Ilford's 3-for-9.99$ seemed like a fire-sale to me. I personally understood that they had to clear the stocks before they'd go out of (stamped) date, which would have been catastrophic for them.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Yes seriously.
If the recent past is any indication this means Fuji plans to cease production. They did the same thing Neopan SS, first it was discontinued in one length, then another - and then not really much of a surprise, no more SS.
zauhar
Mentor
If Ilford (or whoever) is dumping film cheap to Freestyle, and it ends up hurting them, then perhaps they need to make a smart business decision and not do that anymore.
I recently bought 100 rolls of Arista Premium. If that hurts Kodak in some way I am sorry, but I am not the nitwit at Kodak who made the decision to dump the film in the first place!
Randy
I recently bought 100 rolls of Arista Premium. If that hurts Kodak in some way I am sorry, but I am not the nitwit at Kodak who made the decision to dump the film in the first place!
Randy
HHPhoto
Well-known
Have never had this with Tri-X.
Maybe Kodak sold a batch which had not passed the strong Kodak QC to Freestyle.
Well, at least Fujifilm
- has recently said (by their CEO) that they remain committed to film, because it "is in their genes"
- is still producing lower sales volume / niche products like reversal film, instant pack film, Superia 1600, X-Tra 400 120
- has introduced two new 120 cameras in the last years
- has introduced new Instax film cameras and increasing their marketing for Instax worldwide
- has introduced new RA-4 materials.
Of course their PR and general film marketing is a catastrophe and a real shame for an international company with such excellent products and such history.
They indeed should do much much better in this respect.
Kodak on the other side has stopped almost all besides some high volume film products.
As for Adox:
Don't expect too much from them: Their owner had often explained in his own German forum that they can only be a kind of replacement for Fotokemika, nothing more.
Even if all will go perfectly there then they could be there in about 5 years. That would be the best case, with lot's of luck.
He has always said that Adox will never be a company that could replace Ilford, Kodak or Fuji.
Cheers, Jan
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Something happened to it along the way, again nobody can eliminate every possible problem every time. Anecdotal incident.
I've had quite a few exchanges with Mirko, and yes it is a gamble. But he is taking the chance and if it works, and it seems like his model has a good chance of working, we will benefit. His products are top notch, and I am buying them. It seems that there isn't a market for any Fuji or Kodak scale analog company anymore.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Currently we still have three huge film manufacturers: Fujifilm, Kodak and Agfa-Gevaert.
Probably the market will not be big enough in the future for all three.
Let's hope it will be big enough for one or two (+ the smaller ones like Ilford, Adox, Foma).
But much better than hoping is
shooting film !
The more, the better for us all! It is in our hands!!
And best is shooting all types of film:
- color reversal
- color negative
- BW reversal
- BW negative
- instant film.
The variety of film types is one of film's big strengths. But we can only keep this alive by using it all.
Cheers, Jan
BTW, in addition to shooting film on a regular basis, spreading the word and getting other photographers interested in using film is something we can and should do, too.
The perfect photography world would be where we could use both film and digital. But to have the option to choose film it has to be there. And it only will be there if photographers (= we) demand it.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Every day. I teach film only / darkroom only photo classes and have hooked many on B&W film. I shoot B&W film nearly every day, most often several rolls a day. Try as I might tho color film has lost to digital for most everyone I show it to, myself included.
I was the last person I know personally who was C-printing.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
The way I see the subject: maco/Rollei had their own specs for 400 Iso and 100iso traditional film with acetate base. They were fed up with Efke & Foma, so they turned to Harmann .( edited !) HARMANN produced for Maco several HUGE master rolls of each emulsion. maco cuts & packages ( cassettes/ backing paper + plastic cases) their own stuff, pull out of ice, so the date will be the date when it is cut and packaged. I guess Freestyle has gone the same route, have it stored, cut & packaged by someone - just check if the cassettes & packaging is the same as maco and also Adox... then it is in Europe.
