What's with Kodak film pricing?

[removed account4]

The same in Italy, in medium format Tmax400 is 10% less than Tri-x and Tmax100 is the cheapest. I feel that Trix is the top seller, while Tmax100 is the least favourite because very often it's been offered at huge discount with short expiration date. It's a pity for my wallet because Tx is my favourite among 400 Iso and Tmax100 never impressed me.

i used both tmx and tmy for press-work in the 90s ...
liked them both, but tmx used to block like mad
when you used a flash ...
that said, i'd use the 400 speed in a heartbeat any day of the week.

 

[Rodinalforever]

Hi Flavio, I expose Tmax100 @64 and developed it in Rodinal 1+25 for 6 min.
What I can't get with tmax100 is a good tonal separation from the dark areas to the middle grays (in this field tri-x is hard to beat).

 

[ciniframe]

All 35mm film I buy is half price, per frame that is. I shoot with a Pen F system.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All 35mm film I buy is half price, per frame that is. I shoot with a Pen F system.

I could do that with my Tessina, but I do most of my work in 120 film and 4"x5" with a touch of 35mm full frame.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

FWIW, and it ain't much, I have a good friend that was taking classes at Brooks when the T-Max films came out. Kodak supplied many, many bricks, lots of support. While I don't recall whether 100 or original 400, I do remember his saying that their density tests showed that it was slower than claimed. YMMV.

 

[Xmas]

FWIW, and it ain't much, I have a good friend that was taking classes at Brooks when the T-Max films came out. Kodak supplied many, many bricks, lots of support. While I don't recall whether 100 or original 400, I do remember his saying that their density tests showed that it was slower than claimed. YMMV.

Some say that it has a difficult toe.

Use Tmax, Microphen, or 1:100 Rodinal stand for easier printing of zone 1

YMMV

 

[flavio81]

Hi Flavio, I expose Tmax100 @64 and developed it in Rodinal 1+25 for 6 min.
What I can't get with tmax100 is a good tonal separation from the dark areas to the middle grays (in this field tri-x is hard to beat).

Thanks for this info!!

FWIW, and it ain't much, I have a good friend that was taking classes at Brooks when the T-Max films came out. Kodak supplied many, many bricks, lots of support. While I don't recall whether 100 or original 400, I do remember his saying that their density tests showed that it was slower than claimed. YMMV.

Probably the 100 speed. I also find ACROS to be a bit contrastier at ISO 100, so perhaps it is also an essentially slower film.

From the "modern" films, I find ILFORD Delta 100 to be the only one that is true ISO 100. At the same time it is slightly grainer than Kodak 100TMX and Fuji Acros. But I'd say that from the "modern 100-speed" films on the market it gives the best combination of low grain + 100 speed + good tonality + standard contrast.

I still like Fuji Acros, though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nonsense. Pure nonsense, both about the speed and about having similar toe shape or reproduction characteristics. They don't even have the same damn spectral sensitivity! This is about as reliable information as telling someone that dill pickle and licorice ice cream taste the same.
Even your remark about highlight contrast is utterly nonsensical. I shoot ACROS in multiple formats. Shot some 8x10 just last Saturday. Do
you imagine that at those prices I don't do my homework? How on earth do you come up with this kind of baloney?

 

[Ai Print]

