Oh, I'm painfully aware at times that Efke has some cleanroom issues. If R25 were made to the quality control standards of Kodak or Ilford, now that would be some
remarkable stuff. But I still find uses for it, even if an occasional shot is lost due to
dust embedded in the emulsion. Sheet film is a different story - can't afford to duplicate shots there! But Bergger 200 was also an EU film and I never had problems
with it. Maybe others have.
which would you prefer?
a crummy film with pretty good quality (Foma)
or
a pretty good film with poor quality (Efke)?
or
Great film with great quality (Kodak, Fuji and Ilford)
Oh well, thanks for the link. Both posts pre-date my re-entry into photography and 220 wasn't something I cared about enough to research in depth. I was glad to see the variety of 120 still available and just sort of shrugged at the lack of 220. My current favorite color film (Portra 400) IS currently available in 220 but costs more than twice as much as the 120 so doesn't make much sense. The 120 pro packs are listed as out of stock and overdue from vendor, I just noticed.Originally Posted by Oren Grad
But B&H does have it so hopefully this is a brief snafu maybe occasioned by a bit of a run on Kodak film.
It's really hard to believe that the difference in winding a longer piece of film with less paper mandates a machine that would cost, using today's exchange rate to convert Simon's 300,000 GBP, over $466k, but I accept their word on that.
Besides, it's just a "it would be nice to have" not anything that important. After thinking it over some more I realized the one B&W film I'd most like to have in 220 would be the least likely anyway - Delta 3200. The reasoning is that when I'm shooting that it's usually a night time event and I'll often need more than 12 shots (6x6) for the occasion, and changing film in my Yashicmat 124 isn't that quick and easy even when I can see the spool well. Getting a camera with interchangable backs, or at least pre-loadable inserts (on the agenda for the coming year, along with a faster lens than my Yashicamat) will change that anyway, though.
Otherwise for the most part I'm happier with 12 shots on a roll of 120 than with 36 on a roll of 35mm which often leaves me with film in the camera and the choice to waste it or wait until I find a use for it.
I think everyone prefers the last, as long as it's available.
Another point is that it depends on what one is doing with it. A paid job, Drew's long time spent in the mountains, a big vacation etc. you can be sure I'm going to use the most consistent film I can find. But I shoot plenty of grab bag sort of shots too, around home, not far from home, trying out new things, portraits of friends etc. For that I'll risk lesser QC especially if the film offers some look I can't get elsewhere or even if it's just substantially cheaper.
To the OP - just thought of something. My fiance bought me an old 620 camera for Christmas, knowing I like old cameras and, I'm sure, not familiar with the lomography craze and my, um, opinions about it for the most part.I know I can re-spool 120 but that's going to take some learning. In the meantime, I bought some 120 off eBay on spools modified to work in 620 cameras, or so they say - I've not tried it yet. B&H currently offers 120 film re-spooled onto 620 spools (albeit plastic ones, not as good for your own future re-spooling as metal ones.) Both films cost a bit over twice as much as the regular 120 versions. I just bought a couple of rolls of TMY to play around with the camera. The one she bought me is..I'd have to get it out to remember the model but a very basic fixed focus lens two shutter speed sort of "TLR like" design, but there are many good old Medalists and such around that haven't been converted to 620. There's obviously enough of a market for one eBay supplier and B&H to offer re-spooled film. So how about 620 film? If you could just re-spool existing films and undercut B&H's price you could probably sell it.
Brad - you forgot about tonality, speed, grain characteristics??? What's "great" for one
set of circumstances might be undesirable for others. But in terms of quality control
per se, Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji are obviously the better choices. Right now nobody seems to be making a true straight line film analogous to Super-XX or Bergger 200.
I often need that kind of characteristic in the toe of the film. Kodak TMY is about the
best substitute I can find, and no telling what will be around when my freezer supply
of that runs out. I also wish Fuji wouldn't make it so damn difficult to acquire 8x10
sheets of ACROS. The lovely orthopan sensitivity isn't available in either Kodak or Ilford.
... so is anyone keeping a scorecard on this question? I see two requests for a straight-line film. Yippee, I think that's the leader in this poll so far.
YES. Obviously, I vastly over simplified the matter and injected my own prejudices. But, you've come straight to some of the points I wanted the OP to think about.
First, If Kodak, with all of its vast resources and scientific and engineering talent, intellectual property, institutional knowledge, and brand identity cannot make film profitably...I mean really, come-on...I'm not gonna say the rest of what I'm thinking. You get the idea.
Second, Make no mistake, the vultures are already circling around the dieing Kodak. Real entrepreneurs with real money backing them will buy up what is needed to continue whatever film products they think can be produced at a profit. Kodak the company may be broken up and sold in pieces or it may be very significantly restructured, but if there is a viable market for its traditional products, the products will survive. If they cannot be produced profitably....they will not be. Its that simple.
Last edited by BradS; 9-Jan-2012 at 15:46. Reason: ther are two points not just one.
An interesting post. Unfortunately, for you to establish an operating color film line, you'd need access to tens of millions for startup costs. Good luck getting people lined up for that. B&W....that's another matter altogether.
I see your point, but we should keep two things in mind.If Kodak, with all of its vast resources and scientific and engineering talent, intellectual property, institutional knowledge, and brand identity cannot make film profitably...I mean really, come-on...
First, their production lines are designed for huge volumes. They're so big, so expensive to run, so difficult and expensive to maintain, that they simply cannot be cost-efficient unless massive amounts of film are produced and sold. I'm sure the same films could be efficiently produced in small volumes if the production lines were designed for that to begin with.
Second, a small company's idea of profit is vastly different from that of a big dinosaur like Kodak, where hundreds of thousands of dollars get wasted every month just on private jets and huge salaries and bonuses for the upper management. What's lunch money for Kodak could be a pretty good profit for a small company.
... and the sharks are there too, just looking for the opportunity to make money -- one way or the other.
I'm not sure, though, that the notion of a specialty film producer is totally out of the question... if one has the right combination of engineering and financial skills to combine with keen approach to the marketing of specialty niche products. As one who has only none of those skills I can't see how it is possible, but I'd sure be supportive of someone who did and could!
Can we add minimal reciprocity effect to the wish list?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks