thoughts on the announced Kodak film price increase?

[cramej]

The price of Kodak film goes up, I still buy Kodak film. The price of Ilford film goes up, I still buy Ilford film. The price of Fuji film goes up, I still buy Fuji film.

Sirius gets dibs on the first $30 roll of E100!

 

[removedacct1]

I personally would rather die.

It didn't kill Clyde Butcher. Just sayin'.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Those of us who've been turned off by its grain and lack of sharpness since, oh, the 1960s, agree with that sentiment. Yes, I quoted you out of context and perverted your meaning, but couldn't resist. Sorry.

Of all the films Eastman Kodak manufactures today, TRI-X sells best and will be last to go, despite price increases.

at lest from here, that's true.I'll stick to it. On the subject os lack of sharpness, I'm still disappointed with TMX.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...On the subject os lack of sharpness, I'm still disappointed with TMX.

TMX definitely lacks acutance. Some exploit that by using TMX for portraiture. Others, seeking to overcome it, shoot at EI64 and develop in FX-39 II:

https://fotoimport.no/fkfx39​

My road to sharp results has been using TMY-2 and developing in PMK.

 

[Duceman]

not really sure what the problem is with "the alternative" .. plenty of inspiring photographs are made using that medium.

I agree. But what I was responding to was the apparent shock that someone was still going to buy film (Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, etc.) regardless of the price increase. With the limited film manufacturers, and being that film is one of the products one simply can't make at home, I was dismayed by said shock as the only other alternative is to go fully digital..

 

[removed account4]

I agree. But what I was responding to was the apparent shock that someone was still going to buy film (Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, etc.) regardless of the price increase. With the limited film manufacturers, and being that film is one of the products one simply can't make at home, I was dismayed by said shock as the only other alternative is to go fully digital..

Sorry I didn't see the person you ( and apparently others? ) have been responding to, I have a few people on ignore so I don't see their colorful commentary ..
but they do have a point. ...
Even though it is expensive or more expensive, one might as well buy the materials while it is still being manufactured (being part of the solution not the problem?) because the day is coming that mass market camera digestables we hold dear might not be around, and one will have to learn how to make photographic emulsions or buy some speed plates which are currently being manufactured by J.Lane.

One problem I have noticed over the years of being active on this site (and others) is that photographers tend complain loudly and forcefully about the price of materials ( or spending $2/month on a subscription to a website or a magazine or ... ) in one thread, while bragging heavily about the 2thousand dollar lens or camera, tricked out whatever; and fill a 200square hectare chest freezer to shield their hoard film and paper ( from imaginary cosmic rays ). ... only to sell off thousands of sheets of paper and bricks and boxes of film that hasn't been exposed or touched in 5 or 10+ years ..
Of course, this next time this happens, there will be nothing like now being made anymore. These prestigious few will be reduced to repurchasing the fogged and reduced speed, reticulated film and paper they just sold on an auction sites or meta ad-verse marketplace ( for like 4x what they sold it for cause it's listed as "rare" and "vintage" ) because they weren't regularly purchasing film and paper they used to think was over priced.

As the mayor of Boston, Governor of the Commonwealth and Congressman used to say ( from his prison cell ) vote often and early ...

 

[Lachlan Young]

TMX definitely lacks acutance. Some exploit that by using TMX for portraiture. Others, seeking to overcome it, shoot at EI64 and develop in FX-39 II:

https://fotoimport.no/fkfx39​

My road to sharp results has been using TMY-2 and developing in PMK.

TMX is plenty sharp, it's just that it's got a combination of low granularity and very high resolution on top of MTF performance that holds at 100%+ out to 50 cyc/mm (essentially unmatched by anything else) - which adds up to it being quite a ruthless transmitter of MTF shortcomings in your imaging chain. TMY-II (and Delta 100 in my experience) has a more exaggerated contrast response at low frequencies - which helps most imaging systems look 'sharper' but the higher granularity and faster MTF fall-off from 100% response seems to even-out lens/ imaging system performance drop-off at higher frequencies in a less visibly obvious way (essentially through it falling away into noise/ granularity - albeit nicely crisp granularity).

 

[Ian Grant]

TMX definitely lacks acutance. Some exploit that by using TMX for portraiture. Others, seeking to overcome it, shoot at EI64 and develop in FX-39 II:

https://fotoimport.no/fkfx39​

My road to sharp results has been using TMY-2 and developing in PMK.

Tmax 100 and 400 can lack Acutance but I found thatt was dependant on choice of Developer. I used to shoot a lot of TMax 100 when en I couldn't get Agfa APX100 but found I got excellent acutance in Rodinal or Xtol (replenished). In D76/ID-11 Tmax 100 is not as sharp due to the lack of cautance. I would add that replenished developers once seasoned give highr actuance and finer grain than stock or diluted Xtol are used. I found it excelent in Pyrocat HD as well. I always processed TMY in Xtol.

I've not shot TMY-2 I'd switched to Ilford Delta 100 & 400 and 5x4 HP5 before the change and found the quality of 5x4 HP5 in Pyrocat HD outstanding so wwouldn't be tempted back, Now with the huge price differential it's not a remote possibility .

Ian

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...one will have to learn how to make photographic emulsions or buy some speed plates which are currently being manufactured...

Or simply go digital.

...freezer to shield their hoard film and paper ( from imaginary cosmic rays )...

Apologies for addressing something substantive in this thread but fogging due to cosmic rays is real, not imaginary, and a freezer will do nothing to shield the more sensitive materials from those rays.

TMX is plenty sharp, it's just that it's got a combination of low granularity and very high resolution on top of MTF performance that holds at 100%+ out to 50 cyc/mm (essentially unmatched by anything else) - which adds up to it being quite a ruthless transmitter of MTF shortcomings in your imaging chain...

