What Films Would You Like To See Kodak Re-Introduce Again? And why?

[Augustus Caesar]

I agree.

I have no idea what you mean. Very fine grained images look different from ones with a little grain. Ever see an 8 x10 contact printed on Azo? My high school graduation group photo was made that way. Incredible detail!

 

[Lachlan Young]

This is along the lines of something I have mentioned before, that most people consider things almost solely quantitatively now instead of qualitatively, whereas the word quality should be a big hint.

I think you are failing to understand that the data in question is a quantitative analysis of qualitative/ perceptual characteristics, in many cases based off extensive double blind tests.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I think you are failing to understand that the data in question is a quantitative analysis of qualitative/ perceptual characteristics, in many cases based off extensive double blind tests.

I hardly ever used Panatomic-X, though I used a good bit of Adox KB-14. The latter turned out to be just way too difficult to work with, even with Tetenal Neofin Blue and Paterson Acuspecial (FX-21) developers. I gradually moved away from slow films and learned how to get fantastic results from Tri-X and FP4 in UFG (sadly now discontinued). I have rarely used T-Max 100, because T-Max 400 is so good, especially in FX-21. The combo is fantastic.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What they’re seeing is any difference in graininess plus what they expect to see (bias). Actually it’s worse than that because the claims are almost never based on any kind of proper comparison.

The “character” of a given granularity (ie the morphology of developed silver) is a function of various things, and all other things being equal you can’t see any difference in character between a cubic (eg Pan-X), tabular (eg Delta) or mixed (TMY-2) emulsion. Realistically if someone says TMX is too “digital”-looking in comparison to another film all they can really mean is they find the grain too fine. There isn’t anything else that holds any water. A simple solution in that case would be to use Delta 100 which is grainier but otherwise virtually the same.

I'd add a small footnote, I think the only purely high aspect ratio grain structure Ilford/ Kodak material currently is TMax 100, Delta uses a rather complex epitaxial structure that is able to incorporate 3D crystal structures on specific sites on the high-aspect ratio grain structures (that themselves seem to start life as 3D structures before being cleaved in specific ways) in a single emulsion layer (at least for 100/400). Some of the propensity of Delta to accelerate in visual granularity (and sharpness) when overexposed seems to possibly relate to this, and would suggest that TMax 400's adoption of a layer of t-grains and a layer of 3D crystals is an attempt to circumnavigate this issue, while enabling the benefits of a controlled polydispersity of crystal form.

 

[bfilm]

I think you are failing to understand that the data in question is a quantitative analysis of qualitative/ perceptual characteristics, in many cases based off extensive double blind tests.

The point is that not everything can be quantified.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The point is that not everything can be quantified.

If the grain is not visible in either, I don't know what property could be able to distinguish one from the other.

 

[GregY]

The point is that not everything can be quantified.

Thank you...

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Thank you...

Maybe. It depends. You can't generalize.

 

[Milpool]

Incidentally do we know for sure TMX is purely tabular? The only reason I know TMY-2 is a two layer mixed emulsion is from Robert Shanebrook’s book.

The usual suspects seem to have come out for this one. It’s not anywhere near as deep as they desperately want it to be but it’s always the same thing - trying to make a high art of the relatively trivial process of making great negatives.

I'd add a small footnote, I think the only purely high aspect ratio grain structure Ilford/ Kodak material currently is TMax 100, Delta uses a rather complex epitaxial structure that is able to incorporate 3D crystal structures on specific sites on the high-aspect ratio grain structures (that themselves seem to start life as 3D structures before being cleaved in specific ways) in a single emulsion layer (at least for 100/400). Some of the propensity of Delta to accelerate in visual granularity (and sharpness) when overexposed seems to possibly relate to this, and would suggest that TMax 400's adoption of a layer of t-grains and a layer of 3D crystals is an attempt to circumnavigate this issue, while enabling the benefits of a controlled polydispersity of crystal form.

 

[GregY]

Maybe. It depends. You can't generalize.

There was a general question at first "what films would you like to see Kodak bring back"........
It is a forum characteristic that some people simply answer the question, while others go into excruciating detail....which may or may not be pertinent to the question at all, and in the end is just one more opinion with no more weight than any other opinion. It was a simple question....not a competition where there is a right answer.

 

[Craig]

As this is in the B&W section, I can't think of a single Kodak film that I am missing and would want back in production. FP4 is an excellent replacement for Plus-X, and I think I only ever shot 2 rolls of Panatomic-X when it was current. The slow speed didn't give an appreciable grain reduction, and Delta gave me more pleasing tonality. Plus I can get Delta in sheets. I can't remember if FX was ever available in sheets in the early 90's.

Technical Pan perhaps, but it's a very finicky film for pictorial applications. I find for medium format and larger that TMX/Delta 100 are plenty good enough for my needs.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

There was a general question at first "what films would you like to see Kodak bring back"........
It is a forum characteristic that some people simply answer the question, while others go into excruciating detail....which may or may not be pertinent to the question at all, and in the end is just one more opinion with no more weight than any other opinion. It was a simple question....not a competition where there is a right answer.

Right! Kodachrome, Infrared (not HIE), B&W paper.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Tech Pan. I was just starting to get it to work for me, and Kodak discontinued it.
Royal-X Pan. I never got a chance to try that one. Same with Super-XX.