Even if these films were triple the price they are now, the cost would still represent only a fraction of what it actually costs to get great salable shots in the bag. I'll just keep on using the best black and white film for my needs thank you and that is Tmax400 in 35, 120 and 4x5.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Both speeds of TMax have a relatively steep crisp toe. If you understand how to correctly expose them, you will get much better shadow
separation than with most other films in high contrast situations. TMY400 does have better edge effect than TMX100, so in larger formats might actually appear sharper. Otherwise, price is relative. And I sure as heck do squirm about the cost of 8x10 TMax anything these days.
I'm lucky to have quite a bit of it in the freezer. But it does what I need. I do shoot quite a few other films. But about the only other one that comes close to a true 400 speed is HP5. It is a beautiful film, but doesn't have the same toe, so in order to get even analogous shadow reproduction in a contrasty outdoor scene, I have to attach an unsharp FP4 printing mask. So that means two sheets of 8x10 film spent,
and not just one. Merely resorting to VC papers won't do the same thing. At the other extreme, if I'm just out snapshooting with the Nikon,
TMY gives me excellent speed and a distinct crisp look for small prints, though it does need to be more carefully metered than most black and white films due to that relatively long straight line going way down into the toe. If I'm just winging the exposure (like I do stealth style
in a heavy downpour, keeping the camera under my raincoat most of the time), I'm more likely to choose the far more forgiving Delta 3200. Each of these films has its own flavor, so to speak. ACROS is wonderful not only for its crisp sharpness, but for almost no recip failure at long exposures and for its unique orthopan sensitivity. It's a dream film up in the mtns, esp in something like 120 format where
the TMax's come out either a bit gritty or mushy in a 16x20 print. But given the amount of true expertise I've can state I've realistically achieved with ACROS, I'll just pass along the hint that I never shoot it at box speed, typically more like ASA50, just like FP4. Depends on
your developer of course; but the toe gets muddy otherwise.
steep toe.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never concern myself with the curves and have had successful photographs for sixty years. If I do not like the film, the curves do not matter to me. If I like the film, why bother to look at the curves. On other things I well get involved with the technical details, but not this.

Learn what each film can do by eye, since the eye is your best measurement sensor of the final print or slide.

 

[Rodinalforever]

Thanks for this info!!



Probably the 100 speed. I also find ACROS to be a bit contrastier at ISO 100, so perhaps it is also an essentially slower film.

From the "modern" films, I find ILFORD Delta 100 to be the only one that is true ISO 100. At the same time it is slightly grainer than Kodak 100TMX and Fuji Acros. But I'd say that from the "modern 100-speed" films on the market it gives the best combination of low grain + 100 speed + good tonality + standard contrast.

I still like Fuji Acros, though.

Hello Flavio, my favourite developer for Tmax100 is Rodinal 1+25 because it's the only one developer that help make grain visible even with a grainless film like tmax (I like to see a little, but well defined grain). I expose @ 64 because Rodinal is a loss speed developer with all films.
I agree with you about Acros100, beautiful film. I hope that Fuji still continue bw production, althoug I feel that Fuji will dismiss bw quicker than Kodak.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - the last time you allegedly presented data you didn't even know how to correctly read it! With these kinds of statements you're only
going to fool neophytes and confuse web junkies, and not anybody serious. Maybe they all do look the same to you. I can't help you with that. Maybe an optometrist could.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The best way to call into question experimental data is to generate alternate data sets that demonstrate different results from the same experimental conditions. Anecdotal observations, while often valuable to discern gross starting points and trends, are not in any way definitive because there are no controls in place at the point of observation.

Given the choice between anecdotal and controlled data in the absence of any other mitigating context, controlled data wins the credibility battle every time.

Ken

 

[flavio81]

TMX, Acros and Delta 100 are all true ISO 100. That is the ISO speed. In addition, when processed in most general purpose developers they all have virtually the same toe shape and characteristic curve shape from threshold to upper mid-tones. Delta 100 tends to have slightly higher highlight contrast than TMX. Acros has very high highlight contrast in comparison to TMX/Delta 100.

Ok, i can believe when you say that the curves are similar until the upper-mid tones, but if the highlights are steeper with Acros then it is what i'm perceiving as higher contrast. Thus, less development for Acros to tame things. Thus, more exposure for Acros to even things out. And thus, less effective speed for Acros. This is what i'd call "essentially a lower ISO film".

