Royal Gold 25/Chris Bitmead

[trace_dibble]

According to the film specs in Chris Bitmead's Homepage, Kodak Royal Gold 25 is availible in 120. I think he's mistaken, but wouldn't mind being shown otherwise. Anybody know about this?

[chun_in_martinez]

Unfortunately, he's mistaken.

[brian_c._miller]

From the Kodak web pages and a search through AltaVista, Kodak only makes Royal Gold in 35mm. T-grain films in medium format are the Tmax, E100, and E200 films.

[trace_dibble]

Thanks, guys. So long, Big Yellow. Been nice working with you.

[j._law]

What are your alternatives?

 

<p>

 

I don't think anyone makes an ISO 25 colour neg film in 120.

 

<p>

 

The only one before was Ektar 25, and that was discontinued. RZ25 only comes in 135 -- in fact, any Royal Gold only comes in 135.

 

<p>

 

Agfapan APX25 might come in 120, but that's only for B/W. Ilford Pan-F is 50, but again, B/W.

 

<p>

 

There really isn't a whole lot of "ultra-slow" (what a funky moniker for a ISO25 film...whatever happened to TechPan at 6?) emulsions on the market right about now... a shame, because I've been forced into shooting 4x5 for the grain I like. *grin*

 

<p>

 

-jon

[andrew l. booth]

For those who haven't come across Chris Bitmead's pages - he maintains a large number of useful links and articles at http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb/ .

 

<p>

 

The poster is correct - Kodak no longer make Royal Gold 25 in 120. I think Chris should be excused this slight lapse however - he has a large number of pages and web pages don't maintain themselves!

[dave_jenkins]

Guys, it's time to check out a truly great film that has been there all along -- Fuji Reala. B&H has it in 120 size, and it truly is an incredible film with great color, sharpness, and resolution. 16x20s on 35mm Reala look like good medium format work. Test it for yourself.

[chris_bitmead1]

Hi, this is Chris - the culprit :-)

A magazine review from about 6 months ago said that RG25 was available in 120. My apologies if this was incorrect.

[scott_eaton]

>>Guys, it's time to check out a truly great film that has been there all along -- Fuji Reala. B&H has it in 120 size, and it truly is an incredible film with great color, sharpness, and resolution. 16x20s on 35mm Reala look like good medium format work. Test it for yourself. <<

 

<p>

 

You go David!

Ektar 25 in 120 may be a tad sharper and have a bit more color saturation, but in terms of tonal response Reala has it all over Ektar / Royal / Max emulsions (similiar emulsion, different marketing).

 

<p>

 

Reala is superb and light years ahead of Kodak's junk.

 

<p>

 

I used to have channels set up on my video analyzer for 120 PDR (I think that's what it was called), and I hated it.

 

<p>

 

//scott

[james_bemus]

I work for Kodak and yes, the 120 size RZ25 is discontinued, but some mail order venders still list it (maybe they have some left over?). Kodak's newer PRN 100 Professional film has very fine grain and sharpness appoaching the RZ25, with better color rendition in my opinion. I miss the RZ25 film mostly for its lack of reciprocity failure (no exposure adjustments needed for up to 100 second exposures). Agfa has a 50 ISO Agfacolor Ultra 50 Professional film that comes in 120, but I don't know that it is that much sharper or finer grained than the 100 ISO films.

[scott_eaton]

>>Kodak's newer PRN 100 Professional film has very fine grain and sharpness appoaching the RZ25, with better color rendition in my opinion.<<

 

<p>

 

PRN appears to have better tonal response than the other Ektar clones, but it's still a little too harsh for portraiture. A decent commercial emulsion if you require an elevated contrast curve and fairly strong saturation, but Reala still "spanks" it for overall use.

 

<p>

 

Good technical point on RZ25 reciprocity characteristics. A great emulsion in this department. One of the difficulties with being a Fuji user is calculating long exposures.

 

<p>

 

Unless your going to print Agfa your self I'd give up on the entire lot. Agfa's dye-set consistency is worse than Ilford and technical set-up data is non-existent. Many commercial labs wont even accept it from customers and I don't blame them.

