Kodachrome coming back next?

Why do people like Plus-X so much? It was such a poor excuse for a black and white film. All it did was make a lot of grey tones. Never liked it and no big loss that it's dead. Currently, there is no real substitute for a true infrared film. And don't tell me it won't have any demand. Look at the ridiculous lomo purple emulsion
 
Well, I highly doubt they are inventing their own E6 process so luckily you'll be able to go to other places for your processing/scanning/cutting needs. If they decided to bring back Kodachrome in it's original form, that would be a different story.
 
PLUS X.....Which version, Myth & Reality

PLUS X.....Which version, Myth & Reality

stompyq said:
Why do people like Plus-X so much? It was such a poor excuse for a black and white film. All it did was make a lot of grey tones. Never liked it and no big loss that it's dead. Currently, there is no real substitute for a true infrared film. And don't tell me it won't have any demand. Look at the ridiculous lomo purple emulsion
Click to expand...

When people talk about Plus X.....you have to ask which version. Kodak destroyed the original Plus X before I graduated high school..and then proceeded to keep making it worse as then raised the amount of base fog density. Everything Kodak from the late 60's forward was all about lower costs for Kodak. When you do that the quality goes to hell. So no I would not be a fan of a Plus X coming back from the grave when so many new BW films are in the market now and more coming back with much higher silver levels. The Grain on Plus X was also not something to wax romantic about either. So Im with you Plus X ......who cares.

Best regards, Laurance ( Professor Foto )
 
stompyq said:
Why do people like Plus-X so much? It was such a poor excuse for a black and white film. All it did was make a lot of grey tones. Never liked it and no big loss that it's dead. Currently, there is no real substitute for a true infrared film. And don't tell me it won't have any demand. Look at the ridiculous lomo purple emulsion
Click to expand...

Because it was an excellent film. Extraordinary tonal range. It had a very long shelf life, way past the advertised expiration. It printed beautifully. It scanned beautifully. It was very predictable, in shooting and developing with regard to lens filtration and use with various developers. It pushed very well if needed and pulled fine too. The grain was very fine and there isn't anything on the market to replace it. I bought 60 rolls of 35mm and 4 pro-packs of 120 from Adorama when it was announced Kodak stopped the production of this emulsion. I still have 6 rolls of the 35mm left to expose.
When I was a photographer in Iraq, almost all the black and white I exposed was Plus-X. That touches on another thing, the ISO. There are many cameras out there with max shutter speeds that are just too low to properly expose Tri-X, at least with any creative control of aperture and focus, in very bright light. Plus-X filled that niche. No, Tmax doesn't cut it, not for me at east. I hate tabular grain films as do many. I wish that I still had some 120 or 220 Plus-X for shooting in my Mamiya 6s. I hate using neutral density filters.
It also was a fantastic option from Kodak and for those of us who want to help keep Big Yellow afloat, we would buy it because of brand loyalty in addition to all the aforementioned traits.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Because it was an excellent film. Extraordinary tonal range. It had a very long shelf life, way past the advertised expiration. It printed beautifully. It scanned beautifully. It was very predictable, in shooting and developing with regard to lens filtration and use with various developers. It pushed very well if needed and pulled fine too. The grain was very fine and there isn't anything on the market to replace it.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
I bought as much as I could when it discontinued.
And wish I bought more.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Because it was an excellent film. Extraordinary tonal range. It had a very long shelf life, way past the advertised expiration. It printed beautifully. It scanned beautifully. It was very predictable, in shooting and developing with regard to lens filtration and use with various developers. It pushed very well if needed and pulled fine too. The grain was very fine and there isn't anything on the market to replace it. I bought 60 rolls of 35mm and 4 pro-packs of 120 from Adorama when it was announced Kodak stopped the production of this emulsion. I still have 6 rolls of the 35mm left to expose.
When I was a photographer in Iraq, almost all the black and white I exposed was Plus-X. That touches on another thing, the ISO. There are many cameras out there with max shutter speeds that are just too low to properly expose Tri-X, at least with any creative control of aperture and focus, in very bright light. Plus-X filled that niche. No, Tmax doesn't cut it, not for me at east. I hate tabular grain films as do many. I wish that I still had some 120 or 220 Plus-X for shooting in my Mamiya 6s. I hate using neutral density filters.
It also was a fantastic option from Kodak and for those of us who want to help keep Big Yellow afloat, we would buy it because of brand loyalty in addition to all the aforementioned traits.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

