PDA

View Full Version : Kodak's latest contribution - 10 sheet boxes



patfahey
25-May-2008, 17:25
Just curious: Has anyone else stopped using Kodak 8x10 film since they went to 10-sheet-only boxes?

Bye-bye Kodak. Really dumb idea. Why make us pay to ship all that extra packaging?

Hello Ilford. Please keep up the good work. 50-sheet boxes would be even better, but 25 is still a lot better than 10.

-Pat

John Kasaian
25-May-2008, 20:13
Pat,
Don't get me started.... :mad:

Daniel_Buck
25-May-2008, 20:13
hm... I just picked up a 50 pack of tri-x 320 8x10 a month ago or so, how recently has Kodak stopped doing this? I did notice though, while I was in Phoenix last week, Photomark only had one 8x10 film type in stock, 10 packs of tmax.

As much as I like having empty boxes to put things/prints into, I'd much rather have larger packs of film because I hate opening kodak's paper envelops that they keep their film in, I never seem to get it opened with out a little bit of a struggle, haha :-(

vann webb
25-May-2008, 20:27
Now that they killed HIE, Kodak is dead to me forever. Bastards. I really like Ilford, and I think that they will be around in film as long or longer than anyone else. I have no concrete evidence to support that, it's just my gut feeling. Ilford has some great products.

vinny
25-May-2008, 20:36
There have been plenty of posts on this subject already because it's pissing folks off. I think it's a bad decision but i only use kodak for 120 and 35mm. Would i buy 10 packs? No. As for any films they have/will discontinue, that's the fault of all the yahoos who've bought cameras which don't use film. How many members here own digital cameras but bitch when a photographic product gets axed?

John Kasaian
25-May-2008, 21:32
I'll probably still buy TMY. I don't use that much of it since I've always seen it as a special purpose film so 10-sheet boxes aren't that much of an inconvenience but my workhorse film TXP will be replaced as soon as I finish my last 50 sheet box of the stuff.
Kodak film isn't cheap but I want to spend my money on film, not 5X the amount on the packaging. Even 25 sheet boxes makes more sense. It is an insult to consumers.

John Kasaian
25-May-2008, 21:35
...and I'm saving all my 3 piece Kodak boxes to house my Foma! :cool:

Bruce Watson
26-May-2008, 07:05
This has already turned into a Kodak bashing thread. But I'd just like to point something out before everyone buries Kodak in disdain.

Kodak is still actively developing new emulsions. Harmon/Ilford is not. HP5+ is what -- 20 years old now? TMY-2 isn't yet a year old. Tri-X was updated just five years or so ago.

So you don't like the packaging. Neither do I. But I don't think that turning your back on Kodak is the answer. They are the only company actively supporting you -- they are the only ones that can answer the question "what have you done for me lately" because they can point to TMY-2 and Tri-X.

And you want to abandon them over packaging? Reminds me of a saying my grandmother used to say: "cutting off your nose to spite your face." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face)

butterflydream
26-May-2008, 08:29
Many chemical raw materials for film are discontinued (or the price goes up) due to diminishing demand, especially special additives. Then the film maker must find substitutes which changes the characteristics of the film. I also suspect that they put "NEW" to such film as if it's a new development.

Fuji seems to be honest to this point. They discontinued Velvia ISO50 but then they restarted the production upon the requests of consumers. I read their press release that they developed it from new substitute raw materials for discontinued original material and put their best effort to reproduce the original Velvia - they clearly stated that it's not improvement but it's preservation.

Keith Tapscott.
26-May-2008, 08:58
I don`t use my LF Cameras as much as my Canon 35mm and Mamiya RZ67, so the ten sheet packs of Kodak films really do appeal to me. I do understand though, the frustration of regular 8x10 users who buy the 50 sheet boxes of Kodak B&W film-sheets or what ever they have recently been supplied as.
A film that offers a bit more speed than FP4 Plus appeals to me, so either 320TXP or TMY-2 would be nice to try or Ilford`s own HP5 Plus. I currently have FP4 Plus in 8x10.

Herb Cunningham
26-May-2008, 09:32
It would seem that Photo Engineer over on APUG would have a contact at Kodak that we could impress with the complaint, I expect they did the ten sheet boxes to make buying 8x10 seem less $$. Hey, why not a 100 sheet box for a big discount over the 10 sheeters?

