Why is there not a no-frills orthochromatic film?

[flavio81]

I expect that the OP is over-estimating the potential for saving.
I expect that people would be surprised if they learned what percentage of the cost of 35mm film comes from the emulsion manufacturing and coating part. Less than 5%?

Source of this information?

 

[Luckless]

Source of this information?

Looks like a general estimate and logic from fairly sound backing in business to me. I can't imagine that B&H is splitting 30 cents on a roll of 120 Ilford film with: The shipping company. Where the packaging comes from. The spool maker. Bill* in accounting. The power, heat, and water companies. etc. Even splitting half the retail cost with all those sounds far fetched. (Defining the 'cost of coating' is however an interesting debate as to where you draw the line between 'coating' and 'other overhead'. That makes estimating a direct cost somewhat difficult.)

(*Bill may or may not be named Bill. I'm not in HR, and don't even work for the company, but I assume at least one person exists in "Bill's" position within the company.)

Every roll of film that rolls out of the factory door is paying for all the overhead that goes into making it. Plus all the other materials that make up a roll of film. Those other non-emulsion materials and the overhead costs remain unchanged, and getting emulsion materials alone to be as high as 10% of costs is getting into the 'rather unlikely' territory based on my experience with production costs.


Beyond that you have to then consider the increased cost of overhead for a new product: You're either going to have to have more downtime as you switch up and configure a run, or you're going to need a second line. High speed manufacture lines can lose a LOT of production overall when sitting idle during a change over, especially if you're setup with large continual input volumes. Any manner of "Savings" from using less expensive materials for production may easily be completely consumed in the additional overhead and labour costs in switching things over for a second product. Switching products being made on a line is rarely just flipping a switch. Change-overs are expensive because they greatly increase the chance of error, and often involve periods of fine tuning/confirmation of adjustments. If you're making something simple and easy with no regard to quality control, then sure it isn't that bad. But when a degree or two or 1/1000th of an inch matter to having a usable product? Well that gets tricky.

It is a sad side effect of modern mass manufacture in everything for soda to watches to film. - Just because something is cheap or easy to make once you're setup for it doesn't make it cheap to produce in the larger scheme of things. Businesses need to make money to keep the doors open, and often that means making hard choices in what products a business makes.

 

[Jim Noel]

Yes, I know there's Rollei Ortho, but that film is much too expensive.

Here's my reasoning: A large part of the expense of making film goes into making it more sensitive, smaller grain, more sensitive, smaller grain, oh, and did I mention more sensitive? And also smaller grain. Kodak, Fuji, Ilford & co. all want you to think that every one of their films, B&W or color, has the finest grain of any film out there! And then you go out and pay five bucks a roll for finer grain that you really don't need unless you're making huge enlargements.

Also, pretty much every B&W film out there today is panchromatic. There's some expense that goes into making the emulsion red-sensitive as well. This also means that, for the guy who wants to develop his stuff in trays in the darkroom, he can't use a safelight and is deprived of the classic experience of watching his images magically appear on the film.

So why couldn't Kodak, or some other company (Ilford, are you listening?) make a bare-bones, no-frills, low-speed, don't-care-about-the-grain, orthochromatic B&W film? It would have to be much easier to make than even one of their simpler films like Tri-X. It would basically be just like their original roll films that they made back in the early 20th century, which were later branded Verichrome (am I right?).

They could crank them out in the thousands and charge two dollars apiece. I would buy ten or twenty of them right off the bat, and develop them at home. It would instantly drastically increase the volume of film I buy from Kodak, or Ilford, or whatever company it would be.

As it is, all my B&W stuff is Arista.EDU, which is the cheapest stuff I can find. I'm willing to spend more money on color.

On a larger scale, I think it's time for companies like Kodak to discard the "razor and blades" business strategy. Personally I think it would be great for some company to flood the market with cheap (but not crappy) B&W rolls of film (maybe package them with developing mailers to Dwane's or something) or even sell a home developing kit like those tintype kits Rockland Colloid used to sell, and watch the artsy millennials go nuts. The whole point of it, which would be one of the main marketing plugs, would be that it's so cheap, you can totally afford to go out and shoot three rolls of this stuff and develop it for the price of a pizza.

Have you never heard of Ilford Ortho? ISO 25

 

[MattKing]

Source of this information?

Looks like a general estimate and logic from fairly sound backing in business to me.

Luckless is correct. Just from what I know generally about both business and the film business in particular.

 

[AgX]

No-frills ortho film? Medical xray film for large format.

