Two New Kodak Films in 2021?

[ulrich.von.lich]

I miss Kodak HIE and really hope they can bring it back, even if temporarily (I just need to order another 100 rolls to live through a few more years). No problem to pay high price for it. The last rolls I bought were pretty expensive anyways.


I have used Efke IR820 Aura and Rollei IR400 but to be frank, they are nowhere near the HIE. It's hard to make digital infrared photos look like the HIE, too.



I had hoped Kodak Alaris could use Kickstarter or take pre-orders to make small batches of rare films with high price tags. Whether we like it or not, films are becoming niche products. But some demands (such as that for Kodak HIE) are simply not substituable. I think it makes perfect sense to produce a small batch of a certain film for people to stock up, then let it sleep for a few years, then run a small batch again.

 

[Kai-san]

I think the expression "to bring back" is slightly misleading. Due to all the chemicals that has been banned in the last years I think we are rather talking about an old film that has been "reformulated" to look like its predecessor.
As Kodak has reintroduced the Ektachrome and has four different C41 colour films in their assortment, the most plausible move would perhaps be to launch a B&W film. I was rather hoping they would "bring back" the Tri-X 320.........

 

[Doddle]

I too am hoping for a 1600 iso color neg stock. I shoot 250D, Pan F and HP5 so a fast C-41 film would cover all my bases.

 

[AFenvy]

I’m just happy to hear the news at all. A few years ago stocks were getting discontinued left and right - now we have Ektachrome back in all formats, ProImage 100 easily available in the US, and two more films coming soon from Kodak. Whatever they may or may not be, it is moving in the right direction.

 

[PKR]

Fingers crossed one of the films brought back is Plus-X. That would be awesome! I only have a few rolls left in my fridge, and it remains a favorite for an old school/1950s look.

My favorite b+w film for many years. I'd go off on jobs with bricks of PX and a few rolls of TX as a low light backup. I shot the stuff outdoors, and indoors with flash. D76 1:1, printed on Kodak Poly contrast RC for Repro, and Agfa FB DW paper for me.

I miss both the film and Agfa paper.

 

[TheMapleLeafForever]

I'm hoping for some sort of cheap consumer film.

 

[Ccoppola82]

I’m always curious why Kodak doesn’t spool 5222 in 35mm canisters for sale. They wouldn’t need remjet removal or anything. Just package and sell.

 

[maigo]

Two New Kodak Films in 2021?

I’m always curious why Kodak doesn’t spool 5222 in 35mm canisters for sale. They wouldn’t need remjet removal or anything. Just package and sell.

Probably because the majority of C41 shooters are dropping off film for machine developing.
Chemicals and in those machines would be ruined with remjet coating and, given the costs involved to replace chems and rolls, you cannot rely on shooters or lab tech to pay attention to the difference between the film types.
This would inevitably result in Kodak being blamed when of course it is not their fault or responsibility.

 

[Corran]

5222 is Double-X b&w film and has no remjet.

 

[dourbalistar]

I’m always curious why Kodak doesn’t spool 5222 in 35mm canisters for sale. They wouldn’t need remjet removal or anything. Just package and sell.

I get where you're going with this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. But on the other hand, of all the Kodak films that are not commercially available, I'd say that Double-X is within easiest reach for film enthusiasts. Get a bulk roll from somewhere like Film Photography Project and roll it yourself. Or, with a slightly higher barrier of entry (but perhaps at lower cost per roll) order a 400-foot roll directly from Kodak and spool it down yourself. If you can't be bothered, then CineStill or even FPP offers single rolls, albeit at a slight price premium.

I wouldn't complain if Kodak spooled 5222 for regular commercial sale, but if I had a choice, I'd rather they release something that isn't currently available at all. 😛

 

[Freakscene]

I’m always curious why Kodak doesn’t spool 5222 in 35mm canisters for sale. They wouldn’t need remjet removal or anything. Just package and sell.

5222 is made to lower qa/qc than still films and has holes and other imperfections. I imagine Kodak anticipate law suits from Sasquatch hunters etc who lose ‘the shot’.

Similarly, Kodak cares about colour accuracy and negative stability. ECN2 is not C41, whatever Cinestill says, and just removing the remjet from 500T does not turn it into a normal stills film.

Marty

 

[Corran]

I have shot about 300 feet of XX and have not seen a single issue. I have no idea why you would think Kodak's QC on any film, much less cinema film, would be lesser.

 

[Mackinaw]

I have shot about 300 feet of XX and have not seen a single issue. I have no idea why you would think Kodak's QC on any film, much less cinema film, would be lesser.

I've noticed the occasional blemish on the 5222-XX I got from FPP.

I'm guessing QA/QC is different is because the film is in motion and flaws are less noticeable at 24 fps.

Jim B.

 

[pschauss]

I have shot about 300 feet of XX and have not seen a single issue. I have no idea why you would think Kodak's QC on any film, much less cinema film, would be lesser.

I have been shooting Double-X for more than twelve years without seeing any problems. I buy it in four hundred foot rolls directly from Kodak.

 

[smiling gecko]

oooooh, mebbe verichrome pan in 120��

 

[charjohncarter]

oooooh, mebbe verichrome pan in 120��

I'll buy it: memories! And I can use it in my Brownie Hawkeye Flash.

 

[Freakscene]

I have shot about 300 feet of XX and have not seen a single issue. I have no idea why you would think Kodak's QC on any film, much less cinema film, would be lesser.

As pointed out, you can’t see blemishes at 24 fps.

I roll XX into 135 canisters for a club and a shop in Australia, and the blemish rate so far after about 25 400 foot cans is about 2-3 per 400 foot can, mostly small circular holes. I’ve never seen that in a Kodak still film.

A Kodak rep told me the qa/qc process is different and the accepted flaw rate is higher for motion films.

Marty

 

[David Hughes]

That will start an internet myth...


Regards, David

 

[Freakscene]

That will start an internet myth...

Tom A confirmed the same thing with the Canadian rep, and reported more spots etc here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=720029&postcount=5 : “The XX is a nice film - however one should remember that it is a movie stock, made for projection, thus surface blemishes are not as important as with a "still" film. Occasionally you will find gelatin specks in it. If you project it at 24fps no problem, but if you are printing from it - you have to spot or bleach the print.
It is by no means pervasive, but something that happens occasionally.”

Also remember that movie stock has different perforations - my Nikon F6 refuses to advance it, and my Nikon F3 with MD-4 shredded XX at the perforations and then jammed.

Marty

 

[Mooshoepork]

I have been shooting Double-X for more than twelve years without seeing any problems. I buy it in four hundred foot rolls directly from Kodak.

Same here. No issues