Kodak to raise film prices by 15%

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is very easy to test by simply exposing a piece of film and processing it. Then you could measure the density. If the film has significantly less silver, I don't see how one could get acceptable contrast in a negative. (Not that I think this is the case.)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

This is untrue. the "silver content" myth has been floating around for years. Kodak switched production to a new facility about 4 years ago, using different coating machines. There was a minor effect on development times but the film in all other respects was unchanged.

 

Absolutely untrue. Tabular grain films have entirely different 'grain', significantly reciprocity limits and are, IMHO, too contrasty compared to good old Tri-X. And I hate how it wastes fixer. Besides I like the grain of Tri-X. Sharpness be damned.

.

[CalArts 99]

I think it was reported recently (about Tri-X) the formula had changed...such as less silver content recently. Some were reporting having to change their development times to accommodate. And the look was a little bit different.

 

fwiw, I know that they definitely changed the formula to Tri-X B+W motion picture film. I use 16mm single perf Tri-X on occasion.

 

"Kodak has changed the emulsion formulas to all their existing B+W stock. Tri-X is now product #7226. Tri-X #7278 is the previous stock. The new product is now more environmentally friendly."

 

Since it's used as a B+W reversal film, the bleach was an environmental concern. They used to use hexavalent chromium in the bleach process, and so that was changed to a different and safer bleach formula. But the new bleach didn't work on the old Tri-X emulsion formula, so that had to be changed, too.

 

The film is the same as Tri-X negative film except of course that instead of fixing right after development, the film is bleached to remove the negative image.

[pico]

This is very easy to test by simply exposing a piece of film and processing it. Then you could measure the density. If the film has significantly less silver, I don't see how one could get acceptable contrast in a negative. (Not that I think this is the case.)

 

Tabular film may not have less silver. The silver crystals are shaped differently with less variation or spaces between crystals, hence less latitude, more contrast. I hate the stuff.

.

[fotohuis]

Most Silver is in Efke films. The least Silver in Delta and Tmax films. The first company raised their prices last year for 10%.

 

Harman/Ilford did already 20%-30% and Kodak now 15% which will not cover their losses at all. Hopefully they can find a way out and if not their business will go for 70% to Harman/Ilford and Fuji. In E6 Fuji passed Kodak with their Velvia 50 and Provia 400X films. The pressure on E6 is very high so it maybe will not survive at all.

C41 will be around for a long time so is B&W, certainly for the smaller manufacturers like Foma, Efke, Rollei/Agfa Gevaert.

 

If you like a B&W film or not, it's own personal preference. I also not like Delta or Tmax but pictures can be great, independent what film is used.

[tobey bilek]

My second oil paint class is today. Paints costs $12 for the large tube, brushes and canvas are pretty cheap and not likely to go obsolete.

 

You would be suprised how a good grounding in photography will help painting.

 

You don`t need a fancy camera or a computer. Just pull out the paint and go.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Painting can be worse than photography.

 

There are many choices of pigments and materials out there and the prices can be astronomical, especially for the really good stuff. And there's a huge variety of good and bad brushes and substrates. And expensive brushes can wear out fairly rapidly (they reach a 'sweet spot' which sometimes doesn't last that long.)

 

It's really not a lot different than film/developers/paper. And you can buy cheap film (re-branded) just like you can buy cheap paints, too. But it can get just as detailed, expensive, and laborious.

[bull40]

Now I'm waiting for the "computer generated art is better than painting" post...

;-)

[Ruhayat]

Here in Kuala Lumpur film prices have already gone up significantly since the beginning of 2012, for both Kodak and Fuji. I hope this new announcement won't jack up the price even more.

[Guest Ornello]

Absolutely untrue. Tabular grain films have entirely different 'grain', significantly reciprocity limits and are, IMHO, too contrasty compared to good old Tri-X. And I hate how it wastes fixer. Besides I like the grain of Tri-X. Sharpness be damned.

.

 

No, not what I said. The conventional (non-T-grain) films were moved to a different coating facility around 2007(?). It did not involve any reformulating of the films, just a change in the manufacturing process. That did cause some minor changes in development times, but the characteristics of the film were unchanged.

 

T-Max films have been around since at least 1987; this was something else entirely.

 

As far as contrast of the T-Max films, you must realize that since they are fine-grained, they behave like slower films and have narrower development latitude. Small changes in development time yield bigger changes in contrast, compared to non-tabular grained films.

 

At no time has Kodak or any other company changed the 'amount' of silver in films simply for the sake of saving money (to re-engineer the film would be more expensive than it is worth!). I corresponded with Kodak about this several years ago. A certain amount of silver is required in the formulation of the film, and it cannot be changed willy-nilly. He did concede that over many decades, since Tri-X was introduced in 1954, due to changes in raw material sourcing, a more consistent product was being produced, and that some small efficiencies may have been attained, but this would be a by-product of improved manufacturing processes over 50 years. He told me that long ago, it was necessary to 'adjust' each batch to accommodate variations in the characteristics of raw materials, and that this was no longer (as) necessary as in the past. The more efficient manufacturing enables potential savings in all raw materials, not just silver, and he said the amount of silver saved would certainly not exceed 5% compared to 1954.

 

Health insurance costs are probably a bigger factor in the price of Kodak film than silver!

 

I do believe that Ilford modified their Galerie paper some years ago to reduce the amount of silver in it (by about 15%), because they found it possible to reduce it without changing its characteristics.

 

If you like Tri-X Pan, you should try Neopan 400. It's actually better-looking in my opinion.