Spectral response can't be the same, though. Acros, IMO, has a different spectral response to the others.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ken - controlled data has already been published by the mfgs. Different personal developers can obviously tweak this a bit, but overall, the
published curves are a good starting point. But over and over again, people overlook subtle seemingly subtle differences in graphs or curves which are actually very significant in practice. For one thing, published curves are logarithmic, not arithmetic, so a tiny twist of the tail, so to speak, at the bottom of the curve, might actually affect an entire stop or two, or Zone, when it comes to exposure strategy. Then a mere 50nm of spectral sensitivity difference in that chart can make all the difference in the world in what filters do what, or how a scene is finally rendered. Otherwise, why would the same major mfg like Kodak or Ilford even bother to make such a wide selection of films, if they were all essentially the same? The Kodak selection has thinned out some from its heyday, but that's because they figured they could
hit the same targets with fewer films, even if the films did become a bit more finicky latitude-wise. Do you presume all those classic emulsions are functionally the same thing too? Did you even know TMX was designed for separation negs as well as general shooting?
Of course not, because you've never done anything close to those kinds of plots. I have. I spent months doing densitometer curves with
some of these films, way way more work than anyone needs to do for general shooting. But you wouldn't understand those curves either.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Do you presume all those classic emulsions are functionally the same thing too? Did you even know TMX was designed for separation negs as well as general shooting?
Of course not, because you've never done anything close to those kinds of plots. I have. I spent months doing densitometer curves with
some of these films, way way more work than anyone needs to do for general shooting. But you wouldn't understand those curves either.

If you are in possession of data which you believe contraindicates the results of others, then post it.

Please include the methodologies you used to generate it, and your error synopsis indicating potential sources. There are many on here who are more than qualified to judge your analytic processes and results. People who have spent entire careers doing what you "spent months doing".

If these people, or any others similarly skilled in the art, cannot duplicate or simply call into question your results, then the ensuing discussion could make for one of the more informative threads around here in quite a while.

Peer review is a cornerstone in the search for truth. If you are correct, it will become obvious in short order.

And please stop implying that others here are ignorant and/or stupid. That's an odious and unnecessary diversion. When an opposing lawyer begins to pound the table in anger with his fist it's usually a sure sign that he is on the wrong side of the facts—and knows it.

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ken - you're utterly ignoring what lots of pro photographers and skilled printmakers know and virtually already take for granted. APUG web
chatter is an extremely small piece of this pie. It's like trying to fight the Civil War again. No need to. It's done. Yes you are ignorant. Very.
Lawyers work with evidence, but don't don't try cases in Kindergartens. That's what some of these discussions feel like. You can either take my advice or leave it. Doesn't affect me, either way. Want to reinvent the wheel? Go ahead. I haven't said a damn thing that hasn't been hard published somewhere else. Do your own homework. I've got real printing to do. Maybe you're rich enough to waste a lot of expensive printing paper. I'm not. I want the right film for the job, work with quite a few of them, and have every right to say I understand certain practical implications of those choices. I'm not a film chemist. I've never been on an African safari to see wild elephants either, but have seen them in zoos. So I'm not about to believe it when someone tells me elephants and zebras and cheetahs are all essentially the same
thing. And I don't need full DNA sequences of each species to figure that out. We've got eyes for a reason.

 

[flavio81]

Fights, aside, here's a good comparison done by the great page "le pirate photo":

http://www.pirate-photo.fr/pages/viewpage.php?p=54

Photos from the comparison:

Neopan 100

Delta 100

Tmax 100:

Conditions -- all were TMAX developer, development times 5:30, 7, and 8 minutes respectively.
Scanner Nikon Coolscan-V-ED, adjusted so the scanner treats the same films equally.

They correlate with my experience: Across "harder", followed by Tmax. Then Delta "softer".

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ken - you're utterly ignoring...

So you don't have the alternative data set you claimed to have in order to credibly back up your assertion that someone else's data is incorrect.

Is that a fair statement? If not, in what way is the statement unfair?

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

The data is all published, all along. They're called Tech Sheets. Read 'em, study 'em. I will admit that a size 8-1/2 D shoe is "similar" to a
9E. But don't come complaining when your foot gets corns and blisters. Your foot will know the difference. One size does not fit all. Different films exist for specific reasons. Otherwise, why would they even offer choices? Gosh, I do hate these kindergarten food fights. And maybe I am immature enough to throw some jello myself, even at my age. But I also know what it takes to achieve more than "just good enough" prints, and why seemingly minor choices in film can make a huge difference when push comes to shove in lighting parameters. I don't need assertions. Prints speak for themselves. But again, what some of you seem to regard as completely novel information is simply common knowledge in other circles. Too much "Big Bang Theory" geek mentality afloat at times, it seems. Go to the horse's mouth. Count the teeth.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I spent months doing densitometer curves with some of these films, way way more work than anyone needs to do for general shooting. But you wouldn't understand those curves either.