 

<p>

 

//scott

[ted___]

The July/August issue of Photo Techniques mentions that

Konica Impressa 50 has extremely fine grain and "the best

sharpness of any color negative film" and"is only a bit more

grainy" that Ektar 25. It is available in 35 and 120 with low-to-

moderate contrast and neutral color rendition. Ted.

[Spearhead]

I have to wonder about comments like "Many commercial labs wont even accept it from customers and I don't blame them." I shoot Ultra 50 in 120 (the only color film I use) and have no problem with commercial labs. I don't know any commercial lab in the SF area that will turn down Ultra 50 printing. And my wife uses Agfa negative film for her snapshots (all 35mm) and there has been no problem getting the film printed properly. In fact, some of the big chains are set up for Agfa films because they OEM the film, e.g., Costco.

 

<p>

 

Not that I would argue Ultra 50 as an equivalent for Royal Gold 25.

[scott_eaton]

>>I have to wonder about comments like "Many commercial labs wont even accept it from customers and I don't blame them." <<

 

<p>

 

Virtually all Pro orientated C-41 labs are geared for portraiture and utilize low contrast paper. If your using the commercial department those guys (used to be one) love the alternative stuff. Using a "carnival" film like ultra-50 with portrait paper is "different" if you ask me, but I'm not too surprised by goings on via California anymore:^) If you've got a nest of labs that will print the stuff consider your-self lucky. If you like the response of Ultra-50 by all means go with it.

 

<p>

 

I like Reala better, but Reala's tonal response is not everybody's cup of tea, NPH has nearly the same grain structure as Ultra-50 but is probably maybe too dull for an Ultra user. Leaving you with PRN, which is basically Ektar/Royal/Max. Why doesn't Kodak call tell the truth and call it ERM?

 

<p>

 

With all your labs effort put into secondary film Q/C like Agfa I wonder who's minding the primaries like VPS and NPH?

 

<p>

 

To get a neutral image from Agfa film you have to use Agfa paper. Ultra-50 has never looked right on Kodak Portra or Supra to me and doesn't match right on Fuji stock. Producing vivid colors is easy, and, yeah, ultra-50 does that. After what I've seen Fuji do with their papers I can't class Agfa and their stock much better than Mitsubishi. Kodak shouldn't brag either.

 

<p>

 

>>I don't know any commercial lab in the SF area that will turn down Ultra 50 printing.<<

 

<p>

 

Got a lot in the midwest and East-coast that will charge you extra. Of course I've dealt with some national labs that will only touch VPS and all other emulsions are charged amatuer (higher) prices.

 

<p>

 

>>And my wife uses Agfa negative film for her snapshots (all 35mm)<<

 

<p>

 

Ewww, icky! Go with the Konica instead. Is 3-M still around? :^)

 

<p>

 

//scott

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

Kodak Ektar 25 Professional 120 was our standard film for lens quality testing at Carl Zeiss. It really reached a resolution of 200 line pairs per millimeter. And with C-41 processing it gave us some standard, too (as opposed to TechPan and Agfaortho 25 (also discontinued), where no standardized processing was widely available).

Kodak discontinued this film without giving us kind of an advance warning. Now that we are running out of high resolution test film which uses a standard process, Fuji Velvia at 160 lp/mm seems to be the only alternative. This is sad because some of our medium format lenses go far beyond 200 lp/mm and we would rather go for a higher resolution film, but we need a standard process like C-41 or E-6. Any suggestions here?

[paul_wilson2]

You might try Konica Impressa 50. Supposedly it has finer resolution than even RG/Ektar 25.

 

Alternatively, I would think Zeiss would have the clout to get Kodak to whip up a special batch of RG/Ektar 25, especially if you bought enough.

[bobatkins]

Why not use Tech Pan and process it in house? Rather than not having

a standard process, there are many "standard" processing conditions

for Tech Pan. Just pick one (probably the Technidol spec that Kodak

claim gives 320 lp/mm resolution, though we could debate that

number!) and use it. I'm guessing Zeiss probably has a pretty

good in house lab that could yield reproducible results. Until

Kodak kill off Tech Pan and Technidol of course...

 

Tech Pan also has the advantage that it might yield higher numbers

and therefore make your lenses look better to some people!