25asa

My understanding is ProImage 100 isn't as saturated as Gold 100 version 6 was. Or as sharp either. Its kind of an inbetween film. Gold 200 probably has more saturation than ProImage 100.

Its a shame Gold 100 can't come back. Anyone do a comparison to see how close Kodak ProImage 100 is compared to Gold 100, probably version 6?

Its one of those films that has really jumped up in price over the last 3 years. Its become too expensive to purchase today. I sold off excess rolls of this stuff a year ago, and with what I have left, Im keeping that. I could never replace it economically if I decided to do so. Only thing you can do is to pay what its going for when you do see rolls on Ebay now. Good thing is any year of film will be good.

My second T70 which I bought a couple years ago, I never ended up using. The battery metal contact on the door, fell off, and its kept me from using the camera. Im sure it can be repaired, but Im neglecting it, because I have other cameras I can use. The post above me here was my post in the linked thread. Yes the T70 is more reliable, but I did eventually get two T-90 cameras, though both of them were dead for a short while, till playing with them coaxed them back to life. They both work now.

Archival quality may refer to unexposed film in your case. Once its exposed and developed, I dont see the film fading over time any quicker than still film. After all- movie studios are still transfering color film from the 60s and getting usable results. I guess storage conditions have some affect on the film as well. Heat and humidity damages film no matter what.

Reviving an old thread of mine. I never ended up shooting any of this film when I got some back in the day. But Im re-trying this film recently for a video Im making on it. I managed to get a few rolls of this stuff, but how badly the film has aged I dont know. I'll see when I get it done. Is Scott Eaton still around?

I watched well over a month or two ago, so I didn't actually take note of the video title itself. I just remember he mentioned this.

Here are some chart graphs between these two films. Maybe someone could decifer and comment?

One of my photo friends suggested Plus X roll film has a very similar look to Tri-X Pro 320. The curves are apparently quite similar. Trying to find a replacement for Plus X roll film, but in 4x5, will 320 do? How do you find their looks in comparison? And how does Tri-X 320 shoot outdoors in bright sun? I find Plus X works very well in those conditions.

I find it interesting that Tony Northrup basically used the same idea as me for a camera today, of which he mentioned in one of his recent videos. I dont know if he read this post, but he came out with the same idea. Put the sensor where the prism would go.

35mm is one of those film types that are sold fairly quickly these days. So many young people are shooting it today, that they are getting desperate to get more rolls for their hobby. Covid restrictions and getting needed supplies to make the film are the issues today.

I have been using more rolls of my Pan X stash lately, and every one of them turned out rather well. I even shot a roll on my half frame camera, which I still have to scan up yet. It really is a great film. It has a quality to it that just makes it look so good.

I dont find Pan X extremely contrasty at all. It for me is anything but. I find its contrast softer then other slow speed films. This film is one of the best tonal quality films I've ever used. I wished Kodak would bring it back to be honest. In the mean time, I still use what of the stash of it I still have left over.

I'd love to get a 5x7 view camera, but the pricing for a new one is almost as much as an 8x10, and so much higher then 4x5. I don't think you'd save that much weight either with such a camera over 8x10.

Many younger people who shoot 120 have been asking for Gold 200 in 120 for a long while now. I too will be using this film, though Im much older. I like the look from Gold. Pricing for this has been bungled since Kodak released it. It was $50 a 5 pak, then 45. Some places had it for 40, then went to 42. Prices of Portra 160 at the time were 50, but I noticed some places raised the prices to make it seem like you are getting a deal on Gold 200. Seems shifty if you ask me. Its the middlemen that are screwing with the prices on this stuff (distributors).