Kodacolor VR 100

[neurostar02]

My friend is doing a photochem lab and there's a question about

"Kodacolor VR 100". I've found plenty of info on when it was

introduced, but nothing on what format it was first introduced in.

 

Anyone know what format it was first available in (35mm, 110, etc..) ?

[neurostar02]

I'm looking for info on the film that was first introduced in 1982. (Color neg).

 

(I guess there was previously a color slide film under the same name in the 40s)

[john_shriver]

<p>I wouldn't be surprised if it was first developed for the absurd microscopically small negatives of the Disc format. Sure enough, <a href="http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/1980_1989.shtml">this Kodak history page</a> shows Disc and VR film coming out in the same year (1982).</p>

[michael_beckmann]

I remember it being a 35mm film, and I remember it was Kodak's standard offering for the amateur. It was eventually replaced by Kodak Gold film. For some reason, VR 100 is still available in some places, but I wouldn't count on this stuff being the same emulsion that was sold 20 years ago.

[jsbc]

I am too young to remember this, but how large were the original disc formats? Even smaller than 110?

[bill_tuthill]

The answer is <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Mg6">in

this thread</A> though with some disagrement.

[lex_jenkins]

I bought and used quite a bit of 35mm VR 100 before it expired several years ago. It was perceptibly different from Gold 100, tho' a Kodak rep I phoned claimed they were the same films (I got the distinct impression he was trying to blow me off).

 

Most notably, the overall colors were a bit more muted while skin tones tended to be a bit more pinkish. The negatives also gave the impression of being distinctly less "sharp". Most folks who weren't photographers seemed to like the photos of themselves taken with VR 100, I suspect because it masked flaws.

 

I prefer Gold 100 as a people pix informal portrait film. Lovely skin tones with a reasonable compromise between grain, apparent sharpness and a good value.

 

400UC appeals to me for a lot of the same reasons, tho' they're entirely different films, each with its own characteristics.

 

Either way, I have to be more conscious now about ensuring my subjects won't feel like victims. With VR 100 I didn't have to ask them to fuss with touching up their cosmetics, covering up blemishes, etc. With Gold 100 and 400UC I do.

 

I don't know how much of this to attribute to differences in the printing end of things.

[michael_beckmann]

Johnson,

 

the Kodak Disc format was 12 exposures of 8x10.5 mm on one disc.

 

I remember the "multimedia" show they made at Photokina the year that Kodak Disc was introduced. It was huge, they used over 100 slide projectors (Kodak Carousel for 35mm of course) to project on a panoramic screen.

 

Most of the cameras they introduced had their lithium battery soldered down to the camera board. When it was empty, you had to replace the camera.

 

Kodak Disc must have been the stupidest thing ever devised in the history of photography. Was there ever a bigger flop?

[neurostar02]

Thanks for the responses!