25asa

No Fuji is pretty much out of the C41 game when it comes to 120, and their pricing wasn't cheaper then Kodak. Yeah I forgot about the different film base. I still wonder if it would be doable though? If they are able to get Gold 200 and ProImage 100 for less money in 35mm, I'd wonder if they could also do that for 120? Even still Gold 200 looks different then their other Pro films, so I think it would sell and have a place in the lineup. Millenials have been wanting a cheap option for 120.

Im aware Kodak made both Gold 100 and 200 in 120 format up until the late 90s. I assume both were discontinued around the same time. I really wish Kodak would bring back Gold 100 in both 35mm and 120, but since that will probably never happen, it would be nice if they offered Gold 200 in 120. That would sell to Millenials wanting a cheap film option in 120 to shoot on their medium format gear. And they all seem to like the look of Gold 200, so I think Kodak should consider it again. I'd buy it in 120. More grain and bolder colors. Gold 200 has a different color balance then Ektar 100, and more obvious grain. Plus there really isn't a cheap $5 to 6 dollar a roll option at the moment. If you want 120, you pretty much have to shoot the Pro films which are twice the dollar amount. I dont know why Kodak won't slit a small batch off the master roll in 120? They certainly sell enough of this in 35mm. That said, Gold 100 was one of my favorite color films until they discontinued it. I grabbed a roll out of the freezer in 120, and it is dated 06/94. Being over 25 years old, and no idea how it was kept before I purchased it a few years back, I'd like to shoot some of this to see what I end up with. Im expecting color shifts, massive grain, loss of speed, and some fogging. Im wondering if I should rate this at 25 ISO to be safe? Im shooting it in my Fuji GW690, so Im only wasting 8 shots if it doesn't turn out. Any recommendations?

I was the thread starter on that post on Photrio/ APUG. I dropped off some rolls of C41 at Kerrisdale cameras today. They said that they've had such an increase of film coming in, that their 2 day service has turned into a 4 day service.

I bought a $60 plus shipping fees for a RZ 100-200 zoom lens. It seems to be working normally, though it is missing both lens caps. I dont see any issues with it. Its just not a popular lens to get. I started with this one. I'll get the 50 for sure at some point. After that I might get the 140 macro. And a long telephoto like maybe the 360.

The only 2 lenses I see that are extremely expensive for the RZ are the 90 and 110mm. Both are normal lenses of course. All other lenses fall between $60 and $300+. Thats quite affordable considering the cost of the body in comparison. Only the oddball lenses are more then 300.

I own the T70 and I in the past had the T90. I loved the T90 for what it was, but failures on the camera had me abandon it back in the early 2000s. It had the sticky shutter issue. It had the shutter replaced, and not long after, the new shutter failed too. Im told lack of use causes this issue. It can be cleaned at a repair outlet today, and you may be lucky to get it going again. After my second shutter failure, I sent it out for repair again, and they fried the camera during repair. So it came back to me broken and a doorstop. The failure rates on the T90 have kept me from getting another one, as much as I'd love to own another one. I still have some FD gear as like the mentioned T70 and also an AE-1. The T70 is much more reliable, if a bit slow to use and limited in what it can do. AE-1 is also good, but I'd rather have aperture priority instead of shutter. But you live with it. None of my FD gear gets much use today. I have an Elan 7 I use when I want to shoot 35mm.

I have a number of medium format film cameras in my possession, including a Pentax 67II and Pentax 645N. For cheaper options I have a Yashica A and Holga 120. I recently purchased a Mamiya RZ67 camera, because it had removable backs for swapping film types mid roll, plus it also had format choices like 6x7, 6x6, and 645. I will be getting all 3 backs for it. I purchased a 100-200 Z zoom lens to start, since it was only $60 US dollars plus shipping. I'd like to get a 90mm, but prices are way up there for those. I might also consider the 140mm macro, a 50mm, and possibly a 360mm lens. Anyone use these lenses and how are you liking them? How are people liking the RZ camera today? I still will use my Pentax 67 when I dont have a need to change rolls mid roll. The RZ seems clunkier then the Pentax in use. I havent shot a roll through mine yet, as Im still waiting for my first lens to show up. I must say prices on the RZ have jumped in recent years, but I got mine for $700 US plus shipping (for body, 67 film back, and waste level finder), which I think is a good deal.

I almost got a Fuji GFX 100S camera and it was almost paid off, till I had to cancel the order and get a refund. I still want that camera now, but no longer can afford it. I'd consider the new 50S II camera, but Im not liking its not 4K video. I still have my medium format film gear to tie me over for now.

