Two New Kodak Films in 2021?

[Larry Cloetta]

Plus X was a fantastic film..so forgiving and gave great tonality in prints, it should be a regular standard in the world of B&W films that never should have went away.

I also have a soft spot for Panatomic X film...although it was a more specialised film than Plus X and not as broadband versatile but it did have that wonderful grain less tonality to it that was not equalled by other slow fine grained films . I shot a lot of it in the 1970s.

When Verichrome Pan, Plus-X and Panatomic-X were all available, I’d always walk past the others to grab a roll of the Panatomic-X.
My armamentarium was Panatomic-X, Tri-x, and Kodachrome 25. That covered everything, with enough difference in characteristics to make choosing one over the other for very distinct looks to make sense. To me, Verichrome Pan and Plus-x were good films, but were both “not quite Panatomic-x and not quite Tri-x” so I left them alone after a while. There is nothing today like Panatomic-X.

Most people here are not old enough to have used a lot of Panatomic-x, which is the only reason I can see for all the Plus-X love, über alles. I’d be on the Plus-x bandwagon as well if I had not used all the Panatomic-x I once used. Film preferences come down to “compared to what” (apologies to Les McCann and Eddie Harris.)

Anyway, kids today (!) are so convinced that ASA 25 films are unusable, that I am bound to be disappointed again. Probably going to be something along the lines of Ektachrome SS (Strangely Saturated).

 

[Corran]

That will start an internet myth...

Yep. I'm not buying it. Regardless of who said what. Which reminds me, I need to load the last bit of XX from my 400' roll into a 100' bulk loader...

 

[Rob-F]

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.

I haven't had a problem either. I buy mine online already respooled onto cassettes--not that it has anything to do with defects. I like the look of XX so much that it makes up for not having plus-X.

 

[David Hughes]

The point about internet myths is that they mutate into something worse every now and then. And there's no stopping them; look what happens when someone buys a secondhand camera on ebay and finds it's U/S... There may be millions about that are working OK but gradually they will all get tarnished by the faulty one. And it's no use then trying to talk sense because the damage will have been done.



Regards, David

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Smart money’s on Marty.

 

[loquax ludens]

I'll second Larry Cloetta's wish for a Panatomic-X revival. In 120 format especially.

Super-XX would be another extraordinary revival because of it's very long tonal scale. But it would require reformulation to eliminate the toxic heavy metals it contained (cadmium, mercury?). Probably wouldn't be the same.

HIE would be nice, too.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The QC of 5222 being "less rigorous" than still film is true. There is a reason it's cheaper, even over bulk 100ft rolls. That's because MP film is used on the order of a few ten thousand feet per feature. Using a 2-perf pulldown camera, it winds up being just about 4000 feet for a 1.5 hour feature. Using a 3-perf camera it's 6000 feet for the same amount of time. And no one goes straight from camera to print, so there's the, second, third camera, B-roll, reshoots. The cutting room takes it's pound of flesh as well. So in the end the production will be looking at using at least 15000 feet for a low budget film. One individual frame out of 118,080 doesn't need to be perfect as it does in a still image. Folks will say their images are perfectly fine, and that's great, but the fact of the matter is that MP stock simply does not need and therefore, does not receive the QC that the still films do.
Phil Forrest

 

[Ccoppola82]

The movie film QC issue makes sense, however that isn’t stopping cinestill from repackaging it and selling it for $14 a roll. It is the same thing right?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The movie film QC issue makes sense, however that isn’t stopping cinestill from repackaging it and selling it for $14 a roll. It is the same thing right?

Yup. As far as the color ECN2 emulsions, they are doing the end user the favor of removing the remjet so folks are paying for something, but I don't know why, personally. There are better emulsions available for still cameras. It would make sense if it were less expensive than garden variety color stock, but it's more expensive and receives less QC inspection than still film offerings. Just proves that no matter what, if something is far sale, someone will buy it.
Phil Forrest

 

[dourbalistar]

Yup. As far as the color ECN2 emulsions, they are doing the end user the favor of removing the remjet so folks are paying for something, but I don't know why, personally. There are better emulsions available for still cameras. It would make sense if it were less expensive than garden variety color stock, but it's more expensive and receives less QC inspection than still film offerings. Just proves that no matter what, if something is far sale, someone will buy it.
Phil Forrest

People want to try something different and unique, so I think that's a fair reason as to why. Cinestill is doing the end user a favor, too, by spooling down Double-X into individual cassettes. YMMV as to whether that "service" is worth $9.99 per roll. For someone who doesn't have bulk loading supplies and just wants to experiment with a different film, it might be worth it. People who already bulk load would probably save a lot more money by loading it themselves.

