Special order Eastman Double-X in 4x5 sheets.

[StoneNYC]

Hi everyone,

There's a chance that Kodak, or rather Eastman Kodak? Whoever makes the movie stock film Double-X will be able to make a special run of 4x5 sheet film.

It's a really beautiful film, it has a look all its own. It tends to have sort of the look of old Tri-X and Plus-X mixed together and is relatively grainy. Although on a movie screen, the green isn't so terrible, I know that sometimes in 35mm stills, the green can be distracting in large prints of 11x17 or larger.

However using 4x5 sheets the grain would be significantly reduced!

SO! I spoke to Keith, at Canham Cameras because he often works with kodak on special order cut film sheet sizes. He spoke to Kodak, and says that there's actually a real possibility, Kodak wants to ensure that there's enough interest before they actually do the math as it's complicated because they have to work with both the movie stock production company and the normal cut sheet film company who are different from each other.

So if you're interested for real, and want to know actual pricing etc. I need you to go to this website fill out the form and tell them roughly how many boxes you would take, I would assume that Kodak will make the same kind of boxes they normally do of 50 sheets per box.

Please just guesstimate so that he has a good incentive and we can get more information on pricing. Assume the price per box would be AROUND $100/50 sheet box. Go to this website...

http://canhamcameras.com/kodakform.html

And fill out the form. Thanks let's make this happen!

[StoneNYC]

Here are a few examples I've shot (on the tiny 35mm format, imagine what we could do with 4x5!

104920
104921

[adamc]

I just committed to 2 boxes.

[StoneNYC]

I just committed to 2 boxes.

Thanks! Spread the word to anyone not on her you think might be interested ;)

[Lachlan 717]

I sincerely don't understand this.

Why should we spend money on special orders for B&W when there are so many options out there already, from companies dedicated to their standard offerings of B&W?

The money you spend on this will reduce the money spent on standard offerings, making their longevity more tenuous.

I fully support special orders for non-standard film types (ULF, LF colour etc), but why risk what we already have for a grainy B&W film? You can easily get grainy negs from regular films with exposure/developer use.

As I wrote, I sincerely don't get this. I am not trying to troll here; just looking to understand why you would risk (even moderately) what we have been left with.

[StoneNYC]

I sincerely don't understand this.

Why should we spend money on special orders for B&W when there are so many options out there already, from companies dedicated to their standard offerings of B&W?

The money you spend on this will reduce the money spent on standard offerings, making their longevity more tenuous.

I fully support special orders for non-standard film types (ULF, LF colour etc), but why risk what we already have for a grainy B&W film? You can easily get grainy negs from regular films with exposure/developer use.

As I wrote, I sincerely don't get this. I am not trying to troll here; just looking to understand why you would risk (even moderately) what we have been left with.

Will you are kind of trolling but that's another matter.

I understand your confusion, but you probably never shot with this film, it's a very special film with a very special look, the point isn't that it has a lot of grain, the point is that it creates this beautiful image it's perfect for portraits better than any other film ever was (IMO). They use it as a black-and-white movie film, because it makes all of the actresses skin looks so beautiful and soft and it has a lot of really good mid tones and highlights much different than other films. It also react to tungsten light differently than it does to daylight.

The point of shooting it in 4 x 5 is twofold, one because it's so great for portraits, it's perfect for using in a 4 x 5 where you can I don't adjust tilts and shifts, etc. The second is that The reason it's so special is because of the glow that it gives people it has this certain way of making someone even more beautiful looking than they already are, and so by having it on 4 x 5 you're getting that look, while also having a much more detailed image because the look of the green is reduced because of the size.

I know there are lots of other films out there, but this one is unique, and you can't reproduce it with another film.

If there isn't enough interest in it it will show that the market would be interested, but if there is interested in it may actually show code at that there is profit them producing this as a more standard film, or at least considering it. But that's really a side point and speculation. The plan is I want it and I think that other people will too, in fact they do because a ton of people have already submitted a request for orders.

I suggest you pick some up and give it a try and then maybe you'll understand.

[C_Remington]

The point of shooting it in 4 x 5 is twofold, one because it's so great for portraits, it's perfect for using in a 4 x 5 where you can I don't adjust tilts and shifts, etc. The second is that The reason it's so special is because of the glow that it gives people it has this certain way of making someone even more beautiful looking than they already are, and so by having it on 4 x 5 you're getting that look, while also having a much more detailed image because the look of the green is reduced because of the size.


Huh??

I really doubt that this film is noticeably different than anything available today. I'm sure any differences are EXTREMELY subtle and are totally dependent on MANY variables not the least of which is developer and final wet print processes and materials.

[StoneNYC]

Huh??

I really doubt that this film is noticeably different than anything available today. I'm sure any differences are EXTREMELY subtle and are totally dependent on MANY variables not the least of which is developer and final wet print processes and materials.

Can you tell the difference between plus-x, Tri-x, and Tmax? If you can then maybe you can see what I mean, and if you can't, then I'm sorry.

I do agree, developer and printing can do a lot, but each film have their own personality, and maybe you can't tell but I sure can and I know others who can.

Anyway if you aren't interested, that's fine, but I don't appreciate you trying to derail (troll) interest simply because you don't want any.

If you want to discuss this, feel free to PM me directly.

By your thinking, ilford shouldn't produce Delta 100 in 5x7 as part of their ULF run simply because FP4+ is already available in 5x7 (as an example).

[Lachlan 717]

Questioning the rationale for this is hardly trolling, nor derailing. It is trying to understand; nothing more.

You claiming that C-Reminton and I are trolling is probably more inflammatory than us asking.

[StoneNYC]

Questioning the rationale for this is hardly trolling, nor derailing. It is trying to understand; nothing more.

You claiming that C-Reminton and I are trolling is probably more inflammatory than us asking.

Sorry I didnt realize it was 2 different people haha.

Well anyway, like I said it's exactly like asking any film company to cut some film in a type and format you like. I like this type of film, and I want it cut in 4x5.

I like PanF+ and want that in 4x5 too but the base is too thin so it doesn't make sense and ilford won't do it.

HP5+ could be shot at 100 and Develped for that, for someone who shoots 5x7, but that would look different than Delta100 or FP4+, both special ordered in 5x7 during the special ULF ilford run. Because people wanted a type that wasn't available.

This is a 200 daylight/250 tungsten film, it has a unique look all it's own, if it didn't kodak would just make Tmax400 as the B&W movie film option to save money because it has a lot less silver, and cheaper to produce, and is a higher ASA which would be closer to matching the current 500 speed color movie films.

But they don't, because it doesn't produce the right look.

Anyway, hope that helps, and sorry for the overreaction.

[vinny]

How do you plan to process this thin roll film in sheet sizes?
I know some folks do it but will a lab want to touch it?

[StoneNYC]

How do you plan to process this thin roll film in sheet sizes?
I know some folks do it but will a lab want to touch it?

I don't know I do all my own so I wouldn't know if a lab would or wouldn't be able to, I thought labs used dip dunk and it wouldn't matter?

And it's not THAT thin actually.

I have a few processing options, Mod54, soon I'll have a JOBO professor which I hear is good for thin sheets, and lastly an FR tank which can handle anything even if it's a leaky nightmare haha!

Who the heck sends out their B&W LF images to a lab anyway? (I guess someone must but I sure wouldn't). I can see sending out color sheets definitely, but B&W is so responsive to developing techniques I wouldn't want someone doing it with an unknown developer or unknown technique. Of course it depends how specific you are of course I realize.

[vinny]

Any tank that holds the film in slots like roll film spirals would likely be problematic due to the film working it's way loose. Save $450+ for an expert drum.

[StoneNYC]

Any tank that holds the film in slots like roll film spirals would likely be problematic due to the film working it's way loose. Save $450+ for an expert drum.

Is that the JOBO that has tube holes in it? I doubt I would spend more on the tank than I did on the processor... Lol

Thanks though, perhaps someday. Let's just work on getting the film first ;)

[koh303]

I agree with all of Lachlan's comments above, but at the same time I am in full support of exotic special film orders, because, well, why the hell not, even of for nothing beyond the curiosity.

I have shared KB canahms post on our FB page, and have committed to a few boxes myself.

This of course, should not replace any regularly available film purchases i would normally make, after all whats another 100 sheets or so? a few days worth shooting...

[StoneNYC]

I agree with all of Lachlan's comments above, but at the same time I am in full support of exotic special film orders, because, well, why the hell not, even of for nothing beyond the curiosity.

I have shared KB canahms post on our FB page, and have committed to a few boxes myself.

This of course, should not replace any regularly available film purchases i would normally make, after all whats another 100 sheets or so? a few days worth shooting...

Haha I love the attitude, why not, 100 sheets or so, no biggie ;) haha :)

[munz6869]

I've committed to two boxes - it won't stop my regular buying of TXP though...

Marc!

[StoneNYC]

I've committed to two boxes - it won't stop my regular buying of TXP though...

Marc!

I'm committed to 4 boxes (heck depending on the price I might go in for 10) but that won't stop my regular purchase of Ilford FP4+, HP5+, Fuji Acros100 either:)

And I'm also currently testing out TMY-2 to see if I like it has both a secondary 400 speed, and 800 speed, and also for a long night exposures as a possible replacement for Fuji being that Fuji seems to keep shutting down all of their films. I won't give up on Acros100 just yet, as it's a freaking amazing film! But it's good to do research just in case and also helps out the new Kodak I think, just like spending money on even this special order helps them out ;)

[jnantz]

I don't know I do all my own so I wouldn't know if a lab would or wouldn't be able to, I thought labs used dip dunk and it wouldn't matter?

And it's not THAT thin actually.

I have a few processing options, Mod54, soon I'll have a JOBO professor which I hear is good for thin sheets, and lastly an FR tank which can handle anything even if it's a leaky nightmare haha!

Who the heck sends out their B&W LF images to a lab anyway? (I guess someone must but I sure wouldn't). I can see sending out color sheets definitely, but B&W is so responsive to developing techniques I wouldn't want someone doing it with an unknown developer or unknown technique. Of course it depends how specific you are of course I realize.



stone can you find out from mr canham if he can find out from kodak what base the emulsion will be coated to ?
( you might be able to squelch fears of problematic processing and make the 300 boxes fly a bit faster off the shelves .. )

if it is as thin as 2402 ESTAR Base 3412 ESTAR Base ( the base a lot of aero spool film was coated to ),
it is much thinner than standard sheet film and it will curl and might be a PITA for some people to process ..

you might have a handful of processing options but others might rely on one ( or maybe .. 2 ) ...

[StoneNYC]

stone can you find out from mr canham if he can find out from kodak what base the emulsion will be coated to ?
( you might be able to squelch fears of problematic processing and make the 300 boxes fly a bit faster off the shelves .. )

if it is as thin as 2402 ESTAR Base 3412 ESTAR Base ( the base a lot of aero spool film was coated to ),
it is much thinner than standard sheet film and it will curl and might be a PITA for some people to process ..

you might have a handful of processing options but others might rely on one ( or maybe .. 2 ) ...

It's on grey acetate safety base...

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/Kodak/motion/Products/Camera_Films/BW_Negative/Technical_Data/5222_techpub.pdf

Also just realized I reversed the ASA, it's 200 Tungsten, 250 daylight... Whoops

[Tim Povlick]

Hi Stone,

Thanks for taking this initiative. I'm in for 4 boxes.

Best Regards,

Tim

[StoneNYC]

Hi Stone,

Thanks for taking this initiative. I'm in for 4 boxes.

Best Regards,

Tim

Thanks Tim, I assume when people are saying they are in, that they went to the link and filled out the form? Since I'm working with this special order company, they need to be notified directly, I'm not keeping count personally.

[koh303]

stone can you find out from mr canham if he can find out from kodak what base the emulsion will be coated to ?
( you might be able to squelch fears of problematic processing and make the 300 boxes fly a bit faster off the shelves .. )

if it is as thin as 2402 ESTAR Base 3412 ESTAR Base ( the base a lot of aero spool film was coated to ),
it is much thinner than standard sheet film and it will curl and might be a PITA for some people to process ..

you might have a handful of processing options but others might rely on one ( or maybe .. 2 ) ...


Long and detailed discussion about the film on the KB canham FB page, they have decided this base is in fact thicker then most 35mm films out there, but technical details are all there.

[koh303]

I'm committed to 4 boxes (heck depending on the price I might go in for 10) but that won't stop my regular purchase of Ilford FP4+, HP5+, Fuji Acros100 either:)

And I'm also currently testing out TMY-2 to see if I like it has both a secondary 400 speed, and 800 speed, and also for a long night exposures as a possible replacement for Fuji being that Fuji seems to keep shutting down all of their films. I won't give up on Acros100 just yet, as it's a freaking amazing film! But it's good to do research just in case and also helps out the new Kodak I think, just like spending money on even this special order helps them out ;)

For someone with such a large "regular" film purchase habit, 100 sheets shouldent mean much either...

[tenderobject]

wow, this is awesome stone. i love this film on 35mm. even i want to get one i still have plus x, fp4+ and arista edu in our freezer in iran. double xx on 120 would be awesome for sure!!!

[koh303]

Does anyone know if this film has a remjet backing or not?

[StoneNYC]

For someone with such a large "regular" film purchase habit, 100 sheets shouldent mean much either...

4 boxes will be 200 sheets :) but yea, it will go fast lol

[StoneNYC]

Does anyone know if this film has a remjet backing or not?

No rem-jet, one of the only movie films that does not have rem-jet, which is why it's become so popular in certain circles for 35mm shooters :)

[StoneNYC]

wow, this is awesome stone. i love this film on 35mm. even i want to get one i still have plus x, fp4+ and arista edu in our freezer in iran. double xx on 120 would be awesome for sure!!!

120 would be unrealistic because of the backing paper issues they would have to have cod and grab backing paper etc. and I think that would cost too many problems I think 4 x 5 is a better bet, +4 x 5 users are used to ordering larger priced special orders and wouldn't complain as much as 120 users when it comes to price ;)

[tenderobject]

I never thought of that. This would be cool for sure. I hope it will be available on 8x10 in the future. I have enough 4x5 film to use so i have to save up for real 8x10 film soon. :)

Goodluck Stone!