Both the maco Rollei RPX 400 and RPX 100 are great stuff. If Freeesyle is supplying you yankeeboys with same stuff, you can say goodbye to TRI-X... Too expensive stuff and too many middlemen with that "Great yellow father stuff"
I edited this as I mixed by mistake harmann and kentmere being the same.
kentmere is just a brand, not a producer.
Both the maco Rollei RPX 400 and RPX 100 are great stuff. If Freeesyle is supplying you yankeeboys with same stuff, you can say goodbye to TRI-X... Too expensive stuff and too many middlemen with that "Great yellow father stuff"
I edited this as I mixed by mistake harmann and kentmere being the same.
kentmere is just a brand, not a producer.
Bill Clark
Mentor
Agree.
Just got a gent to take all of my color film stuff. Whew!
For film it's only black & white now.
Bill Clark
Mentor
Check this out as I believe it's Tri-X.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/192364-Arista-Premium-BandW-400-ISO-35mm-x-36-exp.?cat_id=402
Or here:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/192244-Arista-Premium-BandW-400-ISO-35mm-x-24-exp.?cat_id=402
HHPhoto
Well-known
Hi Jukka,
that is not correct. Rollei RPX 100 and 400 are indeed produced by Harman technologies (IlfordPhoto) for Maco, but it is not the Kentmere 100 and 400, it is a different emulsion.
Harman does not deliver their Ilford and Kentmere products to other companies for their house brands.
The products Harman is producing for others are different.
Cheers, Jan
axiom
Non-Registered User
Cared to explain why?
I am asking because I'd like to know more (ie. I am not trying to be sarcastic).
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dunno about Bill, but for colour, digital is basically like going straight to a scan -- which is where my colour always went for publication -- and digital colour printing is vastly easier than wet colour. Yes, I like Cibachromes, but they're hard work and expensive, and I've always leaned towards the view that content and composition are what make a good picture. A REALLY good picture can survive almost anything, and (as with cameras) print quality takes us back to the 'quality plateau': where any further increase in technical quality is irrelevant as compared with an increase in the skill of the photographer.
Even my wife, a film diehard and darkroom addict, says she can imagine no circumstances in which she would go back to wet printing for colour.
Cheers,
R.
axiom
Non-Registered User
Thanks for the response Roger.
A lot of your reasoning of not shooting colour film is because of its challenges in printing. Other than your belief of composition/content being sufficient for a good picture, is there any intrinsic reason of why colour film is inferior to digital? What if one doesn't do any wet prints for either BW and colour anyway?
Or is there a quantitative measure on why BW film is superior say over digital BW?
One big distinction between BW and colour film to me is that you can often get colour film for cheap in a drugstore (0.8c euro per roll in Rossmann), and BW always appears professional and exotic hence costs considerably more. For the cost of a BW roll, one could get buy a colour roll and have it developed, so economically it appears a good deal.
[email protected]
Mentor
hi,
just noticed on the freestyle website,
Arista EDU films, 100, 400, and 100 feet
are going with "instant rebates".
Clearing out stock perhaps ?
raytoei
just noticed on the freestyle website,
Arista EDU films, 100, 400, and 100 feet
are going with "instant rebates".
Clearing out stock perhaps ?
raytoei
HHPhoto
Well-known
Excellent! Keep on going.
I am teaching, too.
The opposite here with me.
The more accurate and natural color rendition of film, especially the difficult mid-tones and so important tones like skin-tones, has been one reason for me returning back to film (from digital).
The difference is not huge, but for me (and lots of my friends) it is visible.
Another factor: With film I can get the colors right 'just in the camera' (film is doing this job for me), no need for post-processing ,which is necessary with RAW format (I've been never satiesfied with JPEGs).
Makes shooting color film easier.
Color film has an important physical advantage compared to a sensor with Bayer-Matrix: All three main colors (R-G-B) are captured at 100% with film, because film has layers (indeed several for each color; see the cross-sections at "Making Kodak Film by R. Shanebrook) for each color.
