Can you think of an example of a film being updated and being worse as a result?

[not_in_good_order]

I thought of this topic after shooting a few rolls of Kodak Gold 100. I have used two versions of this film. One has an edge code of 6 and the last rolls I had expired 4/09 (I have a couple frozen now). The newer rolls that I have purchased have an edge code of 7 and expire 2/10. The packaging is the same for each except that the newer box says, "New! Brighter Colors" on it.

The data sheets (E-15, E-7022) for the two films list a PGI for the older film of 45 and 42 for the newer film.

Based on what the box says and the data sheet, I would expect that the newer film may be a bit better, but after actually using the films, I think that Kodak made the film worse when they updated it.

The older film, to me, seems to render color in a more pleasing way. The slightly lower PGI of the new film doesn't seem to make the images seem any less grainy (they are both fairly grainy for 100 speed film anyway).

Though the differences are fairly subtle, there is something I just prefer about the older film's color rendition. Here are a couple of examples shot under fairly similar lighting:

The older, edge code 6, Kodak Gold 100










The newer, edge code 7, Kodak Gold 100

 

[Ronald M]

I don`t use consumer film, but later versions of the pro films from Kodak and Fuji scan so much better than old.

 

[Pablito]

The new Tri-X is a lot worse than the stuff from the 1990s. I think the big change came around 2002 or so when they moved Tri-X production to a different factory and changed the emulsion. I now prefer Ilford HP5+

 

[not_in_good_order]

The new Tri-X is a lot worse than the stuff from the 1990s. I think the big change came around 2002 or so when they moved Tri-X production to a different factory and changed the emulsion. I now prefer Ilford HP5+

With Tri-X, what do you think made the older film seem better?

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is a common response: ask any film manufacturer. Devotees of a particuar film, e.g. Tri-X, Delta 400, TMY, complain that it has been ruined. New users say, "Funny, it seems an awful lot better than the old version to me; I never could get on with the old version." An awful lot is down to what you are used to.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

When Kodak replaced Kodachrome II with Kodachrome 25 it was the end of the world.

 

[degruyl]

When Kodak replaced Kodachrome II with Kodachrome 25 it was the end of the world.

That also changed the process. Huge difference.

 

[smiling gecko]

...off topic

...off topic

...here i go off topic. 🙂

it's not about "new and improved" replacing "tried and true".

it regards the demise of verichrome pan in 120 in particular (i think it was also available in 35mm, and 4x5).

i look at prints i made from it in the '80's and 90's (and later) and swoon at the relatively fine grain and the beeeeeeautiful range of contrast they show. i look at old tear sheets and magazine pages from commercial work done then and they look so good - the images, not my photography.

i used verichrome pan almost exclusively, so i was doing my meager part to keep the guys in rochester busy 🙄 i guess plus-x and later, tmax 125 or ilford fp4 or ??? "sold better" and the rest was...progress.🙁

admittedly, i am not a very technically savvy photographer. with the help of other photographers i learned the the technique of combining slight (half stop,sometimes more) additonal exposure and slight (10-15%) decrease in development time - or was it the other way around (it's been a looooong time since i souped any verichrome pan. 😕

sorry to butt in with my rant and reminesent ramblings...

breathe, relax and enjoy.

happy trails,

kenneth

 

[Al Kaplan]

I really liked Kodak Royal-X Pan Recording, an acetate based recording (ultra high speed) film that could give you an easy 3200 in Acufine. It was replaced by 2475 Recording on a thin Estar (mylar) base which wouldn't always lie flat in the camera's film channel, and they increased the film's red sensitivity even more. When that was replaced by 2484 I just plain gave up on using Kodak's recording films for dim light photography.