George Stewart
26-May-2008, 10:04
Before my last trip, I balked at the Kodak 10 sheet boxes. I bought Ilford instead; and, will most likely buy them in the future.

patfahey
26-May-2008, 10:29
Wow. Thanks for all the answers.

When I posted the question, I was searching for a reason to justify (understand why?) the smaller quantity packages.

Keith brings up a good point. If someone is shooting a lot in another format, and some 8x10, then 10 sheets makes sense.

Personally, I shoot a little more FP4 than TMX, but I like both. TMX for less contrasty scenes, and FP4 in PMK for snow/clouds -- higher contrast stuff.

I am ordering for an upcoming trip, and like George, instead of buying both (FP4 and TMX) this time I just ordered the FP4.

It would be great if Kodak would take suggestions from forums like these. But...

-Pat

Michael Kadillak
26-May-2008, 10:51
Wow. Thanks for all the answers.

When I posted the question, I was searching for a reason to justify (understand why?) the smaller quantity packages.

Keith brings up a good point. If someone is shooting a lot in another format, and some 8x10, then 10 sheets makes sense.

Personally, I shoot a little more FP4 than TMX, but I like both. TMX for less contrasty scenes, and FP4 in PMK for snow/clouds -- higher contrast stuff.

I am ordering for an upcoming trip, and like George, instead of buying both (FP4 and TMX) this time I just ordered the FP4.

It would be great if Kodak would take suggestions from forums like these. But...

-Pat

Rest assured that Kodak is in fact listening and they always have been. The 10 sheet box is a market penetration strategy to allow new photographers to have access to this cutting edge emulsion at a price point that they would otherwise been forced to defer trying it because of the financial commitment in a 50 sheet box. In the interest of the bigger picture I wish that everyone that is having a cow over this would all remember the long term objective here is the best possible sheet film made. Give it a while and Kodak will come back with the 50 sheet boxes. In the meantime chill and go make some photographs.

Kodak dropped over a million bucks in R&D in a market that most thought would NOT EXIST at this time to arrive at the improved emulsion TMY2 so clearly they have a desire to kick up sales a bit to recover this investment. When was the last time anyone in the film business came out with such a dramatic and qualifiable improvement in grain and contrast with B&W film? It has been probably 15 years or more. We could be so lucky.

With the ULF deal Kodak listened to use with the previous 10 sheet boxes and now we have 25 sheets per box. They even kept the UV coating that their production department wanted to include because it would have been been terrible for all of the alt process people that use UV for exposure.

Cheers!

Bruce Watson
26-May-2008, 10:55
"(Kodak) are the only company actively supporting you -- they are the only ones that can answer the question "what have you done for me lately" because they can point to TMY-2 and Tri-X."

Some support. NO PAPER.

Try to stay with the thread, which is about film.


As for newer films, did they have a warehouse full of complaints as to the quality of Tri-X and T-Max? Nice of them to 'improve' the films but my guess from their past history is that the improvements are a way of cutting costs somewhere.

What -- you want them to stop R&D? We clearly differ on that.

And everything I've read says that the new TMY-2 is a real improvement over the older TMY. It has less graininess, better sharpness, and they pulled the UV filtering out at the request of the alternative printing crowd. It's not (just) a cost cutting measure when they are responding to the demands of the market.


What is so damn difficult in figuring out that people buy more than 10 sheets of film at a time?

I don't know. What's so difficult in figuring out that some people want the 10 sheet boxes? Perhaps more people want the 10 sheet boxes than want other configurations. Perhaps Kodak is just responding to the demands of the market. It could be that we who want more sheets are actually in the minority on this issue.


As for Ilford not updating their films. Some of us like the fact that the films we use are not constantly changing. Makes it a lot easier to keep the quality where we like it rather than continually finding something has to be changed in the processing and shooting because of 'upgrades' that are done.

Now there is a valid point. If that's what you want, then Harmon is clearly for you. Go for it and enjoy it.

Or you could contact Micheal Smith. Rumor has it he bought out the final run of Super-XX. Bought a huge amount of film. Built a huge lead-lined (supposedly) concrete block refrigerator to hold it all. A lifetime+ supply for Micheal and perhaps Paula Chamlee as well. Maybe he'd sell you some.