With a Bayer -Sensor the color-filters have to be divided, only 25% for blue and red, and 50% for green.
And so far I have not seen a sensor which really can match the dynamic range of color negative film.
And the smoothness of color tones in the highlight areas is better with film.
And with color reversal film you have an unsurpassed color brilliance. Slides are a league of its own, a completely unique medium in the photographic universe.
Slide projection is delivering by far the best image quality for big enlargements. Digital cannot compete at all here, because of the extremely low resolution of the beamers and their limited color rendition.
My young students are always hooked at once when they see their slides projected at first time. They grow up in the digital age and have only seen the crappy quality of their camera screens and computer monitors and beamers.
And then they see what is possible with film in projection, in color and BW (BW slide are also awesome in projection). They see a complete new world opening for them and their photography.
And.... for a photography teacher it is a real joy to look at all the happy and astonished faces of your students
.Reversal film, both color and BW, is by the way one of the best learning tools for photo students:
With reversal film in the camera you just have to do it right before pressing the shutter:
- composition has to be right
- exposure has to be right.
With a slide you create a finished image in the moment of the shutter click. No possibility of different framing or post-processing / "enhancing" afterwards (hybrid workflow excluded; looking only at the real slide on the lighttable and in projection).
With shooting slides you have think before pressing the shutter, you have to be precise and you have to know what to do.
That is one of the strenghts of this film type.
And that makes it one of the strongest and best learning tools in photography.
I've followed one of the best current photography teachers / photo professors in this regard, H. Mante.
And can confirm his concept. I have the best experiences with teaching photography by using color and BW reversal film (not exclusively using slide film, but using it quite a lot in addition to negative film and printing).
I can highly recommend using slide film as a powerful learning tool.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
Well, I am not Roger, but perhaps I can help you.
Color printing from color negative in the wet darkroom is not as difficult as some people claim. You need some practice in filtering, that is the main factor. In all other respects it is even a lot easier than color printing with inkjet and BW film printing.
For filtering some very helpful tools are available.
You have just to do a little training.Then when you have learned it, it is easy.
Traditional printing with a color enlarger is also unsurpassed concerning resolution, if you use an APO enlarging lens. We've tested that several times, lot's of other experts in Europe have tested that, too.
We all got the same results:
Traditional enlarging with APO enlarging lenses (both in color and in BW printing) is surpassing the best drum scanners significantly concerning detail resolution!
The hybrid workflow creates a significant loss in detail. It's on the film, but not resolved by the drum scanner.
Classic optical printing is better in this respect.
No.
See my posting above. Critical colors like skin tones are more precisely recorded by film.
Higher dynamic range is another advantage.
And you can get excellent results without intensive post-processing.
Slide projection: Unsurpassed in image quality for big enlargements. Highest resolution and best color and tone reproduction, both in color and BW.
And that at extremely low costs. A 1,5m x 1m picture cost you less than a buck in slide projection.
More than 100 bucks as a print.
Most people just like the look of film BW more than the look of digital BW.
And lots of photographers also like the (to my mind: more natural) look of color film more than the look of digital color.
Cheers, Jan
Color printing from color negative in the wet darkroom is not as difficult as some people claim. You need some practice in filtering, that is the main factor. In all other respects it is even a lot easier than color printing with inkjet and BW film printing.
For filtering some very helpful tools are available.
You have just to do a little training.Then when you have learned it, it is easy.
Traditional printing with a color enlarger is also unsurpassed concerning resolution, if you use an APO enlarging lens. We've tested that several times, lot's of other experts in Europe have tested that, too.
We all got the same results:
Traditional enlarging with APO enlarging lenses (both in color and in BW printing) is surpassing the best drum scanners significantly concerning detail resolution!
The hybrid workflow creates a significant loss in detail. It's on the film, but not resolved by the drum scanner.
Classic optical printing is better in this respect.