120 would be unrealistic because of the backing paper issues they would have to have cod and grab backing paper etc. and I think that would cost too many problems I think 4 x 5 is a better bet, +4 x 5 users are used to ordering larger priced special orders and wouldn't complain as much as 120 users when it comes to price ;)

[StoneNYC]

I never thought of that. This would be cool for sure. I hope it will be available on 8x10 in the future. I have enough 4x5 film to use so i have to save up for real 8x10 film soon. :)

Goodluck Stone!

If it goes through in 4x5, I'm sure you could then request 8x10 as an option for a second run :)

[cowanw]

Long and detailed discussion about the film on the KB canham FB page, they have decided this base is in fact thicker then most 35mm films out there, but technical details are all there.
Can you give a link as I pushed every button on the face page and got nowhere.

[koh303]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc

[StoneNYC]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc

Hmm that link doesn't let me see it, can you link to the group? (I assume it's a closed group and I'll have to request to be approved?).

[BradS]

Here are a few examples I've shot (on the tiny 35mm format, imagine what we could do with 4x5!

104921

Really? Do you really think the film matters here? These photos would be just as effective had they been exposed on FP4+ or even Tri-X.


I sincerely do not understand the interest in this film either...but, hey, whatever floats yer boat. I assume that Kodak look upon this as a business decision and that they will not do a special run for "good will". Means, I hope somebody there is looking at the numbers and making an informed business decision.

[koh303]

woops:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc/131324393576850

[C_Remington]

So, how much for a box??

[StoneNYC]

Really? Do you really think the film matters here? These photos would be just as effective had they been exposed on FP4+ or even Tri-X.


I sincerely do not understand the interest in this film either...but, hey, whatever floats yer boat. I assume that Kodak look upon this as a business decision and that they will not do a special run for "good will". Means, I hope somebody there is looking at the numbers and making an informed business decision.

There are many reasons and each person will have their own, there's a few, like it's the only 20ASA film, sometimes 100 isn't enough and 400 is too much, sometime the persnickety client will pay more for a print made from a specially made film, for me it's the look, I can't explain it to someone who hasn't shot it, but look at the new Casino Royal Bond film (the first few minutes. Shot on Double-X.

It does something to the skin tones, it's hard to explain, just shoot some, there's a guy who sells it as Rapakpan on here that re spools it for you, if you just want to try a few rolls and see rather than buy a 400' can. OR buy in to this ;) there's a whole still photographer cult following. They have their own website hah!

[BradS]

....It does something to the skin tones, it's hard to explain....

Oh, now this I can understand! J&C classic pan 400 was like that for me. It was a real bitch to figure out (for me anyway) and just generally, a shitty film but, it had very special way of rendering flesh tones and I had a love-hate relationship with it for more than a few years.


Even so, I'm gonna say to each his own and good luck to you and the others....I'll not be joining in on this one though.

I've always wanted Kodak to bring back Plus-X in 4x5...but, I no long wish for it. Ilford's FP4+ has more than filled that hole in my heart. To the extent that even if Kodak did begin production of Plus-X, I'd stay with FP4+...it's just a way better film.

[StoneNYC]

Oh, now this I can understand! J&C classic pan 400 was like that for me. It was a real bitch to figure out (for me anyway) and just generally, a shitty film but, it had very special way of rendering flesh tones and I had a love-hate relationship with it for more than a few years.


Even so, I'm gonna say to each his own and good luck to you and the others....I'll not be joining in on this one though.

I've always wanted Kodak to bring back Plus-X in 4x5...but, I no long wish for it. Ilford's FP4+ has more than filled that hole in my heart. To the extent that even if Kodak did begin production of Plus-X, I'd stay with FP4+...it's just a way better film.

Many would say that Double-X is very much like Plus-X... I don't personally feel that, but a ton of people liken the look to the same, so you may regret not getting a box ;)

I agree FP4+ is a grand film :)

[jnantz]

Long and detailed discussion about the film on the KB canham FB page, they have decided this base is in fact thicker then most 35mm films out there, but technical details are all there.


thats good ...

i don't use fb so i wasn't aware ..

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks Stone for bringing this to our attention. I've committed myself to a box. The more we do this, then there's more a chance other emulsions may come back... like IR, or Plus-X. Pipe dream? Maybe, but one has to try. I'd like to try Double-X in 8x10.

[StoneNYC]

Thanks Stone for bringing this to our attention. I've committed myself to a box. The more we do this, then there's more a chance other emulsions may come back... like IR, or Plus-X. Pipe dream? Maybe, but one has to try. I'd like to try Double-X in 8x10.

I've told Keith there is interest in 8x10 and I THINK it's best to get a 4x5 run COMPLETED before asking for more or we might dilute the market.

Thanks for committing.

IR would be best, but I think THAT coating facility / machine doesn't exist anymore... I could be wrong, but it would have to be special and specially light proof to IR which is harder so they may have dismantled (scrapped) all that special stuff :( but I agree, HIE would be amazing in sheet!

[Lachlan 717]

The more we do this, then there's more a chance other emulsions may come back...

Or, conversely, if the number of sheets shot per annum is a fixed number, then this sort of project will dilute the sales of those regularly available films, potentially leading to cessation of their production. I'm not convinced that we should be adding more weight on to the already thin ice. Of course, YOMV.

[Tin Can]

True, and Keith on FaceBook just said he now has 86 confirmed boxes..


Or, conversely, if the number of sheets shot per annum is a fixed number, then this sort of project will dilute the sales of those regularly available films, potentially leading to cessation of their production. I'm not convinced that we should be adding more weight on to the already thin ice. Of course, YOMV.

[StoneNYC]

Or, conversely, if the number of sheets shot per annum is a fixed number, then this sort of project will dilute the sales of those regularly available films, potentially leading to cessation of their production. I'm not convinced that we should be adding more weight on to the already thin ice. Of course, YOMV.

I think you guys are talking pennies in the bucket, there's hundreds of thousands of dollars of sheet film still sold annually, 130 boxes is not going to kill off any line of film...

[C_Remington]

How can you guys commit to boxes if you don't know how much it costs per box??

[koh303]

about 100$ per pox.

[StoneNYC]

about 100$ per pox.

^^ what he said, if it's $90 or $130 I'll still be getting the same amount.

He's just gauging interest.

Kodak said they wouldn't crunch the numbers if there wasn't enough interest so we are showing the interest to get the numbers. ;)

[richardman]

Canham said they are almost the half way mark!

[smithdoor]

I found this may help
http://www.project-double-x.org/

[StoneNYC]

I found this may help
http://www.project-double-x.org/

Yea I sent the owner a PM but he hasn't replied and I don't want to sign up to ANOTHER forum... But if things slow down I will haha

[Mark Sampson]

Well i've never shot cinema film in a still camera... but 20 years that I worked for Kodak reminds me of their often-confusing nomenclature. I wonder if this 'Double-X' film is the same emulsion as the 'Super-XX' so beloved by Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee? That sheet film was discontinued c.1991, and if you search this forum you'll find that many people regarded Super-XX as the Holy Grail of b/w films... especially in 8x10 and ULF formats for contact printing. It would be great if it was the same emulsion, and it's a worthy idea even if it isn't, but it would be good to clear that up.

[StoneNYC]

Well i've never shot cinema film in a still camera... but 20 years that I worked for Kodak reminds me of their often-confusing nomenclature. I wonder if this 'Double-X' film is the same emulsion as the 'Super-XX' so beloved by Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee? That sheet film was discontinued c.1991, and if you search this forum you'll find that many people regarded Super-XX as the Holy Grail of b/w films... especially in 8x10 and ULF formats for contact printing. It would be great if it was the same emulsion, and it's a worthy idea even if it isn't, but it would be good to clear that up.

This has been covered quite a few times, this is not Super-XX it's its own thing, Double-XX

It is possible that this is very similar to Super-XX in the same way that this could be similar to Plus-X in that it all comes from Kodak, and Kodak sometimes changes and emulsion but doesn't completely reinvent it and the new change is given a new name.

But so far as I know, this is Double-XX, it's really quite beautiful, it's a 250Daylight, 200Tungsten film. It DOES have beautiful response to skin tones, which is why it's used in the movie industry to make all of the male and female actors look really beautiful and hide a lot of flaws like lines in the face etc.

I've never done any of those sensiometric tests etc, and I don't understand curves and all that stuff, but from what I can see, it has pure blacks, but then the mid tones are pushed upward and highlights are also pushed up a bit, but somehow don't blow out, so you get a very vibrant image.

I hesitate to start posting examples of what I've done, because a lot of times I specifically blowout things and do crazy things to make the film look intense but that of course doesn't always help for what normal photographers would want. I wouldn't want to poison the well with my terrible photography ;)

I understand that with the right skill, you can make any film do anything you want supposedly, but this film with ease of use can easily create beautiful portraiture without a lot of fuss of having to "fix" things to make today's very persnickety "Photoshop culture" feel beautiful.

:)

If that sounds like Super-XX to you, then perhaps you should buy a box and give it a try :) The worst that could happen is that you don't like it, and then sell it on eBay for twice the price LOL

[ScottPhotoCo]

So I tried to do a bit of quick of quick on-line research on this film to see what it looks like so I googled it and looked at a lot of images in a Flickr group dedicated to it (http://www.flickr.com/groups/656147@N20/pool/with/10859531425/#photo_10859531425). To me, overall, it didn't blow me away though I'd still be interested in experimenting with it. Understanding that the images were made on 35mm and that there are a lot of variables in the process (exposure, processing, scanning, etc) and that a lot of the images were crap in general it was strongly average. It looks a lot like Tri-X to me but I'm sure in larger format and proper processing things could be different.

This was about the best image I could find (NOT MY IMAGE) that showed a portrait and a decent overview of the characteristics of this film:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7358/10902237026_6288dc2427_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nezzdoi/10902237026/)
Maria_Xtol_5222@800#4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nezzdoi/10902237026/) by Yuriy Nezdoiminoga (http://www.flickr.com/people/nezzdoi/), on Flickr

Posted specs:
Moscow, Russia, 13.11.13
Leica M2; Summicron 50mm v.1;
Kodak Eastman Double-X @800 + Xtol

Again, quite Tri-X to me, but interesting.

[ScottPhotoCo]

A few more reference images that intrigued me:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/10845359624_078e9e29e5_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nezzdoi/10845359624/)
Maria_Xtol_5222@800#7 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nezzdoi/10845359624/) by Yuriy Nezdoiminoga (http://www.flickr.com/people/nezzdoi/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5535/10630362235_79a58eed20_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yuweiliu/10630362235/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yuweiliu/10630362235/) by Yuwei* (http://www.flickr.com/people/yuweiliu/), on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/10603654964_724ccd5df6_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnling/10603654964/)
R405-26-20131030 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnling/10603654964/) by shawnling (http://www.flickr.com/people/shawnling/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5516/10602466665_59bde2e796_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnling/10602466665/)
R405-33-20131030 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnling/10602466665/) by shawnling (http://www.flickr.com/people/shawnling/), on Flickr

Again, not my images. Just for reference.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Sorry. Duplicate post.

[Ari]

I just put my name in the hat for 2 boxes, in the hope that they make some 8x10 one day.

[Ari]

Looks like we are close to getting it done.
Here is the message I got from Mr Canham:

Greetings Ari,

Thank you for getting involved in the co-op for 4x5 Kodak Double X. I have added your name and the two boxes to the list. This brings the total to 150 of the 200 boxes needed to meet the minimum order quantity
required by Kodak. If the word keeps spreading the way is has been for the past 72 hours, we should be able to reach the 200 boxes. I am guessing the cost for a 50 sheet box to be about $100.00. When I get
close to the 200 boxes I will get an exact price quote. At that time you will be able to increase or decrease your order. It is quite exciting to see this kind of interest in a cinematography emulsion.
I will keep you up to date as things progress.

Regards,
Keith Canham

[StoneNYC]

Looks like we are close to getting it done.
Here is the message I got from Mr Canham:

Greetings Ari,

Thank you for getting involved in the co-op for 4x5 Kodak Double X. I have added your name and the two boxes to the list. This brings the total to 150 of the 200 boxes needed to meet the minimum order quantity
required by Kodak. If the word keeps spreading the way is has been for the past 72 hours, we should be able to reach the 200 boxes. I am guessing the cost for a 50 sheet box to be about $100.00. When I get
close to the 200 boxes I will get an exact price quote. At that time you will be able to increase or decrease your order. It is quite exciting to see this kind of interest in a cinematography emulsion.
I will keep you up to date as things progress.

Regards,
Keith Canham

Awesome! Thanks Ari!

[StoneNYC]

Scott,

I found that many of the people that actually appreciate the emulsion and understand the whole "look" thing, and actually post their images online, versus printing them for sale, are two distinctly different types of people, and that those that tend to post a lot of the images from the film, tend to be similarly like the people that shoot Lycos but don't actually take good photographs. But try to look at the lighting of the image over the quality of the image and you'll see I hope that there is a very interesting look that the tones give, and when handled properly you may get some really good imagery.

I guess my 2 images just weren't enough for everyone then ;)

[Taija71A]

The point of shooting it in 4 x 5 is twofold, one because it's so great for portraits, it's perfect for using in a 4 x 5 where you can I don't adjust tilts and shifts, etc.


Although on a movie screen, the green isn't so terrible, I know that sometimes in 35mm stills, the green can be distracting in large prints of 11x17 or larger.


... There are many reasons and each person will have their own, there's a few, like it's the only 20ASA film, sometimes 100 isn't enough and 400 is too much...


...Tend to be similarly like the people that shoot Lycos but don't actually take good photographs.

____

?????


If one is looking for a B&W Film in 4x5 that is an 'inherently' Lower Contrast material (*Kodak itself recommends to develop 5222/7222... To a 'Control Gamma' of 0.65 to 0.70) and one that is also 'fairly' Grainy (*Diffuse RMS Granularity = 14) ... Then, this might be a good choice!

However, like others have stated... There are already other ways of obtaining very similar results elsewhere (*Especially if you are prepared to mix your own Film Developers). :D
--
From what I can see... Many individuals were primarily attracted to this Emulsion in 35mm... Because of the LOW Price -- That it could previously be obtained for (*And perhaps rightly so)...

Best regards, with respect to your Film Order! :)

________

[StoneNYC]

Taija,

I use dictation and don't proof read, most of that is just error...


"Where you can easily do title and shifts"

"Grain".... "Grain"

"200 ASA film"

"Leica's"

Those are the correct words.

$100 for 50 sheets is only $2/sheet which is actually really cheap for custom cut sheets and relatively cheap in general, no Fuji sheet film is less than $3/sheet, and only ilfords sheets are cheaper. I THINK even FOMA sheets are more expensive (or close) to this price.

Anyway thanks, let's just get this done and see where the chips lay.

[Taija71A]

...Tend to be similarly like the people that shoot Lycos but don't actually take good photographs.

"Leica's"

Sorry about that... :(
Ahhhh... I understand your point now!

Thank-you for the explanation. Greatly appreciated! :D
For a moment there, I honestly thought that you referring to people who perhaps shoot 'ACROS'...



Anyway thanks, let's just get this done and see where the chips lay.

Sounds good. Agreed in full! :)

[Michael Graves]

I put my name in for one box and Keith says he's up to 154 of 200. Go team! I'm going to try to free up some extra funds to make it two or three more if I can.

[cowanw]

Taija,

I use dictation and don't proof read, most of that is just error...


It helps others to understand what you are trying to communicate, if you do proof read. Errors that don't make real words are usually easy to interpret, but editing software usually makes real (wrong) words which may be hard to interpret. If you care whether others understand you, it's worth expressing yourself clearly. If not, that's OK too.

[StoneNYC]

It helps others to understand what you are trying to communicate, if you do proof read. Errors that don't make real words are usually easy to interpret, but editing software usually makes real (wrong) words which may be hard to interpret. If you care whether others understand you, it's worth expressing yourself clearly. If not, that's OK too.

I know, depends on what I'm doing, sometimes I don't have time or something comes up and I just send it, I'm often on my phone so you can imagine it's not easy when I "type" so much.

You're right of course.

[BradS]

It helps others to understand what you are trying to communicate, if you do proof read. Errors that don't make real words are usually easy to interpret, but editing software usually makes real (wrong) words which may be hard to interpret. If you care whether others understand you, it's worth expressing yourself clearly. If not, that's OK too.

After a few months trying to type on the smart phone virtual keyboard and dealing with auto correct, it is pretty obvious what's happened when one sees these types of typos...I find it quite comical...and entertaining. It's like a puzzle to figure out.

[StoneNYC]

After a few months trying to type on the smart phone virtual keyboard and dealing with auto correct, it is pretty obvious what's happened when one sees these types of typos...I find it quite comical...and entertaining. It's like a puzzle to figure out.

I agree, it's also really not that hard to figure out in most cases, there was one above that had a "not" in it which made the sentence sound backward but I wouldn't of course say something like "that B&W film has a lot of GREEN in it".... It's black and White!! Lol

[jnantz]

I agree, it's also really not that hard to figure out in most cases, there was one above that had a "not" in it which made the sentence sound backward but I wouldn't of course say something like "that B&W film has a lot of GREEN in it".... It's black and White!! Lol

but some dye sets record green differently than others ,, like extendedred &c. and of course you are spinnng the film like it has mystical qualities. lol

[StoneNYC]

but some dye sets record green differently than others ,, like extendedred &c. and of course you are spinnng the film like it has mystical qualities. lol

It does, it was made by wizards! Haha

[Andrew O'Neill]

A couple of spectral sensitivity charts showing Double-X on the left, Plus-X on the right.

[StoneNYC]

A couple of spectral sensitivity charts showing Double-X on the left, Plus-X on the right.

I have no idea how to read these, but looks the same right? Except the beginning part? I don't know what that means.

[BradS]

I have no idea how to read these, but looks the same right? Except the beginning part? I don't know what that means.

The graphs show how each film responds to different colors of light. Blue on the left, red on the right...yellow and green in the middle. So both are much more sensitive to blue light than to green, for example. This state of affairs is neither uncommon in panchromatic emulsions nor is it really quite optimal. Our eyes are much more sensitive to green for example....

While the to graphs appear similar, they show that the films' response to light at the blue end of the spectrum relative to their responses in the yellow-green region of the spectrum is quite different.

[StoneNYC]

Update... Getting exciting!

"I wanted to send an update on the progress of the co-p for Double X 4x5. Currently I have 79 people committed to 188 boxes. I have been in contact with Kodak alaris about the film. The manufacturing division of Eastman Kodak is currently doing a feasibility study for the film. They need to see if the machinery that cuts sheet film is able to work with the Double X film. This is due to the fact that cinematography is not on the same substrate as sheet film. I think this is great. My past experience with special order Kodak films has been that if it is possible, they will do it for me. With the holiday season it could take some extra time before I find out if this manufacturing procedure is possible. Please be patient as we wait. I also want to thank you for your participation in the endeavor. I will send you new information as I receive it.
Regards;
Keith Canham"

[Toyon]

It certainly is a useful exercise for Kodak. Most of their employees probably can't remember when something new happened in their film manufacturing. I hesitate to buy any, first because of the cost, and second because it takes more than a few boxes for me to get comfortable with a film and really understand how to get what I want out of it. By the way, are there any other cinematic black and white films that could be adapted this way?

[StoneNYC]

It certainly is a useful exercise for Kodak. Most of their employees probably can't remember when something new happened in their film manufacturing. I hesitate to buy any, first because of the cost, and second because it takes more than a few boxes for me to get comfortable with a film and really understand how to get what I want out of it. By the way, are there any other cinematic black and white films that could be adapted this way?

There aren't any more cinematic B&W films from kodak period to my knowledge, this is the last, I can't speak for other manufacturers.

Since this is available in 35mm, how about considering buying some 35mm stock and running that as your test before using the sheets? That would save you money and get you used to it? Just a thought.

[sepiareverb]

Double-X is what it is, a beautiful film if one likes the way it looks. One of my favorite 35mm films, but for me not worth the premium for it in 4x5.

I was involved for a while with getting XX spooled by Kodak into 100' cans, but got so much sh!t from people on the forums for simply asking about interest that I gave up. I buy it in 400' rolls and respool it myself for my own use.

There will always be those who love a film and always those who will complain about those who love some other film.

Keith is a fantastic person to deal with, I hope that this goes through for those who are interested.

[StoneNYC]

Double-X is what it is, a beautiful film if one likes the way it looks. One of my favorite 35mm films, but for me not worth the premium for it in 4x5.

I was involved for a while with getting XX spooled by Kodak into 100' cans, but got so much sh!t from people on the forums for simply asking about interest that I gave up. I buy it in 400' rolls and respool it myself for my own use.

There will always be those who love a film and always those who will complain about those who love some other film.

Keith is a fantastic person to deal with, I hope that this goes through for those who are interested.

Thanks!

I've seen a few say "premium" I was shocked at the LOW price, if you think about a special run, only costing around $100 for a 4x5 50 sheet box, when most places charge $85-$95 for tmax400 4x5 50 sheet box, it's not much more than standard for kodak, and is only $2/sheet, that's really not very high for a special order... Heck some Adox and Rollei 4x5 sheets cost more than that by a significant amount... (Some).

[Curt]

That's Super, I mean is the film Super XX?
And good old D96 developer, yes I did say D96!

http://motion.kodak.com/.../US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_processing_

[Daniel Stone]

That's Super, I mean is the film Super XX?
And good old D96 developer, yes I did say D96!

http://motion.kodak.com/.../US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_processing_



Curt,

NO, this is NOT the classic, thick-emulsion "Super-XX" of yore, but the motion-picture stock "XX"(non-super). Traditionally a 35mm MP stock, but in this case some members/users are looking to break that "tradition" by getting it cut to 4x5 sheet film.

[Curt]

Daniel thanks for the info. It's good to think outside of the box as they say. Every avenue is worth exploring! I wish the project well.

[csxcnj]

Just added my name to the list. It is up to 192 as of 9AM today.

[StoneNYC]

Just added my name to the list. It is up to 192 as of 9AM today.

Yes!

[Gregg Obst]

Just added my name to the list. It is up to 192 as of 9AM today.

Sweet ! So very close to the tipping point.

[Shootar401]

In for a box

[Andrew O'Neill]

Any updates?

[StoneNYC]

Any updates?

Yes we have sufficient orders to make the actual order, or requests to make the order that is, now we are just waiting on Kodak to do integrity tests to see if it's a viable option to cut the film for sheet, and if they need to do a different backing and if so if that's even possible so we're waiting on Kodak basically..

I suspect we won't hear anything until the end of year or after because of the holiday season I'm sure Kodak is busy.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you.

[funkydog]

Just got an email update from Keith. The price is $300 for 50 sheets in 4x5. While I like 5222, I don't like it that much. 8(

[Andrew O'Neill]

Too much for my liking... bummer.

[mdm]

Very predictable outcome. They could sell loads of the stuff at a lower price.

[vinny]

Maybe when "they" said similar price to other films, they meant 8x10. What a waste.

[Andrew O'Neill]

They could sell loads of the stuff at a lower price.

You would think, eh? Well, perhaps if this first run does get off the ground, they'll offer it again at a more reasonable price. I don't mind $100 for 50 sheets, but $300?? My wife would have my balls for bookends!

[smithdoor]

I know mine would I use film that I got my film Arista back in 1987 on sale out of date.

Dave


You would think, eh? Well, perhaps if this first run does get off the ground, they'll offer it again at a more reasonable price. I don't mind $100 for 50 sheets, but $300?? My wife would have my balls for bookends!

[BradS]

They could sell loads of the stuff at a lower price.

and probably loose money one every box....definitely not good for the rest of us.

[Ari]

The email from Keith explained that the first run would be more expensive due to the probability of mistakes made while cutting the film.
He said that those cutting the film into sheets were people more experienced with handling cinematographic film.
He added that should a second run happen, it will likely be closer in price to what was originally intended.
I had to bail out because of the price.

[koh303]

Very predictable outcome. They could sell loads of the stuff at a lower price.

Not at all predictable. The film folks at kodak did and are working hard to make this stuff a reality, and its not their fault. And i was actually thinking that an estimate from them and then kieth meant that they worked all those quirks out, and i guess i just dont understand why is it so different to cut cine film (though i believe them when they say its not the same), or why all those administrative costs explained in the email were not factored in, in the first plate. All the same - it is a good effort, and good exersize, i wish there will be many more in the future!

While I did not see the need for this kinda crappy film at 100$ i was happy to jump on, but it is, as has been noted above, a real bummer at 300$. Oh well, i guess i will keep going through those delta 100 sheets...

[jnantz]

i was waiting for a price before i committed $ to the cause ...
it amazes me that the cine division would not ask for help from others within the corporate "family"
with experience cutting sheet film ... so instead the film is nearly 4 x the price of any other bw sheet film kodak sells? i guess they might have dodged a bullet if the film was made and then cut to 4x5 ..

[winterclock]

I had been hoping to get two boxes at the original price, but 300$ is just out of my league. A shame, I was looking forward to it.

[StoneNYC]

Since I'm the one who started this whole roller coaster in the first place, I wanted to comment.

I agree that the price is high.

I'm curious to know if price total is the final factor or the amount of boxes needed for the order (meaning, I commuted to 3= $300, so if I order 1 at $300 does that cover me?

I'll ask him if they would talk to the non Cine folks to get more advice, but I also wanted to commend everyone for offering to do it in the first place.

Here is the email response, I think it's worth reading.

"Stone;
I really did not believe I would be writing you about an update on the 4x5 Kodak Double X cinematography film before the first of the year, but I received confirmation yesterday evening. The manufacturing division of Eastman Kodak is will to try cutting Double X into 4x5 sheets. They have no experience in trying to cut cine film into sheets. Cine film has a different substrate then sheet films and this could cause problems. I can tell you as a manufacturer of cameras that doing something the very first time has a learning curve as well as risk of material waste during the learning process. Kodak has expressed these concerns as well. They believe that a significant amount of film could be lost while getting a system set up to cut this unusual film. There is also administrative time to create a new notch code and set up a new product in their system. All of this is to say that the film is more expensive then originally estimated. This first time out the cost of a 50 sheet box will be $300.00. (cash price) Although this is higher then I had estimated or hoped, I think Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris should be commended for their willingness to give this a try. (Just a note here, they say that if during the process of trying to make the film the waste becomes too great they reserve the right to cancel the order.)

It is now time for me to start collect the funds. I will deposit the payments in a special account, so that if the order does get cancelled I can return your money. (minus bank or credit card fees) I need the following from you: shipping address, number of boxes needed, and whether you would like to pay by check, money order, credit card, or wire transfer. After I receive the information I will email you an invoice and any other information you need to make payment. If a credit card is used there will be about a 3% fee added and for wire transfers the fee is $30.00. I do not take Paypal. I wish I did not have to put all this about the fees, but I kept the margin on the film so small that I cannot absorb the fees. If you have any questions, please email me back with them. It is a bit crazy here around the holidays, but I will try to get back to you as soon as possible. I know this can be a busy time for you as well. It is going to take some time to get all the funds collected. I will keep you updated as this order progresses.
Regards;
Keith Canham"

[jp]

I'm bummed too. Part of me says they are a wise business for expecting their calculated extra work and risk to not lose money. Part of me thinks like a contractor who really doesn't want to do something for someone so he says it will cost the customer 3x what they hoped. It's probably a case of the first, but that is still no way to grow in a buyer's market. It might work selling to the NSA but not to the artist community so well.

[AuditorOne]

I really do want to support this project, that is why I committed to 3 boxes. But $900 is a big bite. It is now time to put up or shut up, so it looks like I will have to sell some equipment to make this work. I have notified Keith that I intend to stay with my original purchase commitment.

Everyone will have to do what is right for them but these types of special projects don't happen for free. If at all possible I strongly encourage each and everyone of you to continue your support. Maybe you can only afford one box. Maybe you can find another friend to share a box with. If this works it will be a very good thing. If not...the opportunity may not come along again for quite awhile, if ever.

[mdm]

Kodak is strictly a niche player. If you are Paolo Roversi it works at any price. If you are you or me, well how deep are your pockets. Let them die gracefully for the memory of what Eastman Kodak has done for the world of photography.

[csxcnj]

Well, I'm sticking to my order of one box. If this works future prices should be lower. Maybe Keith can arrange some "at cost" purchases on a few boxes for us original buyers then.