I for one want my film to keep getting better and better. For those who want that, Kodak is looking pretty good. Especially with the new TMY-2 and the Portra films. Never had films this good before. I'll take TMY-2 over Super-XX any day and every day.


10 sheet boxes? Fine for tests. Not good if you actually shoot much film.

For you maybe. Others clearly differ. Which is OK too.


As for quitting Kodak for packaging. Their crappy service, cutting reps we used to go to for a lot things, cutting products we relied on, cutting ALL B&W printing papers, refusing to acknowledge problems when we and our labs had them... Kodak pissed on a lot of us long ago. Now when they come out with a new product that 'might' tempt some of us to try them again... we are gunshy. It is more than packaging but 10 sheet boxes for a product you shoot a lot of is asinine and reason enough to look elsewhere when added to their corporate indifference through the years.

No doubt Kodak made mistakes. Their film markets imploded and they didn't handle it as well as they might have. But they did keep many products afloat. They just had to downscale at a frightening pace to avoid loosing so much money they they would go under.

Ilford wasn't so skillful -- they did go bankrupt, remember? Lucky for us all that Harmon decided to resurrect most of Ilford's products, yes? And didn't Harmon buy out Kentmere and subsequently discontinue the Kentmere papers? I think that's what I read anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that please.

I'm just reeling at the double standard. It seems that whatever Kodak does is bad, and whatever Ilford/Harmon does is good. When in fact neither is infalible and both make mistakes, and continue to struggle to stay afloat in a shrinking market.

Frank Petronio
26-May-2008, 11:33
I won't buy Ilford again after getting several boxes of mis-cut and mis-packaged film. While the 10-sheet boxes are wasteful they also have advantages -- if you've ever fogged 40 sheets of film you'll know why.

Oren Grad
26-May-2008, 12:11
And didn't Harmon buy out Kentmere and subsequently discontinue the Kentmere papers? I think that's what I read anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that please.

Harman Technology did buy Kentmere but they did not discontinue the Kentmere papers, which continue to be available.

I agree with your other points, and with Michael's. Buy whatever you want. But as for giving the manufacturers in this difficult market endless grief over every last decision they make that you don't like - at the end of the day, do you want to continue to have film, or not?

steve simmons
26-May-2008, 12:22
They even kept the UV coating that their production department wanted to include because it would have been been terrible for all of the alt process people that use UV for exposure.

Isn't this statement incorrect? Kodak did not put the uv coating on the new TMY because alt process people did not want it.

Sandy King has done some excellent articles on the new T-Max 400 in the last two issues of View Camera. If you want to see the results of thorough testing read these articles.

steve simmons

Oren Grad
26-May-2008, 13:08
They even kept the UV coating that their production department wanted to include because it would have been been terrible for all of the alt process people that use UV for exposure.

Michael, I think the problem is just a typo in your earlier post that inverted your intended meaning. They didn't *keep* the UV coating, they *kept it off* the sheet film where they otherwise would have included it - which is obviously what you wanted to say.

steve simmons
26-May-2008, 13:12
Since this is a large format forum I was referring to sheet film.

The statement you made that I quoted

They even kept the UV coating that their production department wanted to include because it would have been been terrible for all of the alt process people that use UV for exposure.

was uncoherent and misleading. All I did was correct the record in the most gentle manner possible.

Nothing personal Kadillak.

Relax.

steve simmons

Michael Kadillak
26-May-2008, 13:14
Michael, I think the problem is just a typo in your earlier post that inverted your intended meaning. They didn't *keep* the UV coating, they *kept it off* the sheet film where they otherwise would have included it - which is obviously what you wanted to say.

Thanks Oren.

Michael Kadillak
26-May-2008, 13:16
Since this is a large format forum I was referring to sheet film.

The statement you made that I quoted

They even kept the UV coating that their production department wanted to include because it would have been been terrible for all of the alt process people that use UV for exposure.

was uncoherent and misleading. All I did was correct the record in the most gentle manner possible.

Nothing personal Kadillak.

Relax.

steve simmons

Thanks. I unintentionally made a typo as Oren and Steve pointed out.

CG
26-May-2008, 13:47
I'm just reeling at the double standard. It seems that whatever Kodak does is bad, and whatever Ilford/Harmon does is good. When in fact neither is infalible and both make mistakes, and continue to struggle to stay afloat in a shrinking market.