No.
See my posting above. Critical colors like skin tones are more precisely recorded by film.
Higher dynamic range is another advantage.
And you can get excellent results without intensive post-processing.
Slide projection: Unsurpassed in image quality for big enlargements. Highest resolution and best color and tone reproduction, both in color and BW.
And that at extremely low costs. A 1,5m x 1m picture cost you less than a buck in slide projection.
More than 100 bucks as a print.
Most people just like the look of film BW more than the look of digital BW.
And lots of photographers also like the (to my mind: more natural) look of color film more than the look of digital color.
Cheers, Jan
axiom
Non-Registered User
Thanks for the answer Jan,
Nonetheless, this look preference isn't quantitative.
It is reassuring to hear that there is nothing intrinsic about colour film being inferior (as it could have been hinted by Bill's post).
Slide projection is inconvenient (imagine wanting to look at the picture every time you dine), and it is expensive compared to 8cent euro a roll of colour film with 2-3euro of processing. I wouldn't consider mounting my slides anymore. Plus, it is now nearly impossible to get medium format slides mounted.
I agree that film offers more natural look to most of us, however that could be because we grew up with film and have gotten accustomed to pictures coming from film throughout our aging process. For the new generation, their opinion may differ.
Nonetheless, this look preference isn't quantitative.
HHPhoto
Well-known
You are welcome.
But I have to completely disagree with your statements about slides:
Then you should be consequent and stop eating.
Or don't you prepare the table for lunch?
Installing my screen and my projector takes less time than preparing the table for lunch.
And booting my computer for viewing digital files is only 1 or 2 minutes less compared to the projection option. These two minutes doesn't matter.
And if I just want a quick look slides are the most convenient of all photographic mediums:
Just hold them up to the light! or put them on a light box, with or without a slide loupe. You have a finished picture with a slide, no further transition steps are needed.
Impossible with digital files, or color negatives. They need more work to be viewed in the end.
One of the many reasons slide film has been the preferred choice by professional photographers for decades has been this easy and quick viewing with slides.
Sorry, apples and oranges. With 9 Cent prints from Rossmann you have a relative low quality end result.
With the developed slide film you have highest quality.
And the developing costs for slide film at Rossman are 2,55€ both for negative and slide film.
I always recommend to do it by yourself: You then mount only your keepers, have much lower costs and you can choose the best mounts available on the market.
All professional labs do offer it in Germany.
Cheers, Jan
But I have to completely disagree with your statements about slides:
Then you should be consequent and stop eating
.Or don't you prepare the table for lunch?
Installing my screen and my projector takes less time than preparing the table for lunch.
And booting my computer for viewing digital files is only 1 or 2 minutes less compared to the projection option. These two minutes doesn't matter.
And if I just want a quick look slides are the most convenient of all photographic mediums:
Just hold them up to the light! or put them on a light box, with or without a slide loupe. You have a finished picture with a slide, no further transition steps are needed.
Impossible with digital files, or color negatives. They need more work to be viewed in the end.
One of the many reasons slide film has been the preferred choice by professional photographers for decades has been this easy and quick viewing with slides.
Sorry, apples and oranges. With 9 Cent prints from Rossmann you have a relative low quality end result.
With the developed slide film you have highest quality.
And the developing costs for slide film at Rossman are 2,55€ both for negative and slide film.
I always recommend to do it by yourself: You then mount only your keepers, have much lower costs and you can choose the best mounts available on the market.
All professional labs do offer it in Germany.
Cheers, Jan
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Highlight: absolutely none. But nor, I believe, is it inferior.
Digital B+W is another matter. The best digital B+W is very good: as good as good silver halide B+W. But it looks different and I prefer the look of a wet B+W print.
A lot depends on why/how you're shooting. For exhibition, colour digi & B+W film are easy winners for me. For publication, the case for B+W printing is less strong: depending on the subject/medium, digi may be OK.
Cheers,
r.