New Freestyle Premium film ID?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by craigclu, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. craigclu

    craigclu Guest

    Has anyone tried this yet? There has been conjecture that it is
    Tri-X, re-spooled by Freestyle. I'm about due for some freezer
    filling on a group bulk order and was hoping to confirm the
    information.
     
    craigclu, Aug 10, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. One thing that most people don't understand is that the expiration
    date is not a hard and fast thing. That's why food is often marked
    "best if used by", not "destroy without opening".

    Color film shifts with age, high speed film is fogged by cosmic rays,
    but lower speed black and white film ages gracefully. If Kodak for
    example had a large roll of uncut Tri-X in it's cave that reached it's
    expiration date, there would be nothing wrong with cutting it into
    35mm rolls and selling it to someone else. Or selling it uncut.

    As long as they did not dilute their brand name, it's "cheap money".

    In that case it would have to be sold as "similar to the yellow box
    400 speed film" and have a different imprint. As long as they did not
    say it was Tri-X, there would be nothing wrong with it.

    For example, if I were a billionare (which there is little chance
    of that ever happening), I would buy a production run of Panatomic-X.
    Kodak would gladly make it for me, and I'm sure I could sell hundreds
    of rolls of it. Too bad I'd have to sell a lot more to break even.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Aug 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. They WERE trying to make a better film. They succeeded. Kodak Ektar 25,
    was IMHO the best color negative film ever made.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Aug 11, 2008
    #3
  4. I'll second that. It's a crime that it isn't still available.

    --
    Charles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson)

    "The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers,
    treehuggers, social climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies,
    and chronic petition signers that makes up the current
    Episcopal Church . . ." -‹Thomas Lipscomb
     
    Charles Hohenstein, Aug 11, 2008
    #4
  5. Not enough users bought enough of it.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Aug 11, 2008
    #5
  6. I thought they did make a better B&W T-Grain film. It TMax films are both
    sharper, finer-grained, and have a straighter D/H curve than any I have ever
    used in sheet sizes, anyway.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Aug 12, 2008
    #6
  7. No, the toe of longer toe films compresses the shadows, and the shoulder (if
    present) in other films compresses the highlights. The only film I ever used
    that had a shoulder in the highlights (in the useful range) was Panatomic-X.

    With a very short toe, you do have to be careful not to underexpose because
    if you do, you get nothing.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Aug 12, 2008
    #7
  8. I have no interest in beating you up.

    You can do as you say, but I found, with 4147 Plus-X and 4164 Tri-X that you
    had to slide exposures so far up the curve to get acceptable (for me) shadow
    contrast, that I was using EI of 20 and 80, respectively, for those films.

    With TMax film, I can use an EI of 50 and 200. If I test those films, they
    are as it says on the box (100 and 400), but I get better prints if Zone V
    is at about 0.9 density when developed to normal contrast and to get that
    requires a little more exposure. If I used those old films (as I did in the
    past), the exposure times got ridiculous.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Aug 12, 2008
    #8
  9. http://tinyurl.com/5mpes8

    Craig Schroeder
    craig nospam craigschroeder com
     
    Craig Schroeder, Aug 13, 2008
    #9
  10. craigclu

    LGLA Guest


    I suspect that film (Arista II is it?) is Tri-X type 1... for the emerging of
    type II the new stuff. Kodak must have dumped their good stock for
    cheap. $1.89 a roll. Tried a roll of the new stuff and have yet to scan
    it, but when I saw the ad as endorsed by the great John Sexton, I had to
    try it.
     
    LGLA, Aug 18, 2008
    #10
  11. I guess it depends just how late in the manufacturing process Kodak
    edge-prints the film...
     
    Thor Lancelot Simon, Aug 18, 2008
    #11
  12. Since they leave the film in large (both wide and long) rolls in cold
    storage (litteraly a cave, but I think it's really an old mine), and
    cut it only when they are about to spool it, pretty late. It makes no
    sense to edge print it before it's being spooled as there is no way to
    know what to print, or where.

    Just as an off the wall thought, didn't Kodak sell their entire factory,
    except for the building itself to Lucky in China? I thought it was taken
    apart and moved east, similar in process to what the Soviet Union did
    to Germany in 1945.

    According to what Kodak said, the change from the "old" to "new" Tri-X
    was that production was moved from the old equipment to the same production
    line that produces their color film.

    Could this be the same Kodak Tri-X formula, made on the same Kodak
    production line, in China by Lucky? If they are willing to maintain the
    same quality control that Kodak did, it would be IMHO a pretty good product.

    Now all we have to do is convince them to make some Panatomic-X. :)

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Aug 18, 2008
    #12
  13. craigclu

    jch Guest

    _____
    I surely agree with that last comment. I really liked Panatomic-X. It
    made very good B&W slides as well. Would buy a batch of 100 rolls to
    start with. Wonder what would be involved for Kodak to swing a Tri-X
    line around to make a run of Panatomic-X? Is it just the emulsion, or
    the emulsion /and/ the base?

    / John
     
    jch, Aug 18, 2008
    #13
  14. I expect that the base made today would be very different than the base
    used in Pan-X, but IMHO it would not matter. As long as it was a reasonably
    clear base (remember the Efke dark grey base?), it's to me the emulsion
    that would count.

    If it's really Lucky and not Kodak that made it for $2.00 a roll, lots of
    people would buy it. I fit were Kodak themselves and they had to charge $10
    a roll, a lot less of them would be sold.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Aug 18, 2008
    #14
  15. No. Even the mere cooperation was vastly overjudged - Lucky never
    learned that much from Kodak but how to run the confection line for
    color film.
    A process that didn´t work out that well, too - most of the Wolfen
    equipment never got installed in Schostka.
    Gruss,
    Roman
     
    Roman J. Rohleder, Aug 18, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.