Whatever the big guy does is, if good, taken for granted, and if bad, evidence they've always been scoundrels. Kodak can't make a mistake without being hung out to twist in the wind. The 10 sheet boxes are, for me. a mistake, but the world isn't ending.

Part of the problem is that for decades, Kodak could offer almost everything to almost everybody. They set a standard no-one can live up to now.

I'm blown away they continue to invest in improved film technology.

C

John Kasaian
26-May-2008, 14:07
Whatever the big guy does is, if good, taken for granted, and if bad, evidence they've always been scoundrels. Kodak can't make a mistake without being hung out to twist in the wind. The 10 sheet boxes are, for me. a mistake, but the world isn't ending.

Part of the problem is that for decades, Kodak could offer almost everything to almost everybody. They set a standard no-one can live up to now.

I'm blown away they continue to invest in improved film technology.

C

I have to agree.
Kodak makes less and less of the stuff I use, but the stuff they do make is excellent and I'll continue to be a customer----as long as I don't feel like I'm being taken advantage of (like being forced to pay 5x as much for packaging!)

D. Bryant
26-May-2008, 14:39
I have to agree.
Kodak makes less and less of the stuff I use, but the stuff they do make is excellent and I'll continue to be a customer----as long as I don't feel like I'm being taken advantage of (like being forced to pay 5x as much for packaging!)

I've forwarded this thread to PETA - the horse is now dead.

Jim Noel
26-May-2008, 19:26
AS unpopular as this decision is I remember the time when all sheet film including Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, and others was sold in packages of one dozen (12) or one gross (144). This worked well at the time. Those of us who could only afford a few sheets at a time could buy it that way, and those who ised more could buy larger quantities.

John Kasaian
26-May-2008, 21:40
I've forwarded this thread to PETA - the horse is now dead.

Buy a little film and a lot of cardboard or buy a little cardboard and a lot of film! :p

Gene McCluney
29-May-2008, 13:01
OK, I think I see. By packaging in "only" 10 sheet boxes, any retailer that stocks the film will "only" have it in 10 sheet boxes, which will be more appealing to new users, even though it irritates those of us who want and need larger quantities. Once the "push" to acquire new customers is over, Kodak will probably go back to offering it in 50 sheet boxes as well.

Lenny Eiger
29-May-2008, 13:43
What -- you want them to stop R&D? We clearly differ on that.

And everything I've read says that the new TMY-2 is a real improvement over the older TMY. It has less graininess, better sharpness, and they pulled the UV filtering out at the request of the alternative printing crowd. It's not (just) a cost cutting measure when they are responding to the demands of the market.

I for one want my film to keep getting better and better. For those who want that, Kodak is looking pretty good. Especially with the new TMY-2 and the Portra films. Never had films this good before. I'll take TMY-2 over Super-XX any day and every day.

No doubt Kodak made mistakes. Their film markets imploded and they didn't handle it as well as they might have. But they did keep many products afloat. They just had to downscale at a frightening pace to avoid loosing so much money they they would go under.

I'm just reeling at the double standard. It seems that whatever Kodak does is bad, and whatever Ilford/Harmon does is good. When in fact neither is infalible and both make mistakes, and continue to struggle to stay afloat in a shrinking market.

I will chip in here... with perhaps a different view. I'll make a subtle change to your point - whatever Kodak does is bad, and whatever Ilford/Harmon does is bad. I am so sick of these mushy midtones. None of the b&w film on the market has enough silver for me.

I spoke to the Harmon top dogs and asked them if they would make a premium film. I told them I would pay three times the standard rate and made a case for all the sheet film users (and some others) that I thought would buy it. They were polite - but said they didn't agree there was a market there and they weren't going to do it. I don't believe that Kodak cares either. I don't think they are concerned about the same criteria for what makes a good film.

Lots of people would disagree with me over my sentiments about this film. But I can't get anything to work half as good as 1980's Tri-X or FP4 (not plus). There just isn't enough silver in it to be sensitive enough to light. Much of it depends on how you want to print.

So far, I have to be satisfied with Efke 25 and my beloved D-23. Every once in a while I get a decent neg. I used to get 98 or 99 out of 100, perfectly exposed and developed.

Lenny

Kevin Crisp
29-May-2008, 14:04
Why would less silver make for negatives that give mushy mid-tones? (And what exactly is a mushy mid-tone?) How can a film not have enough silver to be (as) sensitive to light while at the same time keeping the same tested film speed, or bettering the old one? What would a "premium film" do that current films don't?

I've been using tri-x since 1968 and haven't seen a quality drop off. I'm not wild about 10 sheet boxes, though.

domenico Foschi
29-May-2008, 14:36
Lenny, have you tried the Art(something) ADOX?
Freestyle claims that is an old formula film with thicker emulsion and more tonalities.
I am interested.
Oh wait !
Does it come only in 35 mm?

Lenny Eiger
29-May-2008, 14:46
Why would less silver make for negatives that give mushy mid-tones? (And what exactly is a mushy mid-tone?) How can a film not have enough silver to be (as) sensitive to light while at the same time keeping the same tested film speed, or bettering the old one? What would a "premium film" do that current films don't?

I've been using tri-x since 1968 and haven't seen a quality drop off. I'm not wild about 10 sheet boxes, though.

Mushy is what happens when the midtones don't separate well enough. There are plenty who like the current films - but many people who have been printing for a long enough time to remember don't. I spent many hours last month trying to convince someone that there was something different - who wasn't a photographer, but an archivist, and I don't know how to quantify this. The evidence is in the negatives.

What I believe I can say is that the silver salts work because they are in an unstable state. Reciprocity, for instance, is an effect that occurs when a grain is struck by photons and tips into the "developable" state. However, there is apparently a "yes, absolutely developable state" and another state where it is teetering on the edge. Over the time of exposure, some of the grains can tip back into the undevelopable state, thus causing a needed adjustment for even longer exposure. I think what occurs when there is enough silver is that a certain number of photons are required to strike to make the tone of a particular midtone value, and that the number of photons to make the next tone is some small additional amount. When there isn't enough "sensitivity" the number of photons required for the first and second steps get blurred. It won't show up in a 21 step tablet, or even a 42. It would show up in a 2100 step tablet, certainly. I am sorry, I don't think I am describing this well enough. I don't have the tools (or the old film) to quantify it properly.

I have a scene I am looking at from the deep woods.... all the leaves in the front are the same tone. This doesn't happen in real life. If you print fairly contrasty the affect is invisible, but if you try and reproduce the mist rising off a lake, you will likely fail.

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but there is a huge difference ini Tri-x from the 80's and today. They are hardly related... I can scan stuff from the earlier film and it just about prints itself, with a lot of quality. I have to work very hard with today's film...

Lenny

Lenny Eiger
29-May-2008, 14:50
Lenny, have you tried the Art(something) ADOX?
Freestyle claims that is an old formula film with thicker emulsion and more tonalities.
I am interested.
Oh wait !
Does it come only in 35 mm?

I think this is Efke 25, packaged as Adox. That is "I think" and not " I know". If anyone knows about a difference, I'd love to know... It does come in 35mm

I just ordered another box of each to try it out. Traveling to Foto3 in Colorado next week and hope to shoot myself silly on the way back...

Lenny

Kevin Crisp
29-May-2008, 14:56
Lenny: It did not interpret that as rude. I don't scan Tri-X so maybe the current version does scan differently.

Lenny Eiger
29-May-2008, 15:08
Lenny: It did not interpret that as rude. I don't scan Tri-X so maybe the current version does scan differently.

Kevin, thank you. I do tend to be opinionated, but only because I have torn my hair out on this issue, tried every film I could find and about 30 different developers, etc. I even invented a new mix that worked better on T-Grained film.

It is an important point that you bring up. Scanning and printing on wide format printers requires a different type of result. Different people will disagree on some of what this is, but most would agree that tight grain is a good thing, and that you can go a lot farther in developing highlights than you would for a negative you would print in the darkroom. You don't have to worry about blowing out the highlights - at least not as much.

There are some effects a darkroom print will mask, and some that a scan will do well with.

Lenny

Nicholas F. Jones
31-May-2008, 09:31
With the foregoing points in mind, it now occurs to me that the established packaging of enlarging *paper* might somehow have influenced this (to my mind) bizarre decision on Kodak's part.

The specific paper I have in mind is 20x24 vc fb, both warm and cool tone. Four of the five brands listed on the B&H website offer packages of 10 (as well as of 25 and 50). Both 8x10 film and 20x24 paper are at the top of the standard sizes used by shooters with standard LF view cameras and standard darkroom enlargers. (Yes, I know about ULF and that cut paper can be found at 30x40, etc.) The prices of a box of fifty 8x10 sheet film and of fifty 20x24 enlarging paper are roughly comparable.

