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!

[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.