[C_Remington]

How can you guys commit to boxes if you don't know how much it costs per box??


Hmmmm....

[HoodedOne]

@ Keith Canham

With all respect, but I think you should pull the plug on this. Because Kodak is ripping you off.

A company with so much experience in film making, shouldn't use lame excuses to raise the price.
Cutting Double-X for Cine use is no that much different as cutting it for 4x5 sheets. So the whole waste argument is bogus. They should be able the same machines, that they use for there current 4x5 films. I will accept the administrative reasons. But that alone, does not raise the price 300%.
The only thing that needs to be changed is the label on the boxes. And as a label printer I can tell you, those will not break the bank.
A price of $150 - 160 would be much more realistic in my opinion.

Just my 2c.

[jnantz]

i used to buy aero film from a guy who had a cave full of it.
that film had a different film base than regular sheet film and
it wasn't easy to cut. i can imagine cine film is on yet a different base
which cuts differently still. my guess ( as poor at it may be )
is that they probably contacted the people who cut sheet film
and THEY told the cine folks that that specific base might give them trouble cutting and there would be problems.
its like anything the first go-round there are usually bumps in the road and after that
still more and eventually less and less. just think of your own first large format exposures ..

seems that this kodak adventure is an expensive one and probably offers insights as to why this emulsion
was never cut into large format sheets to begin with ... its too bad the emulsion cooking plant
and the large format base plant don't team up and coat the emulsion on a base more commonly used
with large format films ...

[sepstein17]

According to Kieth's e-mail yesterday, the pricing has significantly increased to $ $300 per 50-sheet 4x5 box, because of technical difficulties anticipated by Kodak.

[patrickth]

This is now turned to the amusing. According to Alaris "So the new company and its name preserve the heritage and legacy of the Kodak brand, while embodying greater speed and agility to meet market needs and changes."

Fail. They are not risk takers and have proven their mission statement is a fallacy.

They are exactly what caused the demise of Kodak in the first place. If they have no R&D budget, which is probably tax consequential and do not have a firm grasp on exactly to the penny what it costs to produce a simple box of cut sheet film and how to go about it, they should just revert back to managing the brand and stay out of new business opportunities.
I was in @100, but $300 , not to mention 3% for C.C. processing is amateur time.

Personally, speaking only for myself, I am offended that such a great American Corporation has been reduced to managers with nickel and dime dreams.

[Mark Sampson]

Those of you complaining about the cost of a limited run of an untried emulsion are ignorant of the complexities of film design and manufacture. It ain't easy! I knew, and sometimes worked with, a few of Kodak's film designers and manufacturing engineers during my career at that company. All I can really say is that it's difficult and expensive to invent any new film. I was surprised at the number of variables and considerations necessary to get an emulsion into production. Especially the extensive (and expensive) testing necessary to produce the level of quality and consistency that we all take for granted from Kodak. I was not surprised, but was impressed, by the immense amount of arcane knowledge the engineers had, and impressed by their professionalism and dedication. If the price of this film has soared beyond what people want to pay, well, that's a shame. But it's also the price of being first. I do hope it works out, even if I don't want to use any; more choices benefit us all.

[smithdoor]

There is on risk here they have made this type of film before. Kodak needs to think the old ways. Make what you need for film, or the will go out of business. I did not even think about ordering this film as I thinking the price would $150.00 or up to $200.00. There other out there try hard to make film Kodak need to this how they make the film not just profit/bottom line.

Dave


This is now turned to the amusing. According to Alaris "So the new company and its name preserve the heritage and legacy of the Kodak brand, while embodying greater speed and agility to meet market needs and changes."

Fail. They are not risk takers and have proven their mission statement is a fallacy.

They are exactly what caused the demise of Kodak in the first place. If they have no R&D budget, which is probably tax consequential and do not have a firm grasp on exactly to the penny what it costs to produce a simple box of cut sheet film and how to go about it, they should just revert back to managing the brand and stay out of new business opportunities.
I was in @100, but $300 , not to mention 3% for C.C. processing is amateur time.

Personally, speaking only for myself, I am offended that such a great American Corporation has been reduced to managers with nickel and dime dreams.

[Andrew O'Neill]

All I can really say is that it's difficult and expensive to invent any new film.

It's not a new emulsion, though. I understand it's the cutting to 4x5 on a thinner substrate that's intended for movie film, as well as a new notch code, and the potential waste, that drove the price up.

[Drew Wiley]

It won't sit particularly flat in the holders anyway, so the whole idea is something compromised.

[StoneNYC]

It won't sit particularly flat in the holders anyway, so the whole idea is something compromised.

You do not know this, this is your opinion, that is part of their testing... To make sure it lays flat.

[Mark Sampson]

Mr. O'Neill, perhaps my wording was unclear... please read the complete contents of my previous post. Building any new film is an extremely complicated process; the variables are numerous and unpredictable, to say the least. And the cost rises every time another issue needs to be dealt with. Suffice it to say that this isn't like spreading peanut butter on whole-wheat, instead of white, bread in order to make a new sandwich.

[Kodachrome25]

I sincerely don't understand this.

Why should we spend money on special orders for B&W when there are so many options out there already, from companies dedicated to their standard offerings of B&W?

The money you spend on this will reduce the money spent on standard offerings, making their longevity more tenuous.

I fully support special orders for non-standard film types (ULF, LF colour etc), but why risk what we already have for a grainy B&W film? You can easily get grainy negs from regular films with exposure/developer use.

As I wrote, I sincerely don't get this. I am not trying to troll here; just looking to understand why you would risk (even moderately) what we have been left with.

I like you Stone, you know that. I am one of the few people on this forum who has actually met you in person and had a great time hanging out. Now...I have held off on replying to this thread because I wanted to give you your due in trying, something cool and new-ish, see how Kodak-alaris responds, etc.

But I gotta say my friend, I agree 100% with the above. If there is one film making company that does not need their proverbial "Boat" rocked right now, it is Kodak-alaris. Odd sizes, ULF runs, absolutely, those are on normal thickness film stocks and both companies fill those roles as much as they can. Ilford makes virtually no profit from it's annual ULF run but does it anyway in good faith because they do well enough in other areas to take care of those who want to continue to shoot ULF.

Kodak works with Canham for the same reasons, it's a low profit, good faith arrangement that overall, leads to good PR, good word of mouth and good web / social which are all the best ways to keep selling products in this day and age.

So it looks like Kodak invested some precious man hours into seeing if this would work and it appears to be a more expensive proposition than they thought. I'd say we lay off of them in terms of this request's viability and while we wait, continue to use the products they are really trying to keep around. Most of the products they sell are very flexible in processing and use and if one can get 90% of the way there with an existing product, than why in the hell are we risking those products by clamoring for special emulsions that could cost even a bit of the precious annual profit statement?

The other big problem I have here with this is that lets say you get your 2-4 boxes of this film. You shoot, you dial it in, you scan it, post it on the glorious inter webs and then talk of it's virtues. What does that do for Kodak-alaris and more importantly, what does that do for the promotion of existing products that many more people want to keep around? Nothing I would bet because it is a tech-head distraction. Are you going to order boxes of Tri-X 2/1 for every box of XX special order and then write a great blog about both films? Are you going to say how great the special order XX was and never talk about products we REALLY need to be kept around?

This really bothers me Stone and it is not you, it's this whole need to either keep pining for what we don't have or testing the material waters to see just what a company will do for us while on the whole, the market for film is still in decline. And when it comes to a big player like Kodak-alaris, we need to let the the decision makers see who their real customers are and how willing we all are to not only make due with what we have but to blow people's minds with it.

I know a good number of photographers who's work is truly incredible...and they work with one, maybe two films max. They choose stable products that they can really get to work with, get to know it and mold it to what they envision. If perfection is the enemy of good, then experimentation is the enemy of a vision realized.

It looks like Kodak gave it a good college try but the price is going to make it hard to sell. I say hats off to them and hats off to you for trying, but lets not forget the real task at hand here Stone. Use what we have and make it your own best film you have ever used, your own style and your own success. That is why black and white film will succeed while color will eventually go away, it is entirely malleable and a good photographer will make powerful enough imagery that no one would think to ask what it was shot on, because more than any other film, B&W allows personal vision to come through loud and clear.

The only person getting in the way of making any one of the current great black and white films the best thing they have ever worked with is you, these films have infinite possibilities, I would hate to lose one of them because too many people thought that if they experimented enough, they would reach some holy grail.

[Drew Wiley]

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. No difference with the small format crowd - constantly itching for something new even though most of
them haven't adequately explored the parameters of existing films, which in this day and age have some superb choices in terms of quality and versatility. Sure, the situation with chrome films is starting to look bleak, but in black and white sheet film, we have quite a few wonderful products to pick from. And I'd rather pay a little more for a homerun product like TMY-2 from Kodak and help keep it going, than roll the dice on something cheaper at its expense. Stone apparently has legit reasons for asking about a film with some unusual retro look to it, but he could probably approximate the same thing with Tri-X. Real Super-XX sheet film was apparently just as much an art as technique to make, and we'll probably never see it again, but that won't keep me from taking the same kind of shots and getting the same look (only finer-grained) with TMY-2.

[smithdoor]

Info http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/Kodak/motion/Products/Camera_Films/BW_Negative/Technical_Data/5222_techpub.pdf
I think 30 or 40 years they may have taken bigger risk.

Dave





I like you Stone, you know that. I am one of the few people on this forum who has actually met you in person and had a great time hanging out. Now...I have held off on replying to this thread because I wanted to give you your due in trying, something cool and new-ish, see how Kodak-alaris responds, etc.

But I gotta say my friend, I agree 100% with the above. If there is one film making company that does not need their proverbial "Boat" rocked right now, it is Kodak-alaris. Odd sizes, ULF runs, absolutely, those are on normal thickness film stocks and both companies fill those roles as much as they can. Ilford makes virtually no profit from it's annual ULF run but does it anyway in good faith because they do well enough in other areas to take care of those who want to continue to shoot ULF.

Kodak works with Canham for the same reasons, it's a low profit, good faith arrangement that overall, leads to good PR, good word of mouth and good web / social which are all the best ways to keep selling products in this day and age.

So it looks like Kodak invested some precious man hours into seeing if this would work and it appears to be a more expensive proposition than they thought. I'd say we lay off of them in terms of this request's viability and while we wait, continue to use the products they are really trying to keep around. Most of the products they sell are very flexible in processing and use and if one can get 90% of the way there with an existing product, than why in the hell are we risking those products by clamoring for special emulsions that could cost even a bit of the precious annual profit statement?

The other big problem I have here with this is that lets say you get your 2-4 boxes of this film. You shoot, you dial it in, you scan it, post it on the glorious inter webs and then talk of it's virtues. What does that do for Kodak-alaris and more importantly, what does that do for the promotion of existing products that many more people want to keep around? Nothing I would bet because it is a tech-head distraction. Are you going to order boxes of Tri-X 2/1 for every box of XX special order and then write a great blog about both films? Are you going to say how great the special order XX was and never talk about products we REALLY need to be kept around?

This really bothers me Stone and it is not you, it's this whole need to either keep pining for what we don't have or testing the material waters to see just what a company will do for us while on the whole, the market for film is still in decline. And when it comes to a big player like Kodak-alaris, we need to let the the decision makers see who their real customers are and how willing we all are to not only make due with what we have but to blow people's minds with it.

I know a good number of photographers who's work is truly incredible...and they work with one, maybe two films max. They choose stable products that they can really get to work with, get to know it and mold it to what they envision. If perfection is the enemy of good, then experimentation is the enemy of a vision realized.

It looks like Kodak gave it a good college try but the price is going to make it hard to sell. I say hats off to them and hats off to you for trying, but lets not forget the real task at hand here Stone. Use what we have and make it your own best film you have ever used, your own style and your own success. That is why black and white film will succeed while color will eventually go away, it is entirely malleable and a good photographer will make powerful enough imagery that no one would think to ask what it was shot on, because more than any other film, B&W allows personal vision to come through loud and clear.

The only person getting in the way of making any one of the current great black and white films the best thing they have ever worked with is you, these films have infinite possibilities, I would hate to lose one of them because too many people thought that if they experimented enough, they would reach some holy grail.

[Kodachrome25]

I think 30 or 40 years they may have taken bigger risk.

Of course they did, the potential rewards were much greater than they are now and they could much more easily absorb a loss.
I get the feeling people don't know it is almost the year 2014 let alone understand what that means....

[Drew Wiley]

I'd personally have a problem with that thin acetate base, and would only want any XX emulsion in 8x10 anyway. It does have an interesting "look". But per tonality,
Arista (Fomapan) 200 is essentially the same, and priced relatively low. It's real-world speed is about a stop slower, and it won't "plus" very well past N+1, and has miserable recip characteristics at long exp. But it does have an incredibly long straight line, just like XX, so will handle extreme contrast superbly.

[frotog]

If there is one film making company that does not need their proverbial "Boat" rocked right now, it is Kodak-alaris. Odd sizes, ULF runs, absolutely, those are on normal thickness film stocks and both companies fill those roles as much as they can. Ilford makes virtually no profit from it's annual ULF run but does it anyway in good faith because they do well enough in other areas to take care of those who want to continue to shoot ULF.

Kodak works with Canham for the same reasons, it's a low profit, good faith arrangement that overall, leads to good PR, good word of mouth and good web / social which are all the best ways to keep selling products in this day and age.

So it looks like Kodak invested some precious man hours into seeing if this would work and it appears to be a more expensive proposition than they thought. I'd say we lay off of them in terms of this request's viability and while we wait, continue to use the products they are really trying to keep around. Most of the products they sell are very flexible in processing and use and if one can get 90% of the way there with an existing product, than why in the hell are we risking those products by clamoring for special emulsions that could cost even a bit of the precious annual profit statement? …etc…..


The only person getting in the way of making any one of the current great black and white films the best thing they have ever worked with is you, these films have infinite possibilities, I would hate to lose one of them because too many people thought that if they experimented enough, they would reach some holy grail.

Don't lose sleep over it. A $50k special order is going to have as about as much an effect on kodak's bottom line as a hoot owl's fart in a windstorm. Same goes for the notion that special orders will take away from and endanger kodak's regular catalogue offerings. Your concerns, while just, are simply misplaced.