But at least for this amateur, the two situations are entirely different. On most outings with my 8x10 veiw camera I shoot in multiples of 8 (half my holders) or 16 (all my holders). I know in advance that many of the developed negs will never be printed in finished form. Some are back-up dups; some experiments that don't work out; some marred by excessive movements, lack of DOF; etc. But in my darkroom I don't print a 20x24 unless I'm pretty darn sure I'm going to do something with it, e.g. hang it or mount it on foam board. So, while a package of only 10 sheets of 8x10 film makes little sense (esp. when no larger packages are available), a package of 20x24 enlarging paper makes a whole lot of sense.

If by any chance the powers-that-be at Kodak think that LF sheet film and enlarging paper are in any way comparable, then it's time for the differences to be made clear to them.

I'd like to see Kodak return to 25 sheet packages of 8x10 film (the box of "50" actually being two 25's that can be removed from the freezer and opened separately).

David Karp
31-May-2008, 09:56
. . . I am interested.
Oh wait !
Does it come only in 35 mm?

Domenico,

It comes in 4x5 sheets for sure. I was at Freestyle the other day and saw some boxes on the shelves where they have some sheet film, across from the counter in the back of the store.

vinny
1-Jun-2008, 06:42
Kodak becomes latest firm to increase prices.......... 20%
http://www.cnbc.com/id/24897325
Bummer. Let's here it for those boxes.

David Finch
4-Jun-2008, 16:44
Kodak can't prop up high-end film photography by coming up with newer and fancier T-Max emulsions. New stuff doesn't help. It's the old stuff we need.

I keep thinking about those old FSA photographers, Lange all the way down to guys fresh out of high school, who took used beat-up 4x5 Coronas, primitive uncoated lenses, and slow Kodak ortho film to take magnificently sharp and deep semi-candid pictures of migrant farmers. No light meters, no fill flash, no zone system (i.e., no custom developing at FSA labs).

Could pictures this good be shot today with anything Kodak or Ilford makes? Or even with the Adox/Efke silver-rich "art" emulsions? Maybe modern lenses are too good. Maybe it's in the printing. I really don't know. But we've clearly lost something over the years -- a sense of what we should be getting out of the most basic of materials, or when the materials should not be "improved."

John Kasaian
4-Jun-2008, 17:31
FWIW I think we're well supplied in basic materials. FP-4+, TXP, PL25. PL100 and Fomapan (to my knowlege) are excellent basic emulsions---nothing fancy (they leave that part up to the photographer ;)) Spend enough time with any of these to learn about exposure and developers that are sympatico and chances are your negatives will "sing" quite nicely.

None of those FSA guys ever had it so good. The tab and corn grain "Wunder Emulsions" like TMY and Delta are pretty fantastic considering what they are capable of but except for a time when I was "learning" the old TMY and I dutifully burned through several 25 sheet boxes of it I've never considered wholly committing to such high tech emulsions--I enjoy working with conventional stuff too much--- but TMY is great to have along when conditions require it.

CG
5-Jun-2008, 13:45
... It's the old stuff we need ... Could pictures this good be shot today with anything Kodak or Ilford makes? ... Maybe modern lenses are too good. Maybe it's in the printing. I really don't know. But we've clearly lost something over the years -- a sense of what we should be getting out of the most basic of materials, or when the materials should not be "improved."

Given that lots of old lenses are available, and old style film, there's no reason one cannot shoot in a vintage manner, whatever that might mean. But we have new sharp lenses and films too, and can do more with those, at least when clarity and sharpness are important.

A nostalgiac sense that all the good things are lost to the past does not give appropriate credit to our current options. About the only things I feel an acute loss from are the many printing papers now gone, and a few products like some of the IR films.

C

eric mac
5-Jun-2008, 14:03
My only complaint about the 25 sheet box is that it loads 12 1/2 holders. Kind of like the 10 pack of hot dogs and 12 pack of buns. (or is it the other way around?) :D

Eric

Robert Skeoch
6-Jun-2008, 16:23
I noticed the other day when looking at some of my recent work... it wasn't the film or cameras fault .... the shots just sucked.
All the modern gear and film doesn't help a bit if the shots are still boring.

-rob