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!

[BradS]

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

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.

[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

[invisibleflash]

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

Hey Stone..I like them goosebumps!

[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.