There's any amount of ISO 100 emulsions that are not T-grain and that will do all of what you stated BETTER than Plus-X. Even the dirt cheap Arista EDU films are better than Plus-X. I'm not even going to comment on the brand loyalty thing.
 
stompyq said:
There's any amount of ISO 100 emulsions that are not T-grain and that will do all of what you stated BETTER than Plus-X. Even the dirt cheap Arista EDU films are better than Plus-X. I'm not even going to comment on brand loyalty thing.
Click to expand...

Why can't we have a non-tabular grain slow film from Kodak, Pramod? You sound like you are getting upset about so many of us liking Plus-X. It was a good film. Kodak still doesn't have anything that hole. And this whole "can do it better" load of BS is just your particular eye. People have opinions. I'd say you're on the edge of trolling. Well, I'll throw my hat into that ring and say to you that maybe you just didn't expose or develop it right. :D
You should have used a contrast filter because without it, Plus-X is pretty flat.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Why can't we have a non-tabular grain slow film from Kodak, Pramod? You sound like you are getting upset about so many of us liking Plus-X. It was a good film. Kodak still doesn't have anything that hole. And this whole "can do it better" load of BS is just your particular eye. People have opinions. I'd say you're on the edge of trolling. Well, I'll throw my hat into that ring and say to you that maybe you just didn't expose or develop it right. :D
You should have used a contrast filter because without it, Plus-X is pretty flat.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Not upset Phil. Just a little bewildered about why people like it. As to not exposing and developing it right. I never tried it with Rodinal. Maybe that's what I was missing :D:D
 
stompyq said:
Why do people like Plus-X so much?
Click to expand...

Those people who are not old enough to have shot mostly Panatomic-X can be forgiven for thinking Plus-X was something special. I'd much, much rather have Panatomic-X back than Plus -X. Then again, I'd much, much, much rather be not so old that I had been able to shoot so much of both of them to come to that conclusion.
And, FWIW, speaking of the old, old days, the best user experience for Kodachrome, IMO, was when Kodak was the only option for processing Kodachrome. You bought the film, it came with the mailer. Period. Not expensive, and the processing was as controlled and ideal as possible. Then the government stepped in and outlawed the practice on restraint of trade grounds. Sigh.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Those people who are not old enough to have shot mostly Panatomic-X can be forgiven for thinking Plus-X was something special. I'd much, much rather have Panatomic-X back than Plus -X. Then again, I'd much, much, much rather be not so old that I had been able to shoot so much of both of them to come to that conclusion.
And, FWIW, speaking of the old, old days, the best user experience for Kodachrome, IMO, was when Kodak was the only option for processing Kodachrome. You bought the film, it came with the mailer. Period. Not expensive, and the processing was as controlled and ideal as possible. Then the government stepped in and outlawed the practice on restraint of trade grounds. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Now your talking. Pan-X was one hell of a good film!!
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Why can't we have a non-tabular grain slow film from Kodak, Pramod? You sound like you are getting upset about so many of us liking Plus-X...
Click to expand...

Because I can already order 5 different emulsions of it without leaving my chair? I think the main reason is that people would like to have more choice in different types of films. Not yet another film where there are already several worthwhile alternatives. How many b&w 100 iso distinct emultions are there around anyway?

That's also why Kodachrome (and then certainly the 200) would be interesting. Another E6 at 100 iso? Why split the market that is already small again? If I want that I have Provia or Velvia depending on what I want for colours and Ferrania maybe sometime in the future. Bringing out a 200 or 400 iso might attract people that need more speed. Bringing back real Kodachrome might bring people back that wanted the archive properties and tones (and ease of getting it processed).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom