New Kodak Professional Film Product

[Corran]

Let's hope it's Panatomc-x, Plus-x and original Tri-x 400 from the 60's.

I doubt any of those, and don't see any reason for them. There's plenty of slow b&w film on the market, and I doubt Panatomic-X or Plus-X has significant reasons to exist in addition to T-Max 100, not to mention other non-Kodak films like FP4+. As for Tri-X 400, at this point the current emulsion has been on the market for decades. Changing it would piss off everyone who currently has things dialed in - unless you are suggesting an additional SKU, which would be insane, as it just competes with itself.

The only reasonable product to introduce (or re-introduce) is TMZ as has been hinted at, if we are talking about b&w. Someone mentioned a fast color neg - Portra 800 still exists doesn't it?

I just hope that if it is TMZ, the extend the production to 120, or man how about 4x5, that would be cool.

 

[x-ray]

I doubt any of those, and don't see any reason for them. There's plenty of slow b&w film on the market, and I doubt Panatomic-X or Plus-X has significant reasons to exist in addition to T-Max 100, not to mention other non-Kodak films like FP4+. As for Tri-X 400, at this point the current emulsion has been on the market for decades. Changing it would piss off everyone who currently has things dialed in - unless you are suggesting an additional SKU, which would be insane, as it just competes with itself.

The only reasonable product to introduce (or re-introduce) is TMZ as has been hinted at, if we are talking about b&w. Someone mentioned a fast color neg - Portra 800 still exists doesn't it?

I just hope that if it is TMZ, the extend the production to 120, or man how about 4x5, that would be cool.

Panatomic X has no equivalent today. Actually px and original TX have no equivalent. TMax is a different animal in every way.

The current TX came out in 2006 and is nothing like the original TX. Kodak had no problem bringing it out, pissing off those of us that had dialed the original in forty years ago. The new TX imo is a sorry excuse for the original.

 

[Corran]

Panatomic-X was discontinued when I was 2, so obviously I've never used it. Kodak apparently recommends TMX as a replacement. I am inclined to believe that improvements in films made it superfluous in the market with TMX, at least in terms of fine grain films.

Preferences aside, what is it about Panatomic, or PX or TX for that matter, do you think is "missing" in the current film offerings? And why should Kodak compete with itself for the small marketshare remaining in the category of slow, fine-grain films, when it comes to PX/Panatomic vs. TMX? You must admit that, at least in Kodak's portfolio, TMZ makes more sense to reintroduce.

I used a lot of PX a few years ago, in 35mm and 120, and have no qualms with it being dead and gone. TMX or FP4+ replaces it just fine. TMX might be a bit more finicky in terms of development but has higher resolution, while FP4+ has the same "classic" emulsion look.

 

[zuiko85]

Until it is in stock at B&H (I live in the film desert and have to mail order) it does not exist, whatever it is, and considering they announced Ektachrome rerelease over a year ago it my never exist.

 

[michaelwj]

TMZ is the obvious choice given all they've alluded to. But if it's at the price I think it will be, it will be as popular as the original TMZ, which was discontinued due to lack of sales.
The other possibility is a faster Porta? Or that other C41 film that is only in 100 at the moment...

 

[brbo]

I can't wait till Friday!!! That's just cruel.

Where are all the super connected RFF sources when you need them?!

(Oh, they only get to share bad "news" about Kodak)

 

[p.giannakis]

Well, it is good news but it would be even better if they manage to sort the problems with the medium format TMax and make their current range of products more easily available. I m struggling to find Tmax 400 and the few ones i have found have climbed to almost £7 a roll.

 

[brbo]

Well, it is good news but it would be even better if they manage to sort the problems with the medium format TMax and make their current range of products more easily available. I m struggling to find Tmax 400 and the few ones i have found have climbed to almost £7 a roll.

Maco has all the TMax films and it's cheaper than £7/roll.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I don't care what it is as long as they make Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[brbo]

I don't care what it is as long as it's a film that you can shoot in FF, MF or LF camera.

 

[sepiareverb]

I don’t care what it is.

 

[gnuyork]

if its plus-x I'll crap my pants.

HA! Me too (not really, but I so want Plus X back, almost as bad as Kodachrome).

 

[retinax]

Faaast b&w film would be sweet! Especially if that meant price pressure on Delta 3200.

 

[dallard]

I don’t care what it is.

What if it's a 1600 ISO film called "kodak neopan"?

 

[oldwino]

Ektar 400?

 

[css9450]

Kodachrome 25!

 

[bayernfan]

let's summarize here a bit:

Release Date: March 2018
It will NOT be: Ektachrome, Kodachrome or Aerochrome
It will be: a "fast" and "pushable" film.

this leads me to believe it will be a traditional B&W film with a speed of at least 400 and very good "push" characteristics.

 

[aizan]

putting my money down on tmax p3200.

 

[Leica All Day]

They are going to start sponsoring film photographers 🙂

 

[Mark Wood]

What about something that I assume ought to be easy for them to produce, Eastman 5222 Double-X in 35 35mm cassettes? There seems to be a cottage industry building up with people selling 100 ft lengths and cassettes and it's significantly different from any of Kodak's other, standard B&W films. No idea if there'd be enough demand for that. Like so many others, I'd love to see Panatomic-X return but presumably one of the main reasons for discontinuing it in the first place was lack of sales and that was well before digital took over.