There is a wide range of medical X-ray films. Not all are orthochromatic.

 

[cmacd123]

No frills film? Get some fine grain release positive x302 - (the 5302 version on acetate was recently discontinued.) the polyester version is still made. ISO about 3 to 6, BLUE sensitive, 35mm with normal Ks perfs. If you can't get a movie lab to sell you a few hundred feet,

KODAK Black-and-White Print Film 2302 / ESTAR Base / SP666 / 35 mm x 2000 ft roll / On Core / KS-1870
8906422 about 500-600 dollars a roll.

You want real ortho film, you will pay more as the quantities produced will be less.

you want cheep, go with the Fomapan/Arista Ultra stuff. about as cheep as one can expect for real film made by a major factory.

 

[LAG]

Here's my reasoning: ... finer grain that you really don't need unless you're making huge enlargements.

I cannot believe my eyes!

...There's some expense that goes into making the emulsion red-sensitive as well.

... and some Photographic reasons!

This also means that, for the guy who wants to develop his stuff in trays in the darkroom, he can't use a safelight and is deprived of the classic experience of watching his images magically appear on the film.

It's already answered: (see "paper negatives" above)

So why couldn't Kodak, or some other company (Ilford, are you listening?) make a bare-bones, no-frills, low-speed, don't-care-about-the-grain, orthochromatic B&W film?

Because if you put in the balance "Price" on one side and "Quality" on the other, there will be people who will make the balance to fall to different side. Anyway, do you consider it a good idea to ask the manufacturer to lower their quality whatever the reason?

It would have to be much easier to make than even one of their simpler films like Tri-X. It would basically be just like their original roll films that they made back in the early 20th century, which were later branded Verichrome (am I right?).

IMHO you are not. Anyway, do you think it is a good idea to ask the future to bring those simplistics films that "you think" are part of the past?

They could crank them out in the thousands and charge two dollars apiece. I would buy ten or twenty of them right off the bat, and develop them at home. It would instantly drastically increase the volume of film I buy from Kodak, or Ilford, or whatever company it would be.

That's the point: Money! (it's always been), but not the film itself. I understand those economics problems you may have. I started in this at the age of 6, and at that age there is neither economic independence nor access to many things today we all have. At that time, I chose to increase the quality of my work instead of increasing space in the refrigerator or in my pocket, instead of reducing the possibilities in my results, quite the contrary as you! You'd be surprise to discover that there are many, many other alternatives, and more rewarding results where money is out of the question.

As it is, all my B&W stuff is Arista.EDU, which is the cheapest stuff I can find. I'm willing to spend more money on color.

If you want cheap film without worrying about the quality, then make "anthotipias" and enjoy the light at all hours of the day, the sun is free!

The whole point of it, which would be one of the main marketing plugs, would be that it's so cheap, you can totally afford to go out and shoot three rolls of this stuff and develop it for the price of a pizza.

It is true that in Photography the Quality of the results do not depend on the Quality of the raw material used, but Quantity and Quality are also different things.

Best

 

[LAG]

DIY:
http://stores.photoformulary.com/ph...-coating-and-testing-book-dvds-by-ron-mowrey/
http://thelightfarm.com

$100 for a guy who demands cheaper film ... ???

 

[removed account4]

hi ricardo
the OP does have some very good points.
the super fine grained films i find to be kind of blah, and
without much character compared to non tabular emulsion. while
it isn't hard to work with tgrained film and make it grainy or abuse it
so it looks like older emulsions, it is a lot of work putting filters on and doing
the calculation sometimes can be a pain, paper negatives can be a pain and enlargements are a pain.
i can imagine about 1910 and prototype regular ortho verichromepan's-grandpa film in my strut camera
and getting nice, high contrast negatives i could CONTACT PRINT on gaslight paper.
enlargements were for suckers.

 

[dwross]

Oy. I'm really glad I didn't stumble on this thread at its beginning. I suspect I'd have sputtered rather than written the cogent responses to the OP I see now. High quality (but cheap!) film that can be sent away and come back processed fast (and cheap!) is a fine fantasy. The same sentiments have been expressed many times here over the years. Most of us know that even if the OP's wish were granted, he/she would then complain that it's "harder" than a phone camera and besides the image just taken can't be instantaneously winged off to Instagram. (But, where is the complaint about the price of that pizza? The farmers and ranchers get pennies on the milk, meat, and veggies that go into those things.)

