Why do you suppose Plus X and Double X didn't make the cut?

I don’t need any Kodak bw film at their ridiculously high prices.
I’m not a hipster bragging about emulsions and not printing.
I’m not film renecanse social media self-illusion part.
I just use bw film in bulks to be able to afford it.
Any Kodak bw film, bulk including is not priced for my income.
Harman is on the same greed pattern. They just kill their own market.
It is not priced anymore for average income and young people.
 
Well, now that Kodak has brought back Ektachrome, maybe they will bring back Plus-X. I'd like that. My supply is running low.
 
What Kodak should do is do enough in the first batch to allow for a better price point. Sell 10 million at 3.00 rather than 10,000 at 6.00.
 
I would love that PlusX and Verichrome Pan was back.

Using cameras with 1/200 and 1/300 sec. shutters, 100 - 125 ISO film is needed much of the time.

The catch is if Kodak could make it at a price point that would make it cheap enough to shoot. For me, it would need to be close to Fomapan 100 prices. If much more, it wouldn't be worth it. I don't know if they could do that now.

Steve W.
 
If Union Pacific can go to the bother of keeping two steam locomotives up and running, to preserve the history of steam railroading, could Kodak keep Plus-X and Verichrome Pan going, for a similar purpose with photography?
 
Rob-F said:
If Union Pacific can go to the bother of keeping two steam locomotives up and running, to preserve the history of steam railroading, could Kodak keep Plus-X and Verichrome Pan going, for a similar purpose with photography?
Click to expand...
No. The railroad moves things like food, cars, materials for what little industry we have left. Photography is not as necessary as a major part of infrastructure. It's way up at the very top of Maslow's Heirarchy of needs. Some would say that it is not necessary at all now that anyone with a phone and a touch of narcissism would like their name in the paper or online for free. And that's another thing, phones don't use film. Folks said the semi truck would kill the railroad but it didn't because it still provides a necessary service. Photography does no such thing.
Phil Forrest
 
My take is Kodak was in a spot and had to make some cuts, since they have T Max 100, Plus X got cut. Maybe timing as well if they had to make a new master roll.
 
Yeah that was my impression when they announced Plus-X getting discontinued, it seemed like they made the move to the one building a big deal and I think they just did one master of Plus-x to prove they could and then when that ran low called it for not being in the next run of master rolls. Its pretty obvious that Kodak could make a Plus-X version emulsion right alongside any run of Tri-X and TMax anytime they wanted to but its again obvious they won't without some expectation of Making Money. Again to be obvious so when the brains at Kodak that actually know their own market for selling the products they make decide to Pay Attention I'll state the obvious. 1 million rolls at 3.00 makes more than 10,000 rolls at 6.00. Film shooters in particular novice and enthusiastic enthusiasts need lower price point quality film in higher quantity so they can do 2-3 rolls per week instead of 2-3 rolls per month.

If Kodak sold 20 rolls of Tri-X in a pro-Pak for 40.00 at B&H and Adorama I am certain RForum readers would snatch that deal in a New York Minute.
 
That's why I buy 800 feet of EK5222 at a time. It comes out to under $3 USD per roll of 36 exposures. It's the only way I shoot anymore. Once in a while I'll get a roll of Tri-X but these days that's the cost of more than two 5222 rolls. I love that emulsion at this point. It's amazing for stills and I'm learning it in 16mm as well. I did just score a perfectly fine pre-WWII Eyemo 35mm motion picture camera but it is going to hurt. Feeding that thing in 100ft lengths is going to get me 1:40 (min:sec) and it will cost about $45 for that footage if I use a fresh film. I'm gonna be making some gritty films of my favorite Philly cemetery and other curiosities around town in 16mm. And our garden. And our cats...
Phil Forrest
 
Noserider said:
1 million rolls at 3.00 makes more than 10,000 rolls at 6.00. Film shooters in particular novice and enthusiastic enthusiasts need lower price point quality film in higher quantity so they can do 2-3 rolls per week instead of 2-3 rolls per month.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are so stupid. Instead of producing 1 billion rolls at $2, they are doing 10 millions at $6.

:rolleyes:
 
brbo said:
Yes, they are so stupid. Instead of producing 1 billion rolls at $2, they are doing 10 millions at $6.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But, brbo, if it's Plus-X we are talking about, they are not doing any rolls, at any price. That's what the matter is.
 
And as evidenced by the cost and availability of EK5222 it is possible to produce a Plus-X emulsion for the price point I suggested. So yes, I call stupid on brbo snark.
 
Noserider said:
And as evidenced by the cost and availability of EK5222 it is possible to produce a Plus-X emulsion for the price point I suggested. So yes, I call stupid on brbo snark.
Click to expand...
The only reason that stock is offered at that low price is that 5222/7222 and 7666 are used by university film programs so they intentionally keep the cost low for students. The price I mentioned was with my student discount. The large volume educational discount to the schools themselves is probably negotiated even lower. All the R&D on those emulsions was done decades ago and they have paid for themselves many times over. To reformulate Plus-X would be a whole new process, just like they did with Ektachrome, and it may take another three years to actually see shelves. This is all on speculation of a product that competes with Kodak's other slow black and white emulsion Tmax 100. There really isn't a big enough market for a slow black and white emulsion, in spite of what a bunch of people on still photo forums say. Unless Kodak feels the demand, they aren't going to make any more than they already do. They've been in enough trouble as it is this last decade.
So no, they can't offer it for that price and not see a loss.
Phil Forrest
 
I totally Disagree. They could offer it at the price and not see a loss. There is a market for a high quality slow film at an inexpensive price point. Your thinking is exactly why everyone with a lens on a box said film was dead in 2003 and Ektachrome and TMZ3200 would never be made again in 2012. Again, if Plus-X was sold in 20 roll packs for 40.00 you'd buy at least 2 packs a year and I'll bet that other RFForum members would buy twice that a year.
 
TMZ was not competing with another product that Kodak already produces, same with Ektachrome.

The problem with this point of view is that it doesn't take into account all the financial woes, burdens and obligations that Kodak has. They have to answer to shareholders, angry ones these days. Kodak is a for profit business, not a utility, not a charity. I would love if they rereleased Plus-X, it was my favorite black and white film. I have three rolls left.

In all reality, Kodak can't offer what you want or what we want because the motion picture industry has largely pulled away from film use and as long as good digital capture and projection is available, that isn't coming back. Plus-X was always a motion picture stock and when they repackaged it, that was the end of the movie film, the last master roll was the last gasp of Plus-X.

I'll burn through the equivalent of 33 rolls of 35mm film in 4 minutes and 12 seconds a few times a week, so don't tell me that still photographers shoot more than motion picture shooters. Yes, there are more still shooters but one feature length motion picture will use more film than all the still photographers in the world combined on any recent day. Add distribution prints and the math isn't hard to do to see where the film market has gone.
Phil Forrest
 
I load 5222 XX directly from the 400' movie spool, using the "TomA" method, which is,
in the dark, pull off an "arms length" strip of film, and roll it up, is a cassette that "caps up". Scissors go in the back pocket so not lost in the dark. Cut off strips of masking tape to spool the film just as with factory stock.

Fresh XX Cine stock about $3-$4 a roll for 36 exposures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom