FP4+ in ULF disappearing, what is closest?

[clay harmon]

Quote " The problem with doing this with Kodak films is that they just changed their film base with TMX for sure and also for Tri-X I believe about a year ago, unannounced I might add. The new base does not pass UV radiation hardly at all and so it makes these films essentially useless for alternative process like Pt/Pd or VDB, etc. That's why I switched over to Ilford HP5+ in the first place."

They did NOT change the base on the new Tri-X. I was part of a custom order of 12x20 after Kodak went to the new emulsion, and it passes UV radiation just like the old stuff. I am a platinum printer, so I have ample proof to know this to be a fact. It is true that the new Tmax 100 has this problem, however. Useless for alternative processes.

[Joe Smigiel]

Clay,

You are obviously correct about the Tri-X if your experience bears out the fact it is on the same base as always. Please note that I did not say Tri-x had definitely been changed but rather that I thought it might have ("...and also for Tri-X I believe "). I did speak to a Kodak rep last year about the UV problem and they told me TMX and another film (the specific emulsion of which I've obviously forgotten) had been changed. Perhaps it was Plus-X. I know it was not TMY. I just remember he specified two films available in ULF sizes had been changed to the new base.

However my conversation with the Kodak rep was not reassuring. It left me with the feeling that all the Kodak sheet films would be heading down the same path as TMX sooner or later. That's just conjecture on my part but I certainly felt it was coming based on the way the conversation went. That's why I went with Ilford at that point.

In that conversation the Kodak rep also informed me the change to the TMX base was made to make the manufacturing process easier. It had nothing to do with changing the film's sensitivity or other pictorial qualities.

I suppose the lesson to be learned here is to buy whatever quantity of your favorite ULF film you can afford and freeze it because it may not be manufactured in the near future or its characteristics may suddenly change without notice.

[Joe Smigiel]

Clay et. al.,

I just googled to find which films had the UV base and found a post I made back in October to the alternative process list regarding the conversation I had with the Kodak rep. It was new Plus-X and TMAX 100 that have the UV blocking base, not new Tri-X. Here's the URL for that post plus a link to a test I ran with several emulsions (New TMX, old TMY and HP5+) with van dyke brownprint if anyone is interested:

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/2004/oct04/0292.htm

Again, sorry for misspeaking. That's twice today in this forum...they're getting more frequent....wish I could edit/remove such things on this forum. But I can't so I hope you will accept my apologies.

[clay harmon]

Joe,
Believe me,I worried about the UV issue with the new TriX before we got it, because we placed an order for 44 boxes before we heard about problem with the Tmax 100 base. We heard about the issue about 4 weeks after we placed the order. Much to my relief, everything turned out okay. It is frustrating that Kodak made this change on the TMX emulsion without any warning. I would have been steamed if I had just bought a bunch of boxes of this emulsion only to discover the problem through painful personal experience.

The current situation with ULF film is really weird. It is almost like the manufacturers are panicking about film in general, so they react by cutting out the one little niche in which they could probably keep a pretty healthy profit margin. Anybody with thousands invested in huge cameras and expensive lenses would probably not be as price sensitive as someone buying film for a 35mm point and shoot. I figure ULF film will probably make a nice boutique market for some company that doesn't try to follow the thundering herd into the digital canyon.

I gotta wonder if Kodak truly thinks that they have or can secure a long-term competetive advantage in what is essentially a consumer electronics market over a Sony or Panasonic or the like (who have been kicking butt for decades). If you use the computer industry as a model, you will have a bunch of companies cutting their profit margins to zero or negative in a scramble to capture market share, and then acting shocked when their cash runs out.

Oh well, at least a freezer is cheaper than a box of film.

[sanking]

"I have read elsewhere that for J&C 400, you recommend using Pyrocat at 2:2:100 (rather than 1:1:100) May I ask why that is ? "

--Ken Lee, 2005-04-16 09:22:28

Ken,

My dilution recommendations are made primarily to provide a time of development that is neither too long or too short. If time is too short we risk uneven development, if too long inconvenient, and possibley additional B+F stain.

For my own work I like times in the 8-15 minutes range. Nothing magical about these times, but they give me a nice comfort zone.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I asked my contact at Ilford USA about the continued availability of Ilford films in ULF sizes and got the following response:

"The production of Ultra Large Format Sheet film is still an integral part
of the ILFORD plans for the Black and White business. Black and White Photo
is the core of what we are now doing and we will continue to follow our
Mission Statement of being 'Best in Black and White'. To be 'Best in Black
and White' means that we have to support the true stalwarts of real
photography of which the ULF users are an important part."