That little tantrum out of my system, making the stuff yourself can be very inexpensive. Even easy, if the definition of "easy" hasn't been re-set to "you push the button, we do the rest." The information covering every aspect of basic emulsion making, including dry plates, film (including roll), paper negatives, and printing paper (both contact and enlarging) is available to read free. Most of it is on the Light Farm website, and all of it is here: http://www.blurb.com/books/6465389-the-light-farm . Ron's book may actually cost something (as it should!) but for folks interested in the finer details of emulsion chemistry, it's worth the price of admission (think of it as only four good pizzas).

(jnanian and pdeeh: Thanks!)

 

[LAG]

hi ricardo
the OP does have some very good points.

Indeed John, especially it is a very good point the suggestion about reducing the cost of film, but not the quality which is what would be affected for sure. I do not see a good way out of it, in fact I clearly see that it is a very bad pathway, or to put it even better, a step back. There must another way, for them (manufactures), for us.

The changes are always good but they are not always for the better and yet it is desirable that they have to be.

As for the older emulsions & the "fine grain", let's do not forget that it's all about crystals (not grain). Manufacturers have always cared very little about the "correct term" to use because the visual effect is more attractive (interesting) "for them to sale".

If you are able to distinguish with a pair of negative pieces (without marks that identify them) which has a tabular structure, if you are able to evaluate and/or quantify the amount of crystals that were then and their structural formulations and now, if you are able to guess what kind of traditional film was used for a specific print, good for you! but let me define you blah:

"Blah":

the super fine grained films i find to be kind of ****, and
without much character compared to non tabular emulsion. while
it isn't hard to work with tgrained film and make it grainy or abuse it...
.

​

Warm regards!

 

[removed account4]

OP if you are interested in seeing what can be done
with paper, instead of film, and using home made photo paper
in addition to the light farm,
you might look at the work of galdolfi here on apug
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
with photography, either with pan film, filtered film, color film, paper, glass &c
the only thing that can hold you back is your imagination..
possibilities are pretty much ENDLESS.

===

LAG
it isn't hard to tell tab grained v traditional negatives apart
tab grained ones can sometimes be kind of mushy, plastic and lifeless ( almost digggitibal )
YMMV

 

[LAG]

the only thing that can hold you back is your imagination..
possibilities are pretty much ENDLESS.

I agree

LAG
it isn't hard to tell tab grained v traditional negatives apart
tab grained ones can sometimes be kind of mushy, plastic and lifeless ( almost digggitibal )
YMMV

Thank you for making me laugh John!

 

[Martin Rickards]

And this: http://www.foto-r3.com/en/node/1812

 

[Nodda Duma]

I just made 60 hand-coated 5"x4" and 5"x7" plates of no frills DIY "normal" emulsion this past Monday night. If I had to estimate, total materials cost was $30, 2 beers, and a few hours' labor.

They'll be around ISO 0.5-1.0 and virtually grainless. 16"x20" enlargements are sharp and reveal no grain. However, the flaws related to a hand-made product make them unique.

By the way, Ortho isn't as flattering for portraiture as Panchromatic. Skin tone variations are more pronounced.

-Jason

 

[Craig75]

http://filmwashi.com/order/form.html

There is indeed a low cost fine grain ortho film for 3 euros a roll.

Or you could just buy a bulk roll of movie leader film and spool your own

 

[removed account4]

and there is this
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

looks like it is only sheet film though ...
so OP you might have to upgrade your camera+lens
to accomodate this trove of ortho goodness

 

[mdarnton]

I want to chime in on the x-ray film idea: I had a couple of LF cameras for years (they had been given to me), but didn't shoot with them mainly because of the cost of film. Then on the Large Format Photography Forum I read the thread on x-ray film, bought a box ($40 for 100 8x10 sheets!) and started shooting. Strictly speaking, all x-ray films are blue-sensitive rather than ortho (the "green" or "blue" designations refer to the specific type of equipment they are designed for, not their color response), replicating the response of the oldest films, like collodion. I'm a big fan of shorpy.com, and I like that look. I figured that if people had managed to make something like that work for the first 70 years of photography, I could as well. It's turned into a great trip, and most of what I shoot these days is 5x7 or 8x10 x-ray film.

The speed is around EI 50, the contrast is perfect for alternative printing methods, but I scan, and it's great for that, too. You can develop by inspection, easily. Working in large sizes, I have no idea how fine the grain is, nor do I need to know. Almost everything here is shot on LF x-ray film: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton

An additional bonus is that old sheet film stuff is dirt cheap--no one wants it. My 5x7 and 8x10 cameras each cost me around $120, and I haven't often paid over $200 for any lens.