 

Here's more:

 

The following questions were submitted to Kodak several years ago:

 

"1. I have read or heard in various sources that it is

common practice to manufacture developers at an

extra-strength state to withstand shelf storage for

extended period before sale to the consumer, so that

'normal' strength will be attained after a given

period.

 

In other words, according to this account, brand-new

product is supposed to be manufactured a little

stronger than normal or standard, so that after

sitting on the dealer's shelf for six months it will

still offer normal results.

 

Can you enlighten me on this matter?

 

2. No doubt Kodak has been asked this one before:

according to rumors circulated by various parties (of

which I am not a member), the 'silver content' of

various films and papers is supposed to have been

diminished by deliberate acts of Kodak to achieve

greater profitability over the past few decades.

Specifically, some have reported that films such as

Tri-X have been changed over the last 20 or 30 years

to contain less silver. I would like Kodak to comment

on this.

 

I am not referring to the new facility.

 

 

1. Regarding the B/W developer solution question --

That is not the way Kodak does it. I don't know about other

manufacturers. Although there are a wide variety of B/W developers,

some sold as powders, others as liquid concentrates, and there will be

some differences in keeping characteristics, I would say that a typical

product would show no measurable performance difference if kept under

proper conditions for at least 6 to 9 months. After a slightly longer

time, there might be a difference that would be measurable under

carefully controlled laboratory conditions, but not a difference likely

to be noticed in the normal use of the product. After two years or so,

the condition of a developer is likely to be dependent on the storage

conditions, and perhaps variables in handling that may have affected

the packaging material, etc. Some of the changes at this time are likely

to be noticeable in normal use of the product. After three to five years,

some products may be just fine, but as the elapsed time and keeping

condition variables mount up, the chances of poor results will

increase.

 

2. Regarding Kodak Tri-X products, there are three basic Tri-X

products that professional photographers might be involved with. I'm not sure

what other films might be included in your description of "films such

as Tri-X." A significant change in silver content of traditional B/W

films would be accompanied by a significant change in other characteristics:

tone reproduction, contrast, and granularity, for example. Consistency

of product has always been a prime goal in the manufacture of Tri-X

products, and, over the years, comparisons of Kodak products with other

manufacturers' products have shown Kodak to be consistently ahead of

other manufacturers in this regard. Any "breakthrough" in technology

that would allow a significant change in the silver content or image

structure would be better introduced to the public as a new product

than as a "secret" change to the Tri-X films. In fact, such a breakthrough

was introduced with the T-Max films. Although some people within the

company expected sales of Tri-X would tail off following the

introduction of the T-Max films and that the products would be

discontinued due to lack of sales, this has not happened.

 

The current "best practice" for manufacturing these products is to

control the characteristics of all the materials going into the

product, and to control all parts of the manufacturing process so that the

"standard" product formulation will produce product with consistent

characteristics every time. This has been found to work better than

the procedure used in past years, when the film formulation engineer had

the freedom to "tweak" a component slightly to compensate for apparent

changes in raw materials in order to make the resulting product closer

to established aims. So it is probably not true to say that a

particular Tri-X product has always had the exact same silver level for

the past 30 or 40 years. But based on my experience for the last 20 or

so, I doubt that there would be any variations greater than 5%, and

certainly no permanent, intentional level shift.

 

If you should have additional questions, please be sure to revisit our

site as we are continually adding information to enhance our support.

 

For immediate answers to commonly asked questions, please visit:

http://kodak.broaddaylight.com/kodakpro ... index.html

 

For product and technical information, service, support, and downloads:

http://www.kodak.com/go/professional

 

For information on ProPass Magazine:

http://www.kodak.com/go/propass

 

 

Regards,

 

Kodak Information and Technical Support

Kodak Professional

[thebarnman]

Now I have to ask. Is Tri-X T-Grain or not?

[bull40]

Tri-X and Plus-X (gone but not forgotten) are the old convential style. The T Max are the new t grain.

Cheers!

[thebarnman]

Tri-X and Plus-X (gone but not forgotten) are the old convential style. The T Max are the new t grain.

Cheers!

 

From Wikipedia...

"Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained. The new Tri-X requires appreciably shorter developing times than the old version."

 

So when you say gone, your talking about "before" it was re-engineered? I'm under the impression it's still available simply as a newer type "400TX."

[stunsworth]

So when you say gone, your talking about "before" it was re-engineered? I'm under the impression it's still available simply as a newer type "400TX."

 

I read it as John saying that Plus X had gone.

[SJP]

No, not what I said.<major snip>Kodak Professional

Ornello is gesperrt it seems, I thought this was a useful comment actually.

[bull40]

Yes, I meant that Plus X is gone. As I was posting that, I was concerned that I was less than clear. Apologies for any confusion...

[thebarnman]

Yes, I meant that Plus X is gone. As I was posting that, I was concerned that I was less than clear. Apologies for any confusion...

 

Ok, I do remember hearing about Plus X being gone. I'm glad TX400 is still around. Still, Plus X was the medium format B&W film we used in the studio. The owner still develops his own B&W film and has prints done in the dark room...including touching up the neg and print. He was very concerned and now has to test a different B&W film for development times (calibration for the studio.) A lot of work. I'm no longer interning with the studio (after 5.5 years of internship.) All that work and stress for one print (and there'd be many) got to me. The final B&W prints are really nice...nicer than a digital B&W print...still to me not worth all that extra work for the reasons why those B&W prints are made in the first place (to impress an agent.)

 

I kept saying agents don't care if the prints come from the darkroom...even with the different look and even if those do stand out a little more. The stress and extra time in the dark room still is not worth the few seconds an agent glances at a B&W print.