Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Black and white film will be gone in no time now that the M9M is in the wings ... I have mine ordered! NOT! 
I actually shot a roll of Acros today and will try changing my processing a little ... I'm sure I'll get it right just as I get to the end of the 100ft roll!
I actually shot a roll of Acros today and will try changing my processing a little ... I'm sure I'll get it right just as I get to the end of the 100ft roll!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Fuji is abandoning film stocks at a pretty alarming pace, and they've been less than communicative about it when a film is nearing the end of production.
I do like Fuji products. I have ~140 rolls of ACROS in the 'fridge at home and the only camera that I picked up today was my X-Pro1.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I'll keep shooting Acros as long as they make it.
I love the tonality and look in general.
Its available in all the formats I shoot.
It looks wonderful in Rodinal (ie easy to use, cheap, etc).
If speed isn't a concern, its my go-to film.
I love the tonality and look in general.
Its available in all the formats I shoot.
It looks wonderful in Rodinal (ie easy to use, cheap, etc).
If speed isn't a concern, its my go-to film.
telenous
Well-known
Acros, TMax 100 and Delta 100 are similar in many ways but different in some other. (Here is a great thread from the archive on the technology of the films: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98686 . See in particular what member Freakscene says in the last post.)
In practice (and given the developers I use) I always found Delta 100 more conventional looking than either Acros or Tmax 100 which in turn looked 'creamier' and even less grainy. I don't know why that is, just stating my experience. My gut feeling is that you will find Tmax 100 closer to Acros than Delta 100.
.
znapper
Well-known
From the threads on flickr, my impression is that people end up with too much contrast where other films would be lower in contrast. (some ended up with Rodinal 1+200 stand to avoid too much contrast over there)
My trials with rollei 80s were in low contrast light, so my results were fine in tetenal ultrafin.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I'd place my bet that Tri-X will be around for a long time. Why would Kodak, or whatever it becomes, kill off the business that's actually profitable? That's right, Kodak makes money with film, and they've lost their shirt on digital and printers.
BobYIL
Well-known
To all posters so far: Thank you very much for your insightful commentaries. My gratitude to those who indulged to post some samples to enlighten us.
Those of us who dealt with Acros 100 in Rodinal (Fireboy, semilog, Nigel Meaby, Austerby,...) have probably noticed that, especially in Rodinal Acros delivers rather long silvery grays comparable to what we get with HP5+ in D-76 for example, however by being far sharper. This type of tonality I could not see with some other T-grain films and the reason was clarified after the post by telenous: it's classical cubic grain film!
The following site belongs to Mike Tinsley to demonstrate fine tonality achived with Acros + Rodinal; my favorite reference to compare my results against as all his 35mm photography demonstrates exemplary IQ:
http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=acros+35mm&w=9609365@N08
Those of us who dealt with Acros 100 in Rodinal (Fireboy, semilog, Nigel Meaby, Austerby,...) have probably noticed that, especially in Rodinal Acros delivers rather long silvery grays comparable to what we get with HP5+ in D-76 for example, however by being far sharper. This type of tonality I could not see with some other T-grain films and the reason was clarified after the post by telenous: it's classical cubic grain film!
The following site belongs to Mike Tinsley to demonstrate fine tonality achived with Acros + Rodinal; my favorite reference to compare my results against as all his 35mm photography demonstrates exemplary IQ:
http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=acros+35mm&w=9609365@N08
Aristophanes
Well-known
They've only been profitable as long as they've been cutting everything to do with film production. Kodak's analog problem is revenues cratering for film 2x faster than anticipated with no bottom in sight. Kodak has a severe revenue problem. Companies in decline can still be profitable even as their customers leave. Then the lights go out.
It's a myth that their film biz is profitable. If you read Kodak's AR's they shift costs away from the film production/distribution division (now split amongst 2 groups for less clarity) which they do not do for other groups. Their amortization of their capital and facility costs, for example, are not counted against the the film group, but are aggregated. It all meets GAAP, but most analysts see right through that stuff and the stock value reflected it. This is to make the film division more amenable to a spin-off or outright sale as part of the bankruptcy process.
Kodak's inkjet foray has been unprofitable but at least has seen revenue growth whereas film has gone down over 90% in 5 years. Their CREO-based commercial print systems have been in and out of profitability, but have a pretty good long-term outlook. With the pending elimination of MP projection stock, the economy-of-scale for film runs is precarious. You will not see revenue growth, just more decline until some natural bottom is met. Where that is is not known, but Kodak (and Fuji) have some idea, but they are not sharing for obvious reasons.
With Kodak we can see the demand curve ugliness; with Fuji, not so easily. There's a rumour elsewhere started in Japan that Fuji is cutting all their non-Instax instant film, for example (FP300B and others). It requires a dedicated production facility, was dependent on studio orders, and the supply demand mismatch has made it a no-go economically.
Whether the market for black and white films that are no longer lab-processed by and large can remain competitive is a big question mark. That's a lot of home developing demand to make up. IMO the OP's question and premise has some legitimacy.
BobYIL
Well-known
Aristophanes, maybe it's not as gloomy as we try to envision it. Perhaps they will find a feasible way to process the most popular film of today's photography under a "smaller roof" to work more efficiently. Many companies, especially in Germany photo industry have survived by downsizing. Trust me way back in the 60's the KB14 of Adox was a rare film, manufactured in small quantities only; the same story today too.. the same story with all orthochromatic films too. There was a thread initiated by me about the same issue of Kodak where the main message (also a most promising one) was like this:
'Ken Canham, of K.B. Canham Cameras, a small manufacturer of large-format cameras, has been working with Kodak to establish a special-order film service that allows individual photographers or groups of photographers to order custom sizes of any of the emulsions Kodak offers. The only requirement is a minimum purchase of roughly $14,000 worth of film, depending on the emulsion. Canham put together his first order for 8 x 10-inch T-Max 400 film 16 months ago, and since then he’s done more than $160,000 in custom Kodak film orders. “We’re on our way to do more than that this year,” Canham adds.'
What is $14K film to order if through any means some 100 persons come together? Even this forum can place a common order to share time to time. Tomorrow I'm going to place an order for 100 pcs of Acros 100.
I, frankly, am not pessimistic about the fate of B&W films anymore. Started with HP3 in the beginning of the 60s, saw HP3+, then HP4 then HP5 and finally HP5+ in the meantime Ilford kept on bobbing financially up and down all the time.. Today I buy HP5+ in most places I travel to. I also maintain my optimism for the Tri-X as well.. (How many small film manufacturers in Europe!!!)
We must accept one fact from now on: Film is not for masses anymore, it turned into a boutique product.. The real issue could be with Fuji films though.. as film for Fujifilm means not the same as it does to Kodak or Ilford.. They can stop production any time with a short notice..
'Ken Canham, of K.B. Canham Cameras, a small manufacturer of large-format cameras, has been working with Kodak to establish a special-order film service that allows individual photographers or groups of photographers to order custom sizes of any of the emulsions Kodak offers. The only requirement is a minimum purchase of roughly $14,000 worth of film, depending on the emulsion. Canham put together his first order for 8 x 10-inch T-Max 400 film 16 months ago, and since then he’s done more than $160,000 in custom Kodak film orders. “We’re on our way to do more than that this year,” Canham adds.'
What is $14K film to order if through any means some 100 persons come together? Even this forum can place a common order to share time to time. Tomorrow I'm going to place an order for 100 pcs of Acros 100.
I, frankly, am not pessimistic about the fate of B&W films anymore. Started with HP3 in the beginning of the 60s, saw HP3+, then HP4 then HP5 and finally HP5+ in the meantime Ilford kept on bobbing financially up and down all the time.. Today I buy HP5+ in most places I travel to. I also maintain my optimism for the Tri-X as well.. (How many small film manufacturers in Europe!!!)
We must accept one fact from now on: Film is not for masses anymore, it turned into a boutique product.. The real issue could be with Fuji films though.. as film for Fujifilm means not the same as it does to Kodak or Ilford.. They can stop production any time with a short notice..
filmfan
Well-known
I'm quite aware of that, Robert, and I sincerely hope you're right about Tri-X; my point was and is simply that in order for Kodak to continue to produce it, they must first continue to exist. That is not a proposition I would bet money on at this moment.
Regards,
Brett
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
@Filmfan...
It's one thing to say what your aesthetic preferences are. Quite another to tell others what theirs ought to be.
It's one thing to say what your aesthetic preferences are. Quite another to tell others what theirs ought to be.