Also, K. Canham does not do these special orders as a favor to all us film nerds. He's interested in making money and he understands this particular niche. In this regard, his profit is by no means insubstantial. He told me he's living off the proceeds of the film deals as the cameras are no longer flying off the shelf. He's got a mortgage, kids going to college, car payments etc. just like the rest of us. I would be very surprised if his margin on these deals is anything less than 30%. Go to his website, see how many deals he has going over the course of the year and do the math. He's a shop owner, not Mother Theresa.

The more salient point here is whether or not it's worth it. I've been shooting kodak 2405, which is the now discontinued aerographic version of this film. It most definitely has unusual properties that make it unique - huge latitude, super straight h+d curve, really tight grain for the speed, no anti-halation backing (probably the most novel of it's attributes), etc. It's much funkier than the tabular grain b/w films and it most definitely has it's own "look". Nonetheless, the novelty that these differences make are not so pronounced as to warrant the hefty price tag. It's special, yes, but not $300 special.

But beyond the price, there's the more real problem concerning the base. Will it be thick enough to keep the film from popping out of holders? This question was asked before and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard a peep from Canham regarding this issue. As much as I like the XX aerographic roll-film ends (a big part of that has to do with it being free), it is a major PITA to deal with when it comes to processing. Also, the only way to shoot it is with adhesive film holders (like the old Sinar holders). Imagine the shit-storm Canham and Kodak will find themselves in when everybody's $8 per sheet 4x5 comes popping out of their holders when they pull their dark slides!

As much as I applaud everyone's effort to make this happen and stand in awe of Kodak's willingness to entertain their battiest outlier customers, by my estimation it's a fool's errand.

[Kodachrome25]

Frotog, thanks for the insights, it's all good info to have. I only said what I did because I want to do everything I can to help Kodak keep the current portfolio of products, I think they are fantastic for the digital age we live in.

[StoneNYC]

I like you Stone, you know that. I am one of the few people on this forum who has actually met you in person and had a great time hanging out. Now...I have held off on replying to this thread because I wanted to give you your due in trying, something cool and new-ish, see how Kodak-alaris responds, etc.

But I gotta say my friend, I agree 100% with the above. If there is one film making company that does not need their proverbial "Boat" rocked right now, it is Kodak-alaris. Odd sizes, ULF runs, absolutely, those are on normal thickness film stocks and both companies fill those roles as much as they can. Ilford makes virtually no profit from it's annual ULF run but does it anyway in good faith because they do well enough in other areas to take care of those who want to continue to shoot ULF.

Kodak works with Canham for the same reasons, it's a low profit, good faith arrangement that overall, leads to good PR, good word of mouth and good web / social which are all the best ways to keep selling products in this day and age.

So it looks like Kodak invested some precious man hours into seeing if this would work and it appears to be a more expensive proposition than they thought. I'd say we lay off of them in terms of this request's viability and while we wait, continue to use the products they are really trying to keep around. Most of the products they sell are very flexible in processing and use and if one can get 90% of the way there with an existing product, than why in the hell are we risking those products by clamoring for special emulsions that could cost even a bit of the precious annual profit statement?

The other big problem I have here with this is that lets say you get your 2-4 boxes of this film. You shoot, you dial it in, you scan it, post it on the glorious inter webs and then talk of it's virtues. What does that do for Kodak-alaris and more importantly, what does that do for the promotion of existing products that many more people want to keep around? Nothing I would bet because it is a tech-head distraction. Are you going to order boxes of Tri-X 2/1 for every box of XX special order and then write a great blog about both films? Are you going to say how great the special order XX was and never talk about products we REALLY need to be kept around?

This really bothers me Stone and it is not you, it's this whole need to either keep pining for what we don't have or testing the material waters to see just what a company will do for us while on the whole, the market for film is still in decline. And when it comes to a big player like Kodak-alaris, we need to let the the decision makers see who their real customers are and how willing we all are to not only make due with what we have but to blow people's minds with it.

I know a good number of photographers who's work is truly incredible...and they work with one, maybe two films max. They choose stable products that they can really get to work with, get to know it and mold it to what they envision. If perfection is the enemy of good, then experimentation is the enemy of a vision realized.

It looks like Kodak gave it a good college try but the price is going to make it hard to sell. I say hats off to them and hats off to you for trying, but lets not forget the real task at hand here Stone. Use what we have and make it your own best film you have ever used, your own style and your own success. That is why black and white film will succeed while color will eventually go away, it is entirely malleable and a good photographer will make powerful enough imagery that no one would think to ask what it was shot on, because more than any other film, B&W allows personal vision to come through loud and clear.

The only person getting in the way of making any one of the current great black and white films the best thing they have ever worked with is you, these films have infinite possibilities, I would hate to lose one of them because too many people thought that if they experimented enough, they would reach some holy grail.

Dan,

Thank you so much for holding your tongue until after the main events have happened, I appreciate that. And I do respect your opinion and thoughts.

They are all valid.

There are a few points here, first of which is that this is 4x5 format, of which there is no 400TX...

The second of which is that this is it 200 speed film not a 400 speed film, it's a very unique slot, someone else compared this to FOMA200 which it's not at all as far as look, and the FOMA emulsions are... Pin-holey...

And again regarding this film, it's a very very unique film, if you've ever shot it you'd understand and see the characteristics that you just can't produce with other films, it's really hard to describe but it just has this pop, which is why it's so heralded as a great film to shoot with for movies. It has a glow.

As others have stated it has a very special curve, very straight, and also very malleable, easily shot at 400 if needed, but certainly cannot easily be repeated by another film in it's look. Others will beg to differ, but probably haven't shot it to know.

There are two things that this special order might do, the first of which is obviously create a new product for Kodak that it doesn't have, something new in almost 10 years, that also gets people talking about Kodak, and also shows people that Kodak is still around and still making things film related. It also may show Kodak that there is an interest in this film in formats other than 35mm movie stock.

And you have to trust me on this one, but the people who would be interested in buying this film, are most likely NOT buying this to replace their use of TMY-2 or 400TX, it's just a completely different animal, if anything this might take a few dollars away from ilford or FOMA or Rollei before it took from Kodak's customer base.

And Dan, this is simply a point to make, you worked with Kodak for like 7 years on your Kodachrome Project, so I know you care deeply for them and their survival, and that's great, but this emulsion they have is special, and I think if they realize this, by "fan mail" by encouraging to make this in another format, that they may wake up and realize this is the emulsion that could actually keep them going and usher them into completely untapped markets, it's really a special film.

There's already a whole website devoted to this film, yet these are all still film shooters, not movie film users, The movie film users have practically forgotten about this film... But there's a huge underground movement, people who don't even shoot kodak films shoot Eastman Double-X....

The second half of this is that if Kodak does do the special run, we will have effectively paid for their R&D to create this film, they obviously won't give it out if it's going to be too thin etc. they just won't do it. They aren't foolish, they wouldn't take it on if they didn't think it was possible. but if they actually do create this found, then it will now be in their portfolio, and it's a good chance that they will produce more of it, possibly in other large-format sizes which number of photographers have mentioned wanting, including 8 x 10, and 11 x 14, and 20 x 24 shooters all large-format shooters have told me they want this film in those sizes... That's a pretty big market for Kodak to tap into, and I would bet many of those guys are shooting Ilford... (Not that I want ilford to suffer they are amazing, and I personally shoot about 70% ilford, 20% Fuji, and 10% kodak because I don't prefer most of their offerings... I can't be the only one).

One final point, when a company ceases to produce new products, they become stagnant... A company that becomes stagnant is destined to die...

[koh303]

There are a few points here, first of which is that this is 4x5 format, of which there is no 400TX...

The second of which is that this is it 200 speed film not a 400 speed film, it's a very unique slot, someone else compared this to FOMA200 which it's not at all as far as look, and the FOMA emulsions are... Pin-holey...

And again regarding this film, it's a very very unique film, if you've ever shot it you'd understand and see the characteristics that you just can't produce with other films, it's really hard to describe but it just has this pop, which is why it's so heralded as a great film to shoot with for movies. It has a glow.


1. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/243153-USA/Kodak_8416638_TXP_4164_4x5_50.html
TXP FOREVER!!!

2. TRIX and TXP are really closer to 250 ISO in reality (or so says merry ellen mark, and Kudelka, and selgado, and.. oh whatever)...

3. TXP is a very unique film too. if you've ever shot it you'd understand and see the characteristics that you just can't produce with other films, it's really hard to describe but it just has this pop, which is why it's so heralded as a great film to shoot with for movies. It has a glow.

Since you cant describe it, i will just say that its not heralded anywhere other then the fan site that is mentioned in this thread (and other folks who get it for free, or next to free), and the only reason it is being used now, is because it is the ONLY remaining BW emulsion kodak (or anyone else for that matter) still make for cinematography. Before it was the only one, it was considered, and was, the cheapest film available, and perhaps heralded for that reason. I guess one can love shanghai films for similar reasons, but not for its quality. Though quality, is after all a subjective thing.

[Kodachrome25]

One final point, when a company ceases to produce new products, they become stagnant... A company that becomes stagnant is destined to die...

Stone, thank you for your well thought out and truly enlightening post. But I want to ask you this....If Ilford ceased to bring out any new products for say, 5-10 years, do you *honestly* think they would be destined to die?

[AuditorOne]

Stone, thank you for your well thought out and truly enlightening post. But I want to ask you this....If Ilford ceased to bring out any new products for say, 5-10 years, do you *honestly* think they would be destined to die?

Not to be picky here Kodachrome25, but Ilford has been bringing out new products regular as clockwork. Let's see, as I remember we have had Kentmere film, Harman/Titan Pinhole Cameras and just a week or so ago we seen two new printing papers. So how does this apply? Or is it only a "what-if" exercise?

Yes, no matter what Stone may think, if a company quits advancing and bringing new products to the table, eventually they will die, even Ilford.

[munz6869]

Packard still make shutters though, don't they? :rolleyes:

Marc!

[StoneNYC]

1. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/243153-USA/Kodak_8416638_TXP_4164_4x5_50.html
TXP FOREVER!!!

2. TRIX and TXP are really closer to 250 ISO in reality (or so says merry ellen mark, and Kudelka, and selgado, and.. oh whatever)...

3. TXP is a very unique film too. if you've ever shot it you'd understand and see the characteristics that you just can't produce with other films, it's really hard to describe but it just has this pop, which is why it's so heralded as a great film to shoot with for movies. It has a glow.

Since you cant describe it, i will just say that its not heralded anywhere other then the fan site that is mentioned in this thread (and other folks who get it for free, or next to free), and the only reason it is being used now, is because it is the ONLY remaining BW emulsion kodak (or anyone else for that matter) still make for cinematography. Before it was the only one, it was considered, and was, the cheapest film available, and perhaps heralded for that reason. I guess one can love shanghai films for similar reasons, but not for its quality. Though quality, is after all a subjective thing.

Honestly I dislike TXP

Also, have you shot Eastman Double-X? Doubtful

[smithdoor]

Try here
http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Shutters.html


Packard still make shutters though, don't they? :rolleyes:

Marc!

[StoneNYC]

Stone, thank you for your well thought out and truly enlightening post. But I want to ask you this....If Ilford ceased to bring out any new products for say, 5-10 years, do you *honestly* think they would be destined to die?

What AuditorOne said.

[smithdoor]

I can see why you like Double-X would like it too. It is just the price if I did photography for a living I would buy that film.
Most of what a shot was TRI X and HP 5. If I had the money today I would buy it even at $300.00 I had big lost on 911.

Godo luck
Dave


Honestly I dislike TXP


Also, have you shot Eastman Double-X? Doubtful

[jnantz]

i would have bought some of this film even at 300/ box seeing i know it stores well only if i could have afforded to buy at least 500 sheets of it
unfortunately 300 / 50sheets is out of my league and i can't afford to pawn anything i own, or give loved ones coal for the holidays.

its good to see the new kodak or alaris or the cine film division willing to take risks, even thought they pass the higher price to the consumer. the cousin of this cine film i am guessing is the rolls of plus x aero i am fond of shooting .. thinnish base but after a few exposures + processing runs there are no kinks to iron out.

unfortunately 3000$ of film is out of my budget, and i wouldn't want to buy less because id rather shoot 1 film for a long time
than switch to the flavor of the month next month.

hope you have enough people to make the order go through.

[StoneNYC]

i would have bought some of this film even at 300/ box seeing i know it stores well only if i could have afforded to buy at least 500 sheets of it
unfortunately 300 / 50sheets is out of my league and i can't afford to pawn anything i own, or give loved ones coal for the holidays.

its good to see the new kodak or alaris or the cine film division willing to take risks, even thought they pass the higher price to the consumer. the cousin of this cine film i am guessing is the rolls of plus x aero i am fond of shooting .. thinnish base but after a few exposures + processing runs there are no kinks to iron out.

unfortunately 3000$ of film is out of my budget, and i wouldn't want to buy less because id rather shoot 1 film for a long time
than switch to the flavor of the month next month.

hope you have enough people to make the order go through.

I replied to your cut-and-paste from APUG but essentially I agree with you that it's a high price for a limited run film, however I'm still putting in my $300 as I agreed to. I do wish they had asked for a different amount as in perhaps maybe if they had asked and suggested hey if you guys can come up with double the order that you've already presented us, we can lower the price to $200 or $150 something like that would have been a lot more of compromise then simply upping the price so high, but I'm really glad they're willing to do it, it shows a good sign for Kodak for the future, and like I said I'm going to at least put in for one box. I did the same thing for those who wanted to order 70 mm from Ilfords ULF run, I really didn't want four boxes of 70 mm, but I knew that if I didn't order one more of each type, the run wouldn't actually happen, so I took one for the team, for the entire group of 70 mm ordering people just so that it could happen it cost a lot but it was worth it to see a company produce something new, and hopefully next year now that the tooling has been done for the perforations etc. maybe the price will be much lower, and the same could be said for this special run of Kodak, if this happens once they won't have to do the research and the next run will be hopefully a lot cheaper, so I would like this to still happen so that Kodak now has it under their belt and they don't have to take under any more testing they can just do it...

[koh303]

Honestly I dislike TXP

Also, have you shot Eastman Double-X? Doubtful

A few posts ago you claimed there was no TriX in 4X5...

[jnantz]

if i were rolling in dough i wouldnt think twice about 300$ for a test box...
but i dont have that large a disposable income ...
maybe next time

[AuditorOne]

I hope this works (fingers crossed.) I have some TXP in the freezer (not Tri-X) and would love to compare the two films.

[AuditorOne]

I suspect the thinner base will work all right in the Grafmatic septums.

[StoneNYC]

A few posts ago you claimed there was no TriX in 4X5...

There is no 400TX in 4x5... Only TXP (Tri-X Pan Professional ASA320)... Two distinctly different films. Though I've only shot TXP in 120 but still gives you a sense of it.

[StoneNYC]

I suspect the thinner base will work all right in the Grafmatic septums.

That's true, good plan.

[sepiareverb]

Filling in all those sprocket holes is likely why the cost is so high no?

[AuditorOne]

Filling in all those sprocket holes is likely why the cost is so high no?

Actually filling the holes is easy, its the sanding afterwards that is a PITA. :)

[invisibleflash]

Here are a few examples I've shot (on the tiny 35mm format, imagine what we could do with 4x5!

104920
104921



Hey Stone..I like them goosebumps!

[AuditorOne]

Stone,
Don't you ever turn up the heat for them poor gals?

[StoneNYC]

Stone,
Don't you ever turn up the heat for them poor gals?

Heat was up actually, but it's Connecticut in the winter time... I'm not rich, so the thermostat doesn't go past 70...

[sepiareverb]

Heat was up actually, but it's Connecticut in the winter time... I'm not rich, so the thermostat doesn't go past 70...

70. Luxurious. My darkroom is the only room in this house above 60.

[StoneNYC]

70. Luxurious. My darkroom is the only room in this house above 60.

Yea it's only 70 for the girls when I'm shooting or if I process film, otherwise it's 66 daytime and 68 at night.

Still better than 60... Eek!

[sepiareverb]

sitting here in a hat and scarf.

[AuditorOne]

sitting here in a hat and scarf.

Just so you can order one box of this film.

Now that is committment. :rolleyes:

[StoneNYC]

Just so you can order one box of this film.

Now that is committment. :rolleyes:

And if he's using natural gas or oil, if it's natural gas it's probably one box if it's oil it could be two or three boxes he's ordering ;)

[Kirk Gittings]

Heat was up actually, but it's Connecticut in the winter time... I'm not rich, so the thermostat doesn't go past 70...

Even in NM we keep out thermostat at 65 in the winter......but its a dry heat...................

[Michael Cienfuegos]

I'm shivering in 48ºF, came back into the house where it is a comfy 70º. :) Call me a wuss if you wish. I like my creature comforts :cool: Those poor girls had goosebumps on their bums. Nice goose bumps, though. :)


m

[AuditorOne]

I'm shivering in 48ºF, came back into the house where it is a comfy 70º. :) Call me a wuss if you wish. I like my creature comforts :cool: Those poor girls had goosebumps on their bums. Nice goose bumps, though. :)


m

+1

A very pretty young lady with very nice goose bumps.

[sanking]

+1

A very pretty young lady with very nice goose bumps.

Those goose bumps would probably have looked OK with TXP.

Sandy

[AuditorOne]

Those goose bumps would probably have looked OK with TXP.

Sandy

You've got me there. :)

[StoneNYC]

You've got me there. :)

They surely would look better on a 4 x 5 sheet of film....

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Gonna be 78º in San Diego on Christmas Day. :) :) I hate having to dress like a beach bum on Christmas, shorts, tank top, flip flops.


Stoney, bring your model here, she won't have so many goose bumps. ;)


m

[csxcnj]

Just got an email from Keith. It's a go. He just needs commitments from 18 more peoPle and he has enough for the order fulfillment.

Keith also said in the future the film would be priced lower if this goes through and will be a regularly offered product from Kodak.

[StoneNYC]

Just got an email from Keith. It's a go. He just needs commitments from 18 more peoPle and he has enough for the order fulfillment.

Keith also said in the future the film would be priced lower if this goes through and will be a regularly offered product from Kodak.

Hmm, I didn't get that email yet, maybe they are individually written, well I'm late on my submission, I'll get it in since I started this and all... Hah!

[StoneNYC]

Update, spoke to Keith today, only 18 more boxes need to be paid for to make this a go... Yes! Anyone who hasn't done so, make your order please.

[Roger Cole]

Jumped to the end of this to see the status of the order (don't want any at this price, might try it later if the price comes down) and saw the stuff about thermostats.

We keep ours set at 73 in winter, and sometimes run the gaslogs in the living room fireplace too. I'm not rich either, but I'd do without other stuff to be warm. I hate cold. And of course it's USUALLY not so cold outside here. My highest heating bill ever was $270 and highest without running the gaslogs was, I think, $220 in the coldest month of a recent winter. I might save a couple dozen bucks shivering but it isn't worth it. I hate cold. Oh, I said that already, didn't I? ;)

[StoneNYC]

Jumped to the end of this to see the status of the order (don't want any at this price, might try it later if the price comes down) and saw the stuff about thermostats.

We keep ours set at 73 in winter, and sometimes run the gaslogs in the living room fireplace too. I'm not rich either, but I'd do without other stuff to be warm. I hate cold. And of course it's USUALLY not so cold outside here. My highest heating bill ever was $270 and highest without running the gaslogs was, I think, $220 in the coldest month of a recent winter. I might save a couple dozen bucks shivering but it isn't worth it. I hate cold. Oh, I said that already, didn't I? ;)

Sacrifice for the art Roger! ;)

It does suck having to be the guinea pig for kodak (price wise) but I'm hoping this will cause a chain reaction and prices will come down, but it won't happen if everyone "waits to see what happens" ya know?

[vinny]

Sacrifice for the art Roger! ;)

It does suck having to be the guinea pig for kodak (price wise) but I'm hoping this will cause a chain reaction and prices will come down, but it won't happen if everyone "waits to see what happens" ya know?

In the last 15 years, has the price of anything kodak come down after it was introduced?

[jnantz]

In the last 15 years, has the price of anything kodak come down after it was introduced?

film prices on average increased every year (sometimes more than once a year )
in 2001 tmy was 64.90 from b&h for 100 sheets... 10 years later it was 80$ish for 50 sheets.

[AuditorOne]

film prices on average increased every year (sometimes more than once a year )
in 2001 tmy was 64.90 from b&h for 100 sheets... 10 years later it was 80$ish for 50 sheets.

Yeah. The price of just about everything I buy has climbed just as much. Have you looked at your grocery bill lately?

[Oren Grad]

Yeah. The price of just about everything I buy has climbed just as much. Have you looked at your grocery bill lately?

In fact, the price increase for 4x5 TMY over that interval matches inflation in the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI over the same interval just about exactly.

[sepiareverb]

Yeah. The price of just about everything I buy has climbed just as much. Have you looked at your grocery bill lately?

Yeah, thus my room temperature.

[StoneNYC]

Yeah, thus my room temperature.

:)

Better turn down the temp, Keith just sent out another email, just a few more orders and kodak will begin! If you haven't yet, go put in your order, and if you want to add an additional box, that would help hot the goal too.

Very very close!

[StoneNYC]

February update, we now only need six more boxes to complete the order, if anyone wants to order a second box, or hasn't jumped on this yet, please consider it, we are so very close!

Best,

[StoneNYC]

Update:

Ok it's happening!!! The order has been sent to Kodak-Alaris yesterday and now we wait.

I wanted to thank all who helped make this possible.

Let's hope the cutting goes well!

[StoneNYC]

Just got this email...

Sad news...

"Hello Stone;
It is with great disappointment that I am sending this email. Kodak contacted me and after doing the R&D for making 4x5 Double X they have determined that they cannot make it at the original minimum order quantity. As you know this is cinematography film that is cut into rolls. If Eastman Kodak were to make 60 boxes of 4x5 from a master roll and then cut the cinematography rolls there would be an enormous amount of wasted film. To avoid this waste they would need to manufacture 250 boxes of 4x5. It was difficult to even reach the 60 box mark, so 250 boxes would be insurmountable. Even though Eastman Kodak is not going to be able to make this work at the 60 box amount, I think they are to be commended for their willingness to do the R&D on the project. It took time for them to do this and therefore cost them money. I will begin to return your prepayments this week. For those of you in the United State, I will be sending a check in the mail. For those of you outside the U.S., please email me so that we can determine the best method of returning your money.

If there is anything that K.B. Canham Cameras, Inc. can do to help you with large format cameras or film in the future, please let me know.

Regards;
Keith Canham"

I'm surprised they didn't know the number needed to be higher ahead of time, that said, I'm glad Kodak made the effort, it shows a lot of hope for them as a company.

And so it goes...

[AuditorOne]

Thanks Stone. Pity it didn't work out. I was kind of looking forward to working with this stuff as 4x5. Was worth a try anyway.

[StoneNYC]

I was going to use it to approach famous actors and cinematographers that might want to have a portrait with it and since it's exclusive to the movie industry I thought it would make a nice book. Oh well... Such is life!

[mdm]

It was never going to happen, but dreams are free.

[ScottPhotoCo]

It was never going to happen, but dreams are free.

Stay classy, friends.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Brian C. Miller]

It was never going to happen, but dreams are free.

It would happen with $75,000.

StoneNYC: Have you considered different funding platforms instead of Kickstarter? There's Indigogo, among others.

[koh303]

It would happen with $75,000.

StoneNYC: Have you considered different funding platforms instead of Kickstarter? There's Indigogo, among others.

For this to run on Kickstarter Kodak themselves would have to list it.

[StoneNYC]

It would happen with $75,000.

StoneNYC: Have you considered different funding platforms instead of Kickstarter? There's Indigogo, among others.

It's honestly not worth it to me. I'm done. I'm already out the CC processing fees, as are many others. And I'm annoyed that something like the cutting amount was not considered when asking for a minimum... Essentially to me this means they didn't actually do any test cutting, just did some math and said... "Oh never mind" so we don't even know if cutting can happen.

I'm a bit annoyed...at kodak, this is something they should have known without actually taking this on, as they gave us a minimum to reach...

Anyway I'm taking my money and using it to purchase some Fuji Velvia50 I think...

[Tin Can]

Maybe they wanted to see what the interest was. I am sure the existing film makers jealously conceal their numbers.

A free market survey with dedicated and committed customers. You did their job.

Invaluable data.


It's honestly not worth it to me. I'm done. I'm already out the CC processing fees, as are many others. And I'm annoyed that something like the cutting amount was not considered when asking for a minimum... Essentially to me this means they didn't actually do any test cutting, just did some math and said... "Oh never mind" so we don't even know if cutting can happen.

I'm a bit annoyed...at kodak, this is something they should have known without actually taking this on, as they gave us a minimum to reach...

Anyway I'm taking my money and using it to purchase some Fuji Velvia50 I think...

[StoneNYC]

Maybe they wanted to see what the interest was. I am sure the existing film makers jealously conceal their numbers.

A free market survey with dedicated and committed customers. You did their job.

Invaluable data.

:/

[Sal Santamaura]

...I'm a bit annoyed...at kodak, this is something they should have known without actually taking this on, as they gave us a minimum to reach...Which Kodak? Eastman Kodak, which coats and finishes the film? Kodak Alaris, which purchases it and then distributes? Not even left and right hands; hands of two completely separate corporate entities. It was bad enough when just plain Eastman Kodak couldn't get the whole plate TMY-2 special order cut to correct size. Now that even more "communication" is necessary, I wouldn't buy into anything Kodak that hasn't already got an SKU and wasn't previously delivered successfully.

[AuditorOne]

Maybe they wanted to see what the interest was. I am sure the existing film makers jealously conceal their numbers.

A free market survey with dedicated and committed customers. You did their job.

Invaluable data.

You should bill them for your time and work Stone. I personally am beginning to get a bit tired of providing these companies with data for nothing.

[StoneNYC]

*mutters and mumbles*

[gleaf]

+1.. I am well satisfied with the attempt. We have not regrown to the be market we would like to be.

[Pawlowski6132]

You should bill them for your time and work Stone. I personally am beginning to get a bit tired of providing these companies with data for nothing.

Far from marketing data.

[Tin Can]

Really! A list of of paid in advance Kodak customers for a very expensive product is NOT marketing data?

No wonder Kodak is in big trouble. Are you a marketing expert? Please call Kodak immediately and help those people out!

And I call it Kodak because it is, despite the new corporate name. A painted horse is still the same horse.




Far from marketing data.

[koh303]

Far from marketing data.

+1.
40 customers detailed info is not market data, its not anything.

[Tin Can]

OK, you the man, fellow Chicagoan.


+1.
40 customers detailed info is not market data, its not anything.

[StoneNYC]

The data that not more than 60 people were willing to pay $300 per 50 sheet box is certainly useful data.

[koh303]

The data that not more than 60 people were willing to pay $300 per 50 sheet box is certainly useful data.

I am sure Kodak knows this with out going through the whole canham procedure.
I am sure they knew this many years ago as well, which is probably why there never was a cine film cut into sheets in the past, does not take major market research to com up with that logic: awful material not designed for still photography and which will compete with other already existing and in production material which is.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I call it Kodak because it is, despite the new corporate name. A painted horse is still the same horse.Not even close. As I explained in post #181, "Kodak" is two separate, distinct and completely different corporate organisms. Referring to things incorrectly doesn't change what they are.

[Tin Can]

You prove my point by NOT using the new name.

No matter, I buy Ilford.


Not even close. As I explained in post #181, "Kodak" is two separate, distinct and completely different corporate organisms. Referring to things incorrectly doesn't change what they are.

[StoneNYC]

Can the mods close this? It's dead now, and is attracting flies...

[Pawlowski6132]

Really! A list of of paid in advance Kodak customers for a very expensive product is NOT marketing data?

No wonder Kodak is in big trouble. Are you a marketing expert? Please call Kodak immediately and help those people out!

And I call it Kodak because it is, despite the new corporate name. A painted horse is still the same horse.

I have a Masters in Marketing and have been involved in this industry my whole career.

[Tin Can]

I prefer you go help them then. They are hopeless. Call them in the morning. Do it.