 

[GregY]

As this is in the B&W section, I can't think of a single Kodak film that I am missing and would want back in production. FP4 is an excellent replacement for Plus-X, and I think I only ever shot 2 rolls of Panatomic-X when it was current. The slow speed didn't give an appreciable grain reduction, and Delta gave me more pleasing tonality. Plus I can get Delta in sheets. I can't remember if FX was ever available in sheets in the early 90's.

Technical Pan perhaps, but it's a very finicky film for pictorial applications. I find for medium format and larger that TMX/Delta 100 are plenty good enough for my needs.

Me too Craig.

 

[Samu]

C-41 and E6 film in bulk rolls.

 

[George Mann]

A replacement for Verichrome Pan, but in 35mm as well.

 

[chuckroast]

Since we're dreaming:

Verichrome, Plus-X, and Ektapan, but in ALL formats:

35mm, 120, 220, 2x3 sheets AND filmpacks, 4x5 sheets AND filmpacks, 9x12, and 8x10.

Also bring back the original metal film cans for 35mm, and especially the Plus-X in purple trim and Tri-X in green.

Oh, bring back the original 20 roll Propack boxes of 120 and 220.

While we're at it, bring back Velox, Ektalure, Kodabromide, Medalist, and Opal, in all grades and surfaces.

Ohhhh the feels ...

 

[Craig]

A replacement for Verichrome Pan, but in 35mm as well.

It's called Kentmere.

 

[Craig]

Tech Pan. I was just starting to get it to work for me, and Kodak discontinued it.
Royal-X Pan. I never got a chance to try that one. Same with Super-XX.

I wouldn't be too excited by Super XX. At the time, it was a 200 speed film that was grainer than Tri-X. Has a nice straight H&D curve, but so does TMax.

I have a box of Super XX in 8x10 I should open it up and try a sheet to see how much base fog there is. It only expired in 1988!

Tech pan is really sensitive to agitation technique, and be prone to non-uniform development; especially in rolls.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I like what Lachlan says about "double-blind" tests. With his habitual skepticism about any ability to differentiate things qualitatively, which can't be pigeonholed into formalized technical terminology, does that mean keeping both eyes closed?

 

[GregY]

Since we're dreaming:

Verichrome, Plus-X, and Ektapan, but in ALL formats:

35mm, 120, 220, 2x3 sheets AND filmpacks, 4x5 sheets AND filmpacks, 9x12, and 8x10.

Also bring back the original metal film cans for 35mm, and especially the Plus-X in purple trim and Tri-X in green.

Oh, bring back the original 20 roll Propack boxes of 120 and 220.

While we're at it, bring back Velox, Ektalure, Kodabromide, Medalist, and Opal, in all grades and surfaces.

Ohhhh the feels ...

I still remember buying 50 roll boxes of Ilford 120...some 20 yrs ago...Now it would almost take a bank loan....

 

[isaac7]

I wouldn't be too excited by Super XX. At the time, it was a 200 speed film that was grainer than Tri-X. Has a nice straight H&D curve, but so does TMax.

I have a box of Super XX in 8x10 I should open it up and try a sheet to see how much base fog there is. It only expired in 1988!

Tech pan is really sensitive to agitation technique, and be prone to non-uniform development; especially in rolls.

Is the cine film Double X similar to Super XX? If so you can get it from Cinestill as Kodak still makes it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, they're not the same. Super-XX was the cat's meow when it came to a very long straight line capable of significant plus development if needed. But yes, it was quite grainy, with grain potentially evident in even a contact print. I'd love to see it available again in 8x10. But for me, the subsequent Bergger 200 worked a little better for that niche, and was my favorite 8x10 film ever. But TMY400 is more versatile as a multi-format film;
so I can't complain (except about the current price).

 

[chuckroast]

I wouldn't be too excited by Super XX. At the time, it was a 200 speed film that was grainer than Tri-X. Has a nice straight H&D curve, but so does TMax.

I have a box of Super XX in 8x10 I should open it up and try a sheet to see how much base fog there is. It only expired in 1988!

Tech pan is really sensitive to agitation technique, and be prone to non-uniform development; especially in rolls.

3-4 years ago, I processed some Super XX 2x3 film that expired in 1961. I got perfectly fine negatives from it with both Pcat and D-23 except... age had damaged the physical surface of some of the sheets and eroded the emulsion in a few small spots where the film had stuck together. Other than some observable fog, it was entirely usable. I'll have to dig back into the box (it was full when I got it) and see if all the sheets are that way.

Super XX showed its usual propensity for grain, but that was normal for this film which does best in 4x5 or 8x10. Still, it wasn't bad for a film some 60+ years out of date:

https://ozzie.tundraware.com/SuperXX/

 

[Milpool]

TMY-2 should do fine in terms of long straight lines, but yeah the price. Acros was / is another contender (assuming the current version has the same characteristic curve as the old version).

No, they're not the same. Super-XX was the cat's meow when it came to a very long straight line capable of significant plus development if needed. But yes, it was quite grainy, with grain potentially evident in even a contact print. I'd love to see it available again in 8x10. But for me, the subsequent Bergger 200 worked a little better for that niche, and was my favorite 8x10 film ever. But TMY400 is more versatile as a multi-format film;
so I can't complain (except about the current price).