put serious money for film is in LF - MF I shoot like I do LF - I use it a lot but the number of frames is more like LF so no matter what I buy (Kodak) it is dirt cheap.

RB

Ps. On the last thing you said - yea right that is sort of like people not asking you "what kind of camera do you use" when they like a picture.
 
I used TMX as my main film for about ten years, but I think that was the result of my 35mm mentality at the time--fine grain at any cost. I'm not saying that's the reason everyone uses TMX, but that was the attraction for me, and since I had tested it so thoroughly and was familiar with it, I kept using it as I progressed through medium format and 8x10", and then I started experimenting with films again just to see if I was missing something, and certain films like Tri-X, FP-4+, Efke 100, and Delta 400 just clicked without having to think about nudging one film this way or that way to get things to work the way I wanted, and I thought about what it was about some films that I really liked compared to others, and it wasn't just about things I could control. I'd be looking at the work of other photographers and think, "that has a real T-Max look--they like it evidently, but I don't really care for it." When I had a bigger neg to work with, I stopped worrying about grain and thinking mainly about tonality, line, and spectral response, because grain didn't matter so much, and other films became more appealing.

If I don't have the material I like, sure I'll figure out how to make do with what I have, but I just don't believe it makes sense to talk about the technical "superiority" of one film or another, because we're not all looking at the same properties of the material, and those physical properties don't always add up to a more appealing visual result. We can make one thing look a little more like another thing, but to a certain degree, each film is going to look like itself and when looking for a starting point, it's going to come down to taste, about which there are no interesting arguments to be made.
 
RB,

I use the same paper you do for contacts. My print paper of choice is Ilford MGIV matte, but I use Fomabrom Variant 112 when I can't afford the Ilford.

For film, I just love my TMY-2. It's what I'm used to. But I will use Foma 100 in 120 (as Arista.EDU Ultra 100) when TMY-2 is too spendy. In 35mm I use TMY-2 when I can, but don't mind venturing into using the Legacy or Arista Premium films as well. But I try to stay consistent as much as I can.

Chemistry cost I keep to a minimum with replenished Ethol LPD for prints (glorious AND cheap!), and replenished Xtol for film. In the grand scheme of things, the cost for these is negligible. Hypam fix in 5L buckets are cheap too. Don't like the contrast of Dektol, and it's more expensive than LPD anyway. My negs are tuned to working with LPD, which is soft working. Dektol is the opposite and gives me highlights that are hard to print to reasonable levels. This is why I so adamantly preach to use the same materials - AFTER you dial in your paper and paper developer.

And, I force myself to think harder about each shot, to minimize the amount of frames I shoot.

Thanks for the advice.

(And, most people that view my prints are not photographers (can't sell a single print to other photographers it seems). They really don't ask about the equipment, materials, and processes I use. I haven't had it happen more than once or twice yet).


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