I have a Masters in Marketing and have been involved in this industry my whole career.

[Tin Can]

We can't save Kodak XXX and neither can their accounting or MBA magicians, who change corporate entities faster than a flash bulb. They still are are a huge dinosaur flailing in death.

Sure they were great once and I still love Kodak film, Kodak film was and is the best, but I no longer buy Kodak film, because Kodak is rotten at the core. They invented or owned the whole business and let it fail. Sorry, no pity from this cog in the machine. I am done playing nice with corporations and their tricks. I have been there and was forced to bend to corporate stupidly and I got burned very badly. Wake up people, corporations are not your friends.

If that's too political, so be it. It's been great here. Thanks for everything. I will ship all 5X7 image exchange prints on schedule. Peace.

[Sal Santamaura]

Not even close. As I explained in post #181, "Kodak" is two separate, distinct and completely different corporate organisms. Referring to things incorrectly doesn't change what they are.


You prove my point by NOT using the new name...I'm not sure what point you think I proved. "Kodak" is inside quotes because, as explained in post #181, people are using that shorthand name generically to refer to two separate companies, namely Eastman Kodak Company and one of its customers, Kodak Alaris. Doing so perpetuates confusion; I prefer linguistic precision. :)

[csxcnj]

We can't save Kodak XXX and neither can their accounting or MBA magicians, who change corporate entities faster than a flash bulb. They still are are a huge dinosaur flailing in death.

Sure they were great once and I still love Kodak film, Kodak film was and is the best, but I no longer buy Kodak film, because Kodak is rotten at the core. They invented or owned the whole business and let it fail. Sorry, no pity from this cog in the machine. I am done playing nice with corporations and their tricks. I have been there and was forced to bend to corporate stupidly and I got burned very badly. Wake up people, corporations are not your friends.

If that's too political, so be it. It's been great here. Thanks for everything. I will ship all 5X7 image exchange prints on schedule. Peace.

Viva la Revolution' Down with the "MAN" and up with the people. Burn it ALL ;)

[NancyP]

OK ....
BACK ON TOPIC
Has anyone shot landscape with Kodak Double-X? I don't do portraits, but might be interested in the film.

[csxcnj]

The topic has changed from will Kodak cut this film in 4x5 to why Kodak will not cut it and how they came to that decision so late in the game.

No one has shot any 4x5 XX for portraits or landscape because it doesn't exist.

[dsphotog]

George Eastman would be really pissed off.

[gleaf]

"The topic has changed from will Kodak cut this film in 4x5 to why Kodak will not cut it and how they came to that decision so late in the game."

Just my thoughts with back story of the exploration of ASA 25 4 x 5 a year or so back. ASA 25 exploration ended at a number of $15K - $17K to pay for the roll of master film stock to be coated up front. Sheet film is sliced by precision rollers as a strip from a master roll. The slice roll is then cut and packed in a separate operation. Kodak masters rolls are a mile long and 51 inches wide if I remember right. So our request for Double X 4 x 5 meant a 3 mile loss of 35mm movie stock at its current market price. (4 in vs 35mm times 3 cut width)..
Validation of sorts: 250 box minimum, 50 sheets, say 4 inch slice. 5 inch of roll per 4 x 5. 250 of 50 x 5 inches divide by 12 for feet. So approximately 5208 feet of roll. Looks like a length match to me.
Eastman is saying buy the whole slice.
An entire master roll of 4 x 5's would be about 150,000 sheets (12 slices)

Why so late. Top management saw a 4 inch slice of Double X
that was 3900 feet long sitting forever unsold.

I'm done making stupid guesses now. :o





So for me.. We asked them to risk slicing our bit out of a very valuable master roll.
I am glad Eastman responded. I hope we become a larger market.

[StoneNYC]

"The topic has changed from will Kodak cut this film in 4x5 to why Kodak will not cut it and how they came to that decision so late in the game."

Just my thoughts with back story of the exploration of ASA 25 4 x 5 a year or so back. ASA 25 exploration ended at a number of $15K - $17K to pay for the roll of master film stock to be coated up front. Sheet film is sliced by precision rollers as a strip from a master roll. The slice roll is then cut and packed in a separate operation. Kodak masters rolls are a mile long and 51 inches wide if I remember right. So our request for Double X 4 x 5 meant a 3 mile loss of 35mm movie stock at its current market price. (4 in vs 35mm times 3 cut width)..
Validation of sorts: 250 box minimum, 50 sheets, say 4 inch slice. 5 inch of roll per 4 x 5. 250 of 50 x 5 inches divide by 12 for feet. So approximately 5208 feet of roll. Looks like a length match to me.
Eastman is saying buy the whole slice.
An entire master roll of 4 x 5's would be about 150,000 sheets (12 slices)

Why so late. Top management saw a 4 inch slice of Double X
that was 3900 feet long sitting forever unsold.

I'm done making stupid guesses now. :o





So for me.. We asked them to risk slicing our bit out of a very valuable master roll.
I am glad Eastman responded. I hope we become a larger market.

The question was, why didn't they start out saying "the box order minimum is 250 boxes", instead of saying "the box order minimum is 60 (or whatever it was" and then after people spent time and money to organize an order, they come back with, oh we meant 250 not 60.... It's kinda BS...

[Nicolasllasera]

They might have thought of a way to make a shorter roll or use some leftover from movie stock and after trying to figure it out came out without a way. And then just jumped to the WHOLE master roll. My guess.

After all they are working to make money to pay off the Pension Plan in the UK which are the new owners.

[StoneNYC]

They might have thought of a way to make a shorter roll or use some leftover from movie stock and after trying to figure it out came out without a way. And then just jumped to the WHOLE master roll. My guess.

After all they are working to make money to pay off the Pension Plan in the UK which are the new owners.

I think what really happened is that they gave a monetary figure as the minimum based on normal figures for cutting something like TMY-2, which probably costs roughly $100/box for some special size, and would produce X boxes, when they realized that having to cut it would cost a lot more money they never changed the total amount of money needed and so it was assumed that the box count didn't change just the price per box.

So when the order was submitted, Kodak was like "well, wait a minute, this just isn't enough boxes to cover our minimum run" and so somebody dropped the ball there and didn't realize that both figures had to change.

That's my guess anyway, it still sucks a lot, and frustrates me, but it is what it is...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Oh well... you could take your mind off of it by shooting film that exists... like TMY-2... or it'll be gone, too.

[jnantz]

It's honestly not worth it to me. I'm done. I'm already out the CC processing fees, as are many others. And I'm annoyed that something like the cutting amount was not considered when asking for a minimum... Essentially to me this means they didn't actually do any test cutting, just did some math and said... "Oh never mind" so we don't even know if cutting can happen.

I'm a bit annoyed...at kodak, this is something they should have known without actually taking this on, as they gave us a minimum to reach...
...

i think you probably have it backwards.
maybe ... they DID make samples and cut them
and they realized it was a thin base
that was more trouble than it was worth .. ( for THEM and the BUYERS )
rather than jack the price up even higher,
and knowing how difficult it was to get the minimum
they just increased the minimum order.

i think it is kind of naive for anyone to think that a company
who treasures their QA and knowing people say they offer the
best film on the market today, would squander their reputation
on a boutique order of a nice film on a oddball substrate that has
the potential to be a problem ... soon after they went bankrupt and
as they try to get back on their feet ...

its not much different than their position for other things, potential PR nightmare doesn't do well
for a long time i tried to get them to sell master rolls of their film
( as ilford used to do ) to photowarehouse, so they would cut to custom sizes
and people wouldn't have to wait for yearly special orders or buy a pallet of film, win win ? ..
nope, they refused and as i was told, it was because if people paid money for kodak film
and there was a dead zone or a problem with the emulsion that the cutters didn't avoid
(there are maps of the film that show areas NOT to cut ) then it would damage kodak's reputation.

my poor guess is that they realized selling a this MP substrate LF film might have been a recipe for disaster,
and i am maybe by boosting the minimum order it was just an easy way to
dodge the bullet ... and a QA/ PR nightmare ...

but then again, maybe *I* am naive and they are a bunch of slackers who waited
until the last minute to realize they didn't get enough film orders to manufacture + cut a roll...
kind of like the mars probe scientists forgetting to convert imperial back to metric ..

[Tin Can]

Best answer yet, and this post changes my negative opinion of 'new' Kodak.


i think you probably have it backwards.
maybe ... they DID make samples and cut them
and they realized it was a thin base
that was more trouble than it was worth .. ( for THEM and the BUYERS )
rather than jack the price up even higher,
and knowing how difficult it was to get the minimum
they just increased the minimum order.

i think it is kind of naive for anyone to think that a company
who treasures their QA and knowing people say they offer the
best film on the market today, would squander their reputation
on a boutique order of a nice film on a oddball substrate that has
the potential to be a problem ... soon after they went bankrupt and
as they try to get back on their feet ...

its not much different than their position for other things, potential PR nightmare doesn't do well
for a long time i tried to get them to sell master rolls of their film
( as ilford used to do ) to photowarehouse, so they would cut to custom sizes
and people wouldn't have to wait for yearly special orders or buy a pallet of film, win win ? ..
nope, they refused and as i was told, it was because if people paid money for kodak film
and there was a dead zone or a problem with the emulsion that the cutters didn't avoid
(there are maps of the film that show areas NOT to cut ) then it would damage kodak's reputation.

my poor guess is that they realized selling a this MP substrate LF film might have been a recipe for disaster,
and i am maybe by boosting the minimum order it was just an easy way to
dodge the bullet ... and a QA/ PR nightmare ...

but then again, maybe *I* am naive and they are a bunch of slackers who waited
until the last minute to realize they didn't get enough film orders to manufacture + cut a roll...
kind of like the mars probe scientists forgetting to convert imperial back to metric ..

[StoneNYC]

Best answer yet, and this post changes my negative opinion of 'new' Kodak.

Except he's got his information wrong and again forgot to read the full reply from Keith, they didn't cut anything, they realized they didn't have enough orders to not have wasted film.

It had nothing to do with the thin base.

[koh303]

my poor guess is that they realized selling a this MP substrate LF film might have been a recipe for disaster,
and i am maybe by boosting the minimum order it was just an easy way to
dodge the bullet ... and a QA/ PR nightmare ...

+1

[jnantz]

huh, so they underestimated the amount of time, effort, materials, waste &c
required to coat, cut, notched sheets to fulfill this order ...
something they have done with their eyes closed for decades (with the 50+ different films they have made in recent history) ---

so. they have known about this order, and have waited for the minimum order to be reached for months ... and have just been hanging out ...
they wouldn't have done any tests on the substrate / emulsion ( cutting different size sheets and checking tolerances &c
seeing this has never been done with this base and this emulsion before ) and they wouldn't have had information about other
thin base films they've made over the years to compare results to ...

you can read the words at face value
ill read between the lines ...

[vinny]

nothing a box of tri-x can't fix.

[StoneNYC]

huh, so they underestimated the amount of time, effort, materials, waste &c
required to coat, cut, notched sheets to fulfill this order ...
something they have done with their eyes closed for decades (with the 50+ different films they have made in recent history) ---

so. they have known about this order, and have waited for the minimum order to be reached for months ... and have just been hanging out ...
they wouldn't have done any tests on the substrate / emulsion ( cutting different size sheets and checking tolerances &c
seeing this has never been done with this base and this emulsion before ) and they wouldn't have had information about other
thin base films they've made over the years to compare results to ...

you can read the words at face value
ill read between the lines ...

You can read between the lines all you want, but you're making a statement about something that's totally inaccurate from what they've told us, and all we have to go on is what they told us the rest is just conjecture. You weren't even art of the special order I don't know why you have to inject yourself into this post it all... And I don't understand why the moderators haven't already shut this down I've asked for to be close these but stop while we're ahead

[jnantz]

lol stone you make me laugh sometimes
sure its all conjecture .. this is the internet .
.. the internet is just a pool of opinions, some right on, some way off,
and in this case NO ONE will ever know ..
we just have experience and information people in he industry tell us ...
and while you may say my opinion is wrong, i have experience with cutting and using thin based films
i have coated and used my own film, and i have paid close attention to what an emulsion engineer
has said about working in an emulsion lab at kodak .. i may be wrong in your opinion
but at least it is an educated guess. not an opinion formed by
a vague email that could mean anything ...


Kodak contacted me and after doing the R&D for making 4x5 Double X they have determined that they cannot make it at the original minimum order quantity. As you know this is cinematography film that is cut into rolls. If Eastman Kodak were to make 60 boxes of 4x5 from a master roll and then cut the cinematography rolls there would be an enormous amount of wasted film. . what else would this mean .. ?
pretty much what i said,
r/d suggested it would be difficult
lots of waste ( as i said ) and troubles
suggest a difficult film to deal with .. what is different between this film
and others? .. the base ...
if they raised the price to 18 or 20$ a sheet would it have had the same affect?
the difference between jacking up the price ( already high) and jacking up the minimum order is
that minimum order increase means more film to use and if more film is wasted
they are covered ...


and regarding my right or privilege to comment in this thread ...
i think its hilarious that YOU suggest i shouldnt comment in a thread .. ive been here 13 years with only 500 posts more than you ... but you have been here 18 months and heck, on apug you have 6900+ posts for 18 months ... its not a contest ...

i dont think you should be suggesting people post less ...

[koh303]

this totally an interesting thread no reason to lock it yet.
kodak have not told anything. they told K canham something and he relayed it to us. what actually happened or what reasoning was is up for grabs.
how do you know anyone is or isent part of the pre order? like this thread the concept of a special order of film does not belong to you.

[StoneNYC]

lol stone you make me laugh sometimes
sure its all conjecture .. this is the internet .
.. the internet is just a pool of opinions, some right on, some way off,
and in this case NO ONE will ever know ..
we just have experience and information people in he industry tell us ...
and while you may say my opinion is wrong, i have experience with cutting and using thin based films
i have coated and used my own film, and i have paid close attention to what an emulsion engineer
has said about working in an emulsion lab at kodak .. i may be wrong in your opinion
but at least it is an educated guess. not an opinion formed by
a vague email that could mean anything ...