TMX has high resolution, but "sharpness" is how an image appears to the human eye, not resolution. It matters not how high the MTF capabilities of one's imaging chain are. TMX doesn't look "sharp" in almost all developers. I've even tried it in 8x10 and contact printed the resulting negatives. No cigar. Those prints simply don't look "sharp" to the naked eye.

...TMY-II (and Delta 100 in my experience) has a more exaggerated contrast response at low frequencies - which helps most imaging systems look 'sharper' but the higher granularity and faster MTF fall-off from 100% response seems to even-out lens/ imaging system performance drop-off at higher frequencies in a less visibly obvious way (essentially through it falling away into noise/ granularity - albeit nicely crisp granularity).

It's easy to lose sight (pun intended) of the fact that we do all this to make pictures that are looked at. The granularity of TMY-2 in PMK is exceptionally low. It's not TMX low, but, unlike 400TX, more than low enough, even up to 4X magnification. Most of my work is 4x5 with prints not bigger than 8x10, so grain doesn't enter into it. In 35mm, I use Sigma Art taking lenses and a 50mm Apo Rodagon N for printing. Performance drop-off of that combination at higher frequencies with 4x6 or 5x7 prints pales in comparison to film characteristics.

Tmax 100 and 400 can lack Acutance but I found thatt was dependant on choice of Developer. I used to shoot a lot of TMax 100 when en I couldn't get Agfa APX100 but found I got excellent acutance in Rodinal or Xtol (replenished)...

I've tried TMX in many developers. XTOL didn't help acutance much, but Rodinal did. Unfortunately, the characteristic curves that result don't make for reasonable printing, requiring heroic efforts in the darkroom. Poke around the film-developer comparisons in that link I provided and look at those curves. TMY-2's acutance starts out much better than TMX's, and I've finally settled on PMK to bring it up even higher. PMK has the added benefit of taming TMY-2's curve, which otherwise rises above Zone VI or so. Printed on VC paper, TMY-2/PMK negatives are very easy to work with, especially when scenes of high brightness range like we typically encounter here in the U.S. southwest are involved.

 

[laingsoft]

Would that kill you?

It would kill my interest in it. I like working in the dark.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Saw this news by Kosmofoto (Stephen Dowling) posted on Twitter. Does anyone know about it? There is no source.

https://kosmofoto.com/2021/10/kodak-alaris-announces-significant-price-increases-for-january-2022/

Of course Kodak prices will be up. They go up on regular basis for years now. Even some brit dude operating from mama's basement under kosmos FSU picture on the logo and repackaged film for sale could tell this. LOL.

 

[George Mann]

Does anyone really want to shoot 35mm film for more than a dollar per frame?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius gets dibs on the first $30 roll of E100!

I'll take a brick.

 

[MattKing]

I've deleted a bunch of political posts. Try to resist the temptation!

 

[BrianShaw]

I've deleted a bunch of political posts. Try to resist the temptation!

I missed them; what did they say? Ha ha ha.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll take a brick.

My gas costs almost $5/gallon and I do not see anyone complaining about that on this website.

 

[MattKing]

My gas costs almost $5/gallon and I do not see anyone complaining about that on this website.

That is absolutely unfair!
We pay about $1.60 CDN per litre for regular gas here.
So I'll complain!

 

[Pieter12]

It would kill my interest in it. I like working in the dark.

Sorry to hear you wouldn't be interested in photography without film. What would you do then? Photography is not about film, it is about the images.

 

[faberryman]

It would kill my interest in it. I like working in the dark.

I don't know if you know this, but when you are working with your digital images in PS and LR you can turn off the lights. I do. It is extra dark because I don't have to turn on the safelights. You can even put a bowl of fixer next to your monitor so you get the real darkroom smell.

 

[DMJ]

My gas costs almost $5/gallon and I do not see anyone complaining about that on this website.

I paid $3.9 last week which is not bad for Los Angeles so I don't complain. I also paid $8.6 for a roll of Tri-x in 120. I will start complaining when it gets above $10.

 

[DMJ]

Sorry to hear you wouldn't be interested in photography without film. What would you do then? Photography is not about film, it is about the images.

Ditto.

 

[Saganich]

Every time I think film is too expensive I look up the current price of a Monochrome and calculate that's about 40 years of film at my current usage. Sure I could offset that cost by selling some film bodies and redundant lenses, but well, no thanks, why sell what's increasing to fund the decreasing. I could always raid the 529 because maybe my kids need one for college.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry to hear you wouldn't be interested in photography without film. What would you do then? Photography is not about film, it is about the images.

I think it is about photography, not just images, not just processes, not just photographers, not just consumers of photography, but all of the above.
And generally in different proportions, for different participants.
So I would never say that someone is wrong if their interest centres around a different part of photography than mine does.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I thoroughly enjoy shooting film, but digital - let's say I like working on computers disassembled - a hands-on experience fixing them. Film gives me the same.

Sitting in front of a monitor, touching sliders in places - that just kills it for me. With slides - I enjoy awesome quality with zero digi-anything near it, because I like it that way. And I seriously cannot image Earth in near furure without a BW film, so I'll continue shooting it.

And when it ends, I'll pick up Large and learn plates. Or learn how to make an emulsion and shoot paper negatives. Digital can fuck right the fuck off

 

[Pieter12]

I think it is about photography, not just images, not just processes, not just photographers, not just consumers of photography, but all of the above.
And generally in different proportions, for different participants.
So I would never say that someone is wrong if their interest centres around a different part of photography than mine does.

But if working in the dark with film is your main or only interest, you're a lab technician, not a photographer.