Unless you are the original researcher who performed the testing from which the Tech Sheets were derived, I'm not referring to the Tech Sheets. I'm referring to the data from your own personal investigations as described above by you.

Can you post those particular data for us?

Because those are the sets you have repeatedly referred to as the basis for your discrediting the data and interpretations directly generated by other APUG members. We would need to see to what degree your data is at a variance with their data. Where any possible sources of error might have occurred in either or both sets. And how those differing data influenced the differing interpretations and conclusions that resulted.

This is not a fight, as others have characterized. Rather it is an attempt to achieve clarity regarding an important photographic issue that has repeatedly presented itself without a prior resolution. We are seeking such resolution.

We are, in fact, truly attempting to count the teeth...

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

Anyone alive who has ever seen either my lab or my prints knows I am not bluffing one iota. The proof is in the pudding. Web banter comes cheap. Maybe or maybe not I'll put up a studio or gallery venue again in upcoming months, depending on all kinds of variables. Been there, done that. I've been patted on the back (and sometimes in the wallet) by my fair share of the rich and famous and hardly need to worry about the opinion of a few web junkies. And I come from an art family represented in just about every major museum in the country, so if did want to play that card, I could have played it long ago. In the meantime, people in the know, who actually have some technical background, easily relate to what I am describing, because you simply don't get from Point A to Point B without some sort of common pool of knowledge. I've given straight answers. Take them or leave them. I don't care. They do have the potential to help with practical film
choice. "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". What does that specifically imply if the character of those shadows differs significantly from film to film? What is your placement? For Zone System junkies, not all zones are created equal. Down in the bottom of
the toe they cease to be linear, so it's important to know the shape of the bottom. Sure, you can go around preaching to expose for ZIII
like Barnbaum and then risk blowing out the highlights, but unless it's a film like Pan F, why???? You've easily got two more stops of straight line with TMY or TMX. Use em. Well, in some of these APUG scenarios you do get people who don't know how to meter properly
and then go around accusing Kodak of making a bum product. T-Max is a film for adults. It's not for the modern equivalent of the Box
Brownie or Holga crowd. FP4 and ACROS are somewhat in between in toe shape. A bit more forgiving, but still rather versatile. Then you've
hypothetically got true straight line films, like old school Super-XX and Bergger 200, where you could dig clear down to Zone 0 and still get
good shadow separation without resorting to overexposing the film like people do with Tri-XX, and then blow out the highlights. No films on
the market like that anymore except Fomapan 200, which seems to have quality control issues, so not really a replacement for Super XX.
Stuff you guys whine and bicker about was routine knowledge in Photography schools a few decades back. You either learned it or didn't
pass. If you didn't know the difference between the printing characteristics of Super-XX, Plus-X, and Tri-X, you probably weren't going to
make a living either, because one was marketed for commerical use, another mainly for the portrait and fashion studio trade, and the last
for photojournalists. An oversimplification, or course; but that's how the schools looked at it. It was all about curve shape.

 

[MattKing]

Drew's posts reminds me of what I know of Bruce Barnbaum.

I'll start agreeing with Drew more when he gets rid of all the unnecessary and extra Line returns in his posts :munch:.

 

[pentaxuser]

There's a completely separate thread here that may repay study especially if statements can be backed up with examples from which others such as I can learn .

If the discussion can be kept at a civilised academic level then maybe some of us can learn a lot from the interaction but tacked on to the end of a Kodak Pricing thread isn't the way to bring what could be a good discussion to the wider APUGer audience.

We need the spirit of "Goodnight and Good Luck" not that of "High Noon"

Anyway of moving this to a separate thread complete with the aim of a search for wisdom and truth and "an agree to disagree" sentiment?.

pentaxuser