. what else would this mean .. ?
pretty much what i said,
r/d suggested it would be difficult
lots of waste ( as i said ) and troubles
suggest a difficult film to deal with .. what is different between this film
and others? .. the base ...
if they raised the price to 18 or 20$ a sheet would it have had the same affect?
the difference between jacking up the price ( already high) and jacking up the minimum order is
that minimum order increase means more film to use and if more film is wasted
they are covered ...


and regarding my right or privilege to comment in this thread ...
i think its hilarious that YOU suggest i shouldnt comment in a thread .. ive been here 13 years with only 500 posts more than you ... but you have been here 18 months and heck, on apug you have 6900+ posts for 18 months ... its not a contest ...

i dont think you should be suggesting people post less ...

If it were just that the base wouldn't support it, they would have just said that, or said NO.

[StoneNYC]

this totally an interesting thread no reason to lock it yet.
kodak have not told anything. they told K canham something and he relayed it to us. what actually happened or what reasoning was is up for grabs.
how do you know anyone is or isent part of the pre order? like this thread the concept of a special order of film does not belong to you.

John told me he wasn't that's how I know.

And I think it should be closed because it's attracting you two trolls

[ScottPhotoCo]

... I don't know why you have to inject yourself into this post it all...

Coming from someone who injects himself into almost every post I find this ironic.

[StoneNYC]

Coming from someone who injects himself into almost every post I find this ironic.

That's fair, what I mean is he's eroding the thread by spreading rumor as fact. That's all, it's annoying.

Anyway I'm done, this thread is pointless now..

[jnantz]

If it were just that the base wouldn't support it, they would have just said that, or said NO.

they pretty much said the base was giving them too much waste when they cut it.
if they had enough film to support the waste it would have worked.
maybe you should attempt getting a spool of acetate and a bottle of liquid light ..
coat it ( it doesnt have to look pretty ) and cut it into 3 31/32x4 31/32 with no waste.
measure how much " film" you started with, and see how much waste you have.
now imagine a football field of film with
dead spots, bad areas you cant cut randomly placed all over the roll, and you have to cut in the dark pretty much with what i am guessing are ir glasses and a robot arm and a map
and trying to cut large amount from a small area with very little room for error.
a larger order gives them more room for error cutting a film their r/d told them would be difficult. probably fewer people more money and the same amount they were going to
cut would have been the same thing, more area to cut and waste.

you might suggest i am a trol, for answering in your thread but at least i have experience in what i am talking about ( coating plastic, glass and paper with emulsion since around 1986 )
and, i've made my own emulsion ...

[Kodachrome25]

Stoned, you did your part, Keith did his part, Kodak did their part and it did not work. Maybe it came close, maybe not. I think you are all to be commended for the effort though, especially post C-11 in the year 2014 when ten years ago people swore <ALL> film would be gone...

There is no one to blame, no forensics or rants will do anyone any good....Puff, Puff, Give...

[StoneNYC]

Stoned, you did your part, Keith did his part, Kodak did their part and it did not work. Maybe it came close, maybe not. I think you are all to be commended for the effort though, especially post C-11 in the year 2014 when ten years ago people swore <ALL> film would be gone...

There is no one to blame, no forensics or rants will do anyone any good....Puff, Puff, Give...

+1

[jnantz]

this totally an interesting thread no reason to lock it yet.
kodak have not told anything. they told K canham something and he relayed it to us. what actually happened or what reasoning was is up for grabs.
how do you know anyone is or isent part of the pre order? like this thread the concept of a special order of film does not belong to you.

hi koh303
i told stone in the beginning i haven't 600$ or 300$ to spend on a magic-film
(even if fairies whispered in my ear what to photograph and processed the film afterwards )
i'm more of a 10years expired, process in coffee kind of person anyways, im not really into magic, smoke and mirrors and glowing highlights.
and like you, im not really sure why my not ordering anything has any bearing on if i am allowed to post in a thread in an open forum ..

===
seeing allaris + eastman kodak don't mind special orders, and their new era ...
maybe if they did a special run of a film that is KNOWN to be a LF film, and doesn't require additional "dealing with/ magic at their end"
it might work the next time. ( im thinking tri x / ortho, royal pan or superxx or something else with a long long history ) ...
seeing this experience showed there are new ways to get a special order done, smaller minimums, people on board, and their money in the bank.
i have a feeling if another special run was started up ( of a film that was known as a sheet film ) it wouldn't cost 600$ for 100 sheets ...
but around what people are used to paying for tri , tmax or whatever .. so even if the minimum order was 100s of 100sheet boxes, it wouldn't be hard to fill ...

so for a draft this worked, but drafts are always edited before it is a final paper ..

running poll ( format + emulsion)?
crowd sourcing/kickstarter?
and a list of what emulsions allaris would be willing to work with?

[koh303]

he's eroding the thread by spreading rumor as fact. That's all, it's annoying.
Coming from Stone this is very ironic.

[vinny]

Coming from Stone this is very ironic.
naw!

[AuditorOne]

seeing allaris + eastman kodak don't mind special orders, and their new era ...
maybe if they did a special run of a film that is KNOWN to be a LF film, and doesn't require additional "dealing with/ magic at their end"
it might work the next time. ( im thinking tri x / ortho, royal pan or superxx or something else with a long long history ) ...
seeing this experience showed there are new ways to get a special order done, smaller minimums, people on board, and their money in the bank.
i have a feeling if another special run was started up ( of a film that was known as a sheet film ) it wouldn't cost 600$ for 100 sheets ...
but around what people are used to paying for tri , tmax or whatever .. so even if the minimum order was 100s of 100sheet boxes, it wouldn't be hard to fill ...

so for a draft this worked, but drafts are always edited before it is a final paper ..

running poll ( format + emulsion)?
crowd sourcing/kickstarter?
and a list of what emulsions allaris would be willing to work with?

I would support this. I am firmly in favor of developing solutions that work in today's market. I believe Ilford has been showing us the way on this for some time with their annual special film orders. It would be nice if Kodak would consider a similar process once every year or two where there are some good emulsions available for purchase. A minimum would need to be met and then Kodak Alaris can move forward knowing they have a pre-determined market.

We need to continue to explore these ideas because it may turn out to be one of the only ways we are able to ever get some of these emulsions and film sizes. Otherwise we are left with spit in one hand, hope in the other...and we already know how that ends up.

[Brian C. Miller]

There is a big difference between cutting a pre-existing film, and coating an old emulsion. In this case, Kodak determined that there would be too much waste in their current cutting process for fulfilling the LF order. Yes, someone at Kodak could have done the math beforehand and determined that the minimum order would be X feet of film from the master roll. (I don't know if Eastman-Kodak or Kodak-Alaris is the one who cuts the rolls.) However, we do know that they will do it for $75,000.

Coating an emulsion is not done lightly. Has the emulsion been previously coated on their current machines? Does anybody remember how to make the emulsion? Kodak has previously been in the position where one of the key people was out on vacation, and a new emulsion couldn't be mixed until he got back.

As for interest, take a look at the number of responders to this order, and the number of people who have pledged support to the New55 Kickstarter project. Not many! Surely not enough for Kodak to coat a master roll. Remember, that's over a mile of film, and the process might have to be redeveloped. If $75,000 is too much, how can Kodak expect to find support for $1 million or more it will ask to cover the process? I haven't heard of any millionaires or Saudi princes having an LF hobby.

The Ilford custom order is just for cutting, not coating. Nobody has ponied up the money to get the R&D done for SFX on sheet film, and I doubt it will ever be done.

The solution has to work for both the manufacturer and the consumer. If it doesn't work for the manufacturer, it definitely won't be done.

[csxcnj]

There is a big difference between cutting a pre-existing film, and coating an old emulsion. In this case, Kodak determined that there would be too much waste in their current cutting process for fulfilling the LF order. Yes, someone at Kodak could have done the math beforehand and determined that the minimum order would be X feet of film from the master roll. (I don't know if Eastman-Kodak or Kodak-Alaris is the one who cuts the rolls.) However, we do know that they will do it for $75,000.

Coating an emulsion is not done lightly. Has the emulsion been previously coated on their current machines? Does anybody remember how to make the emulsion? Kodak has previously been in the position where one of the key people was out on vacation, and a new emulsion couldn't be mixed until he got back.

As for interest, take a look at the number of responders to this order, and the number of people who have pledged support to the New55 Kickstarter project. Not many! Surely not enough for Kodak to coat a master roll. Remember, that's over a mile of film, and the process might have to be redeveloped. If $75,000 is too much, how can Kodak expect to find support for $1 million or more it will ask to cover the process? I haven't heard of any millionaires or Saudi princes having an LF hobby.

The Ilford custom order is just for cutting, not coating. Nobody has ponied up the money to get the R&D done for SFX on sheet film, and I doubt it will ever be done.

The solution has to work for both the manufacturer and the consumer. If it doesn't work for the manufacturer, it definitely won't be done.

I might be remembering it wrong, but I believe this was to cut sheets from an ALREADY coated master roll. Stone?

[Oren Grad]

I believe Ilford has been showing us the way on this for some time with their annual special film orders. It would be nice if Kodak would consider a similar process once every year or two where there are some good emulsions available for purchase. A minimum would need to be met and then Kodak Alaris can move forward knowing they have a pre-determined market.

Harman (Ilford) does not require a minimum for orders during the special order period, only for orders made outside of it. In the earliest years of the special order program they tried to, and the program was on the verge of dying for lack of sufficient orders. In response to concerns expressed by the community the Harman directors then made a decision to cut any orders received under the program, regardless of quantity. They have continued to do so each year since then, although there are no guarantees that they will always be able to do so. In effect, they are shouldering the cost of catering to small-time users of non-stock sizes as a gesture of goodwill to the community. In fact, for the special order program as a whole, including the sizes that sell in somewhat larger quantities, they are likely making little or no profit. This is extraordinary, and one of the important reasons why they deserve our support. But this approach cannot realistically be expected from every vendor.

[angusparker]

Harman (Ilford) does not require a minimum for orders during the special order period, only for orders made outside of it. In the earliest years of the special order program they tried to, and the program was on the verge of dying for lack of sufficient orders. In response to concerns expressed by the community the Harman directors then made a decision to cut any orders received under the program, regardless of quantity. They have continued to do so each year since then, although there are no guarantees that they will always be able to do so. In effect, they are shouldering the cost of catering to small-time users of non-stock sizes as a gesture of goodwill to the community. In fact, for the special order program as a whole, including the sizes that sell in somewhat larger quantities, they are likely making little or no profit. This is extraordinary, and one of the important reasons why they deserve our support. But this approach cannot realistically be expected from every vendor.

Let's give a cheer to Ilford. I'm going in on the special orders this year for the first time. Can't wait to see the negatives!

[StoneNYC]

There is a big difference between cutting a pre-existing film, and coating an old emulsion. In this case, Kodak determined that there would be too much waste in their current cutting process for fulfilling the LF order. Yes, someone at Kodak could have done the math beforehand and determined that the minimum order would be X feet of film from the master roll. (I don't know if Eastman-Kodak or Kodak-Alaris is the one who cuts the rolls.) However, we do know that they will do it for $75,000.

Coating an emulsion is not done lightly. Has the emulsion been previously coated on their current machines? Does anybody remember how to make the emulsion? Kodak has previously been in the position where one of the key people was out on vacation, and a new emulsion couldn't be mixed until he got back.

As for interest, take a look at the number of responders to this order, and the number of people who have pledged support to the New55 Kickstarter project. Not many! Surely not enough for Kodak to coat a master roll. Remember, that's over a mile of film, and the process might have to be redeveloped. If $75,000 is too much, how can Kodak expect to find support for $1 million or more it will ask to cover the process? I haven't heard of any millionaires or Saudi princes having an LF hobby.

The Ilford custom order is just for cutting, not coating. Nobody has ponied up the money to get the R&D done for SFX on sheet film, and I doubt it will ever be done.

The solution has to work for both the manufacturer and the consumer. If it doesn't work for the manufacturer, it definitely won't be done.

The Keith told me that there was more response and more pre-orders to this and FASTER than any other order he's ever had before... It's just that once the price became 3 times what it would be for others, that the interest slowed.


I might be remembering it wrong, but I believe this was to cut sheets from an ALREADY coated master roll. Stone?

Yes, the rolls existed, they just needed to be cut.

But I believe it was the "leader" and "end" that would be too long with such a short cut, it was the excess runoff after the cut amount that made it not worth it.

[BradS]

Stone, I confess to not really understanding the original fascination with this film but, I have chased my own share of magic stuff. Never-the-less...You and Keith did a great job on this. Good work!

[rich815]

Oh well... you could take your mind off of it by shooting film that exists... like TMY-2... or it'll be gone, too.

Darn it Andrew! With common sense posts like that you'll stop all the blather and shut this site down! ;-)

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I confess to not really understanding the original fascination with this film but, I have chased my own share of magic stuff. Never-the-less...You and Keith did a great job on this. Good work!

Thanks, we tried. It's ok it didn't happen I'm just glad we tried.

I only like the film for models, just has a glow I can't explain.

[BradS]

I only like the film for models, just has a glow I can't explain.


...yeah, I understand. Have you tried Ilford SFX-200 ?

[StoneNYC]

...yeah, I understand. Have you tried Ilford SFX-200 ?

Not for models, but I don't like the base on that film and if anything I'll shoot Acros100 since SFX isn't made in sheet film format....

[Andrew O'Neill]

Darn it Andrew! With common sense posts like that you'll stop all the blather and shut this site down! ;-)

You're right! Sorry! :)

[Michael Batchelor]

I think what really happened is that they gave a monetary figure as the minimum based on normal figures for cutting something like TMY-2, which probably costs roughly $100/box for some special size, and would produce X boxes, when they realized that having to cut it would cost a lot more money they never changed the total amount of money needed and so it was assumed that the box count didn't change just the price per box.

So when the order was submitted, Kodak was like "well, wait a minute, this just isn't enough boxes to cover our minimum run" and so somebody dropped the ball there and didn't realize that both figures had to change.

That's my guess anyway, it still sucks a lot, and frustrates me, but it is what it is...

But this stuff isn't hard to figure out. I wrote a cut plan module for Fuji about ten years ago for their SAP system that figured out exactly this kind of thing for a quote. Ok, granted that was for cutting plates for the print industry rather than film. But a master roll is a master roll regardless if it's aluminum or poly.