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

[ChrisGalway]

I was reminded recently of an artist who was asked if he could explain the meanings of one of his paintings....and his reply was "If I could explain it in words, I wouldn't have needed to paint it".

It's similar with photography, or any artform. I can tell you why I personally miss Plus-X or Kodachrome, but that might well not resonate with you or anyone else. Witness the recent discussions on Ilford newly offering Pan-F in sheets. Some people absolutely could not see the point while others were ecstatic.

We can analyse negatives and prints and even scans until the proverbial cows come home, and that information is useful...but in the end, photographs are made to be viewed. And even an apparently simple holiday snapshot will be seen differently by each individual....as they used to print on the envelopes...."A picture tells a thousand words". I can tell you the thought process that lead me to choose a specific film, camera, developer and what I was thinking when I chose the camera settings and pressed the shutter....but that still leaves the actual photo as yours to interpret, like or dislike as you will.

Getting back to the original question.....I see no chance of Kodachrome coming back and I'm not into some other product carrying the name....so I'd say Plus-X. In 135 and super 8.

Agreed, but some of the suggestions on this thread have been for films with physical characteristics that are not available right now, for example ISO 200/400 Ektachrome. Art doesn't come into it

 

[Agulliver]

Agreed, but some of the suggestions on this thread have been for films with physical characteristics that are not available right now, for example ISO 200/400 Ektachrome. Art doesn't come into it

I feel it does....because there's still the question of what you wish to do with faster Ektachrome. Though it is true that there are things one can do with ISO400 Ektachrome that cannot feasibly be done with 100ISO Ektachrome. Even if I probably wouldn't use it myself, I can see faster Ektachrome is a gap in the market.

 

[chuckroast]

Totally agree.
Differs quite a bit though from what you have said earlier.

Not really. Let me clarify the principal things I've said here with sidebars removed:

1. The testing of materials by using scientific methods to see the effect on human perception is likely to live on the boundary of statistical noise. These methods make lots of sense when you're measuring the material properties themselves, But trying to then map them onto our perceptive response is of questionable value - we all vary so much that even a very carefully designed experiment with a perfect test cohort isn't going to tell you all that much.
   
   
2. Interaction with art is existential on the part of the observer. We can talk about and around that experience with one another, but the language will be imprecise and we'll never entirely know each others' experience. Attempting to mathematize this isn't useful.

 

[Milpool]

I did use some Kodachrome 25 but really only had limited use for it. I got more use out of 64 but I don't really miss either of them.

I guess I'm not really following your point. I'm always on a tripod but what does Pan-X give you that TMX doesn't? Especially considering the age of your Pan-X... it is not exactly Pan-X anymore.

I have a camera loaded with Panatomic-X and you can find I write about it a lot.

Have you ever shot Kodachrome 25? Film in the low ASA/ISO vicinity are often shot at moderate f/stops and shutter speeds.

Instead of the f/64 club Think 1/60 at f/5.6

You get a certain syntax. If you don’t use a tripod you will get slight softness either from focus error/insufficient depth of field or slow shutter speeds.

But if you do use a tripod you get sharpness without compare.

With TMAX 100 you don’t need a yellow filter but with Panatomic-X you should use it. We’re going to shoot 1/125 f/16 vs 1/125 f/8 at sunny 16

 

[chuckroast]

This is a spectacular misunderstanding of basic science. In science, a theory is a comprehensive explanation of an aspect of the natural world that is supported by a vast body of empirical evidence, and not an unproven guess. It represents our absolute best, most robust explanation of reality. A theory stands as the definitive framework until, and only if, it is challenged and refined by better, more comprehensive data and rigorous, peer-reviewed science. Confusing the colloquial word "theory" with a "scientific theory" is a high school-level error.

I will leave the rest of this for another day but your characterization here is ad hominem and ridiculous.

I am quite fully aware of the nature of a scientific theory and what it represents. And no, it's not a "high school-level" understanding.

But I stand by what I said upthread: Scientific theories do not give us "objective truth". They are mutable and can change with new evidence. They are always and only, the "best explanation so far".

 

[Milpool]

This is quite right well said.

Interaction with art... We can talk about and around that experience with one another, but the language will be imprecise and we'll never entirely know each others' experience.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You say tomato and I say tomato! Who's right?

 

[ChrisGalway]

.....

1. The testing of materials by using scientific methods to see the effect on human perception is likely to live on the boundary of statistical noise. These methods make lots of sense when you're measuring the material properties themselves, But trying to then map them onto our perceptive response is of questionable value - we all vary so much that even a very carefully designed experiment with a perfect test cohort isn't going to tell you all that much.
   
   
2. .....

I guess you are dismissing the whole field of Psychophysics ...

Sounds like you're in another universe.

 

[chuckroast]

You say tomato and I say tomato! Who's right?