At least Cinestill is upfront about what their BWXX really is, unlike some other repackagers who slap a new label on film, obfuscate its true origin, market it as "new" or "exclusive", and then mark-up to premium prices for sale to unsuspecting consumers.

 

[Ambro51]

The real goal here is the reintroduction of Kodachrome 25. More b&w emulsions are a waste of resources. Rethink the K14 process, rebuild the processors, sell the film with a mailer.

 

[maartenmoerman]

I'm just hoping for 220 film 🙂

 

[newsgrunt]

I would love me some 120 TMZ or Panatomic X. For that matter, TMZ in sheet film would get lots of use.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

The real goal here is the reintroduction of Kodachrome 25. More b&w emulsions are a waste of resources. Rethink the K14 process, rebuild the processors, sell the film with a mailer.

The only reason to go with K25 would be for fine grain...which nowadays is beaten by all current E6 films. So, I think K64 would be a better option...you get the color and classic grain.

 

[xayraa33]

I wonder if Kodak reintroduces K25 with new chemistry...would the colours be as fade resistant as the old classic K25 ?

 

[Larry Cloetta]

The only reason to go with K25 would be for fine grain...which nowadays is beaten by all current E6 films. So, I think K64 would be a better option...you get the color and classic grain.

Others might chime in, but my experience with scads of rolls of both was that you didn’t get K25 color with K64. Which is why I always used K25, unless I needed a “fast” film for some reason. It wasn’t night and day, but I never felt like they were “the same”, or even all that close. The grain wasn’t the reason I used K25, not sure I ever gave that a second thought, it was the color.

At any rate, you can safely bet your life, and your home, on one thing: it’s not coming back; not unless film volume gets to be around 100 times what it is now. Kodachrome was Kodachrome because of the process, you are not going to get anything similar out of E6 by just trying to mimic the colors, or anything else that abandons the inherent process/ nature of the film. Kodachrome was the Saturn 5 rocket of the film world. Nobody’s doing either one of those ever again, too much infrastructure. We’re downsized now.

 

[Pál_K]

...
At any rate, you can safely bet your life, and your home, on one thing: it’s not coming back; not unless film volume gets to be around 100 times what it is now. Kodachrome was Kodachrome because of the process, you are not going to get anything similar out of E6 by just trying to mimic the colors, or anything else that abandons the inherent process/ nature of the film. Kodachrome was the Saturn 5 rocket of the film world. Nobody’s doing either one of those ever again, too much infrastructure. We’re downsized now.

You’re right, but the wistful Quixotic calls for its resurrection continue. The K-14 process, whereby the color-couplers are introduced into three B&W emulsion layers is very complex and would be expensive to reproduce today - not only the film structure, the, chemicals, but also the machinery. Still, there’s a chance: given enough demand, the Chinese would be able to replicate this and make a profit.

My only use of Kodachrome was in 8mm ciné rolls. Still - I liked it very much.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I loved Kodachrome dearly, especially its stability in adverse conditions. That said, I'm willing to give up the best color slide film ever made in return for not creating the pollution which K-14 resulted in.
Kodachrome is gone. It had its day, which was really 50+ years ago. Since the 1980s, Kodachrome's popularity has been waning and we all need to realize this. Bringing it back is not a goal for anyone, nor should it be. It would be the death knell of any corporation that choses to develop it, produce it, market it, process it. It's dead. Let it go.

Phil Forrest

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Kodak could call any new slide film Kodachrome. It could be an E-6 film.
If it has the look and image permanence that'd be good enough for me.

Chris

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Kodak could call any new slide film Kodachrome. It could be an E-6 film.
If it has the look and image permanence that'd be good enough for me.

Chris

True that. A name is just a name.

Phil Forrest