The potato

 

[Bill Burk]

I did use some Kodachrome 25 but really only had limited use for it. I got more use out of 64 but I don't really miss either of them.

I guess I'm not really following your point. I'm always on a tripod but what does Pan-X give you that TMX doesn't? Especially considering the age of your Pan-X... it is not exactly Pan-X anymore.

Ah, but it is exactly Panatomic-X still.

11x14 prints from vintage negatives and current negatives match. So I can revisit a location and fill in what I missed before.

It is just as grainy as it used to be.

But also shooting slow film leads to the syntax of motion blur and wide aperture. Don’t get as much of that on TMAX 100.

If you recall, Panatomic-X has slightly better resolution than TMAX 100 even though TMAX 100 has slightly finer or practically the same graininess. That was a tradeoff Kodak made. TMAX 100 isn’t better by all measures.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I did a video on Pan-X and TMX a few years back. They were identical tonally, and colour response. One striking difference was TMX blowing it out of the water in regards to sharpness and resolution. Oh, and speed.
At the end of the day, if Kodak did bring back something, I probably couldn't afford it anyway...

 

[Milpool]

Ah, but it is exactly Panatomic-X still.

11x14 prints from vintage negatives and current negatives match. So I can revisit a location and fill in what I missed before.

It is just as grainy as it used to be.

But also shooting slow film leads to the syntax of motion blur and wide aperture. Don’t get as much of that on TMAX 100.

If you recall, Panatomic-X has slightly better resolution than TMAX 100 even though TMAX 100 has slightly finer or practically the same graininess. That was a tradeoff Kodak made. TMAX 100 isn’t better by all measures.

I don't know of a published modulation transfer function for Pan-X but I doubt it would be better than TMX. No idea what syntax of motion blur is supposed to mean but there isn't much stopping one from getting motion blur with TMX or any other film.

It's also worth pointing out since we are arguing "at the margins", there is no way your 50 year old Pan-X is doing the best it could anymore. It is fairly age tolerant but degrades.

I mean if you really like shooting looooong expired film that's cool and everything but I don't think you're being very objective here.

 

[Milpool]

I did a video on Pan-X and TMX a few years back. They were identical tonally, and colour response. One striking difference was TMX blowing it out of the water in regards to sharpness and resolution. Oh, and speed.
At the end of the day, if Kodak did bring back something, I probably couldn't afford it anyway...

Even if it was, oh I don't know, HIE in sheets? Just cut your meals down to one can of spam / day.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, I'd make an exception for HIE in sheets!
I'll never give on me spam. Perfect in a stir fried rice!

 

[mzjo]

I have seen a few mentions of Verichrome Pan in the suggestions on this thread. It is one film that I really miss. Quite why I am not sure; I'm not equipped materially or intellectually to analyse it. However I used it in Brownies, 127 and 620. I presume it was made in 120 as well but I don't know what else. However it's wasteful dreaming to imagine a market for it (even at the prices charged currently for respooled 620 and 127). There weren't enough Brownie shooters to maintain it when it went out of production, even less now. I'll keep cutting down 120 to make 127 and respooling it to make 620. Foma 200 would be a substitute if only it was a bit more robust but FP4+ seems to be my first choice.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Verichrome Pan is what my grand father used in his Target Six-20. I've got a lot of his negatives...just the typical family snaps. When I inherited his camera, There was a roll in it that was mostly used. I tried developing it, but could only barely make out one image which looked like someone had taken a photo of him with my granny. That roll could have been sitting in the camera since the 30's. It's a pity they didn't turn out better.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes,
It's what my father used in his Target Six-16 also. It was a very forgiving film for a guy who knew almost nothing about photography. I look at some of the photos that were shot in good light (with the sun behind your back) and they are really very good. I remember him always preaching "sun behind your back" to my mother, but she never paid much attention to him. I can live without Verichrome for sure, but it was a darn good film at that time. Probably might even be a good film at the present time. I'd like to see it did in Pyrocat-HDC.

 

[chuckroast]

Yes,
It's what my father used in his Target Six-16 also. It was a very forgiving film for a guy who knew almost nothing about photography. I look at some of the photos that were shot in good light (with the sun behind your back) and they are really very good. I remember him always preaching "sun behind your back" to my mother, but she never paid much attention to him. I can live without Verichrome for sure, but it was a darn good film at that time. Probably might even be a good film at the present time. I'd like to see it did in Pyrocat-HDC.

I loved it too, but if you liked that film, you might try out Lucky SHD 100. It does have an antihalation layer unlike Verichrome, but - to my eye, I did not do double blind testing - it behaves a lot the same way. It also stains beautifully in Pyro developers.

In terms of exposure tolerance and easy of printing, I've found SHD 100 very forgiving.

There are a few/weird anomalies I've found with this film that I have documented in a separate thread:

Lucky SHD 100 - Your Experience?

'Just mentioned this in another thread, but thought I'd break it our for separate discussion: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-was-the-last-camera-you-used-last-film-and-how-was-it-developed.125236/post-2901769 The old Lucky was a really good traditional film but suffered badly from...

www.photrio.com

 

[John Wiegerink]

I loved it too, but if you liked that film, you might try out Lucky SHD 100. It does have an antihalation layer unlike Verichrome, but - to my eye, I did not do double blind testing - it behaves a lot the same way. It also stains beautifully in Pyro developers.

In terms of exposure tolerance and easy of printing, I've found SHD 100 very forgiving.

There are a few/weird anomalies I've found with this film that I have documented in a separate thread:

Lucky SHD 100 - Your Experience?

'Just mentioned this in another thread, but thought I'd break it our for separate discussion: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-was-the-last-camera-you-used-last-film-and-how-was-it-developed.125236/post-2901769 The old Lucky was a really good traditional film but suffered badly from...

www.photrio.com

I have been following that thread with interest. I like the pictures of the carousel horse and others. Might just have to try it later in the summer.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

Alright,

Reala 100 without a doubt, just the most gorgeous reproduction of greens
Agfa Ultra 50
Ektar 25
Provia 400X
E100VS
Fortia
HIE in MF or bigger (35mm just doesn't cut the mustard with its poor resolution)
Panatomic X
APX 25

 

[Augustus Caesar]

This all kicked off with the assertion (not by you) that two films where all the objectivity measurable qualities were identical were somehow "different" in some sort of abstract undefinable way.

If you like a film, that's great and I have no problem with you saying you like a film just because you like it; no further justification is needed.

However, I have a very large problem when someone says that notwithstanding the spectral sensitivity, granularity, and H&D curves are identical between 2 films, those films are somehow different in some way that can't be measured or described, and must just be taken on faith that there is some sort of difference. Vodo has no place in a technical comparison of films. This is chemistry, not sociology.

Chemical reactions happen in predicable ways, no matter if it's done once or a million times, the results will always be the same. A particular emulsion exposed to a certain amount of light and developed in a known way will always produce the same density; no more, no less. There is no room for handwaving and BS here, it's just physics and chemistry.

Exactly! I bet that a blind test made between Panatomic-X and T-Max 100 would show they are basically indistinguishable, and if anything, the T-Max film would be finer-grained and sharper.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I was reminded recently of an artist who was asked if he could explain the meanings of one of his paintings....and his reply was "If I could explain it in words, I wouldn't have needed to paint it".

It's similar with photography, or any artform. I can tell you why I personally miss Plus-X or Kodachrome, but that might well not resonate with you or anyone else. Witness the recent discussions on Ilford newly offering Pan-F in sheets. Some people absolutely could not see the point while others were ecstatic.

We can analyse negatives and prints and even scans until the proverbial cows come home, and that information is useful...but in the end, photographs are made to be viewed. And even an apparently simple holiday snapshot will be seen differently by each individual....as they used to print on the envelopes...."A picture tells a thousand words". I can tell you the thought process that lead me to choose a specific film, camera, developer and what I was thinking when I chose the camera settings and pressed the shutter....but that still leaves the actual photo as yours to interpret, like or dislike as you will.

Getting back to the original question.....I see no chance of Kodachrome coming back and I'm not into some other product carrying the name....so I'd say Plus-X. In 135 and super 8.

I am one who cannot see the point of Large-Format Pan-F. FP4+ in 8x10 would make gigantic enlargements with no visible grain.

 

[GregY]

I am one who cannot see the point of Large-Format Pan-F. FP4+ in 8x10 would make gigantic enlargements with no visible grain.

Yes.... though lots of crossover from several other threads. I 100% agree with you
Although the question here was about Kodak films. I could live with only Tri-X or FP4+( love love love this film!!) in all sizes!

 

[chuckroast]

This all kicked off with the assertion (not by you) that two films where all the objectivity measurable qualities were identical were somehow "different" in some sort of abstract undefinable way.

If you like a film, that's great and I have no problem with you saying you like a film just because you like it; no further justification is needed.

However, I have a very large problem when someone says that notwithstanding the spectral sensitivity, granularity, and H&D curves are identical between 2 films, those films are somehow different in some way that can't be measured or described, and must just be taken on faith that there is some sort of difference. Vodo has no place in a technical comparison of films. This is chemistry, not sociology.

Chemical reactions happen in predicable ways, no matter if it's done once or a million times, the results will always be the same. A particular emulsion exposed to a certain amount of light and developed in a known way will always produce the same density; no more, no less. There is no room for handwaving and BS here, it's just physics and chemistry.

Where did I say any of that?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The wonderful thing about large format film in general is that, due to the lesser degree of magnification in print, one doesn't need to worry much about visible grain, and is free to select from a wider range of films in relation to tonality, speed, curve structure, contrast malleability, edge acutance,etc. Pan F is more of a one trick pony.