Here is Alaris' email address: Profilm@Kodakalaris.com

I sent Kodak Alaris an email letter today, asking them to re-introduce two old emulsions. I would suggest if any of you also have interest in these two old films, to also email them and ask for them to make it again. Here was my letter to Kodak: "Not much has been happening lately, but Kodak mentioned a year or two ago, that they are considering other films for re-introduction onto the market. Can I suggest 2 B&W films of yours from the past, I'd like to see being made again? First off is an easy one- Kodak Plus X. This was a really good film for outdoor photography, especially on sunny days. It darkened the skies without filters, and with wood, really brought out the grain in the wood. I loved the look of this film, and would like to see it back on the market, even if on a limited run basis. 35mm and 120 please. The other film is a little more complicated then Plus X, but I believe Kodak could pull it off. This is Panatomic X. Here is an old fashioned looking film that for its slow speed, had mid to lower contrast, even in sun. Most low speed films around 25 ISO have very high contrast, but not Pan X. The mid tones off this film were very very good. Lots of tones in the midrange. Grain was also small enough as well. I realize Panatomic X was made in the past with a now banned chemical- Cadmium. I believe with Kodaks expertise, the film could be slightly reformulated, so it could replace such chemical. Panatomic X had such unbelievable good keeping qualities, that films of this from quite a few decades back, still can produce a very usable result if shot today. Not many films today can say that. This film just didn't fog much over time. And the old fashioned look this film gives, doesn't compare to other films out there today. I understand TMAX 100 is this films replacement, but honestly, the look between the two films aren't even close. The look of the grain for example, or the tones. TMAX 100 looks rather blah to me in comparison. Panatomic X just seems to have more life in its photos. And it has a glow quality as well. This is what a lot of mid tones can do for a film. The prices of Pan X on Ebay have crept up over the years, and when its currently sold as old NOS Stock, its bought up quickly and for good money too. I petition to Kodak to at least do 1 run of this film to test the waters, so people can see what they have been missing over the years. If Ilford can make their traditional grain and also T-grain B&W films still today with both being available, I think Kodak could make it work with bringing back Plus X and Panatomic X to market. With the Millenials getting into film more today, and film on the rebound, I fail to see why Kodak Alaris wouldn't consider bringing back these two older film stocks. Plus X should also be brought back for motion picture use as well. Send this email to the proper people in Kodaks ranks, and please consider my and others interests in these two old films. There are people out there that want both of these to come back. The fact Panatomic X was available as an Aerial film up to the 2000s, makes me think it is still doable. I'd love to hear a response on my email from you on this. Let me know if Kodak has plans for new films to come out at some point. Scott Pickering- BC Canada" Here is their email address: Profilm@Kodakalaris.com

I sent Kodak Alaris an email letter today, asking them to re-introduce two old emulsions. I would suggest if any of you also have interest in these two old films, to also email them and ask for them to make it again. Here was my letter to Kodak: "Not much has been happening lately, but Kodak mentioned a year or two ago, that they are considering other films for re-introduction onto the market. Can I suggest 2 B&W films of yours from the past, I'd like to see being made again? First off is an easy one- Kodak Plus X. This was a really good film for outdoor photography, especially on sunny days. It darkened the skies without filters, and with wood, really brought out the grain in the wood. I loved the look of this film, and would like to see it back on the market, even if on a limited run basis. 35mm and 120 please. The other film is a little more complicated then Plus X, but I believe Kodak could pull it off. This is Panatomic X. Here is an old fashioned looking film that for its slow speed, had mid to lower contrast, even in sun. Most low speed films around 25 ISO have very high contrast, but not Pan X. The mid tones off this film were very very good. Lots of tones in the midrange. Grain was also small enough as well. I realize Panatomic X was made in the past with a now banned chemical- Cadmium. I believe with Kodaks expertise, the film could be slightly reformulated, so it could replace such chemical. Panatomic X had such unbelievable good keeping qualities, that films of this from quite a few decades back, still can produce a very usable result if shot today. Not many films today can say that. This film just didn't fog much over time. And the old fashioned look this film gives, doesn't compare to other films out there today. I understand TMAX 100 is this films replacement, but honestly, the look between the two films aren't even close. The look of the grain for example, or the tones. TMAX 100 looks rather blah to me in comparison. Panatomic X just seems to have more life in its photos. And it has a glow quality as well. This is what a lot of mid tones can do for a film. The prices of Pan X on Ebay have crept up over the years, and when its currently sold as old NOS Stock, its bought up quickly and for good money too. I petition to Kodak to at least do 1 run of this film to test the waters, so people can see what they have been missing over the years. If Ilford can make their traditional grain and also T-grain B&W films still today with both being available, I think Kodak could make it work with bringing back Plus X and Panatomic X to market. With the Millenials getting into film more today, and film on the rebound, I fail to see why Kodak Alaris wouldn't consider bringing back these two older film stocks. Plus X should also be brought back for motion picture use as well. Send this email to the proper people in Kodaks ranks, and please consider my and others interests in these two old films. There are people out there that want both of these to come back. The fact Panatomic X was available as an Aerial film up to the 2000s, makes me think it is still doable. I'd love to hear a response on my email from you on this. Let me know if Kodak has plans for new films to come out at some point. Scott Pickering- BC Canada"

If I want the Ortho look, I just as well shoot a roll of Ortho film to get it. Digital still never gets it quite right. I bought some rolls of Ilfords Ortho 80 film, but havent shot a roll of it yet. I should get to that. Then there is Panchromatic Ortho film like Efke 25 and Fuji Acros 100, which is a slightly Ortho film, but still mostly Panchromatic. Those films work really well with Portraits to darken the skin a little, depending on lighting. Here are a couple shots on Efke 25 done back in 2004.

Im aware of the banned chemical(s) in Panatomic X were a reason it isn't made today, though they did have the Aerial Pan X film well up to the 2000s. I believe it was Cadmium may of been one of the bad chemicals. But Kodak was able to reformulate a lot of their older emulsions with replacement chemicals, etc., so I don't see why they couldnt reformulate Pan X a little so it could be made today. But I guess it comes down to they dont want to spend the money on that. Shame, because even today, there still isn't a film like Pan X or as good as it was for what it did. Its the only slow speed film that had moderate contrast instead of high contrast. Its midtones were what made the film special. Mike- I've used RPX 25 film and even did a video on it. It really isn't that great of a film, as it has a flat look to it, and has really lousy tones on it. I've shot over 5 rolls of the stuff (more then that I think), and they all look blah to me. I have 1 roll left, and after its gone, I dont think I'll be buying any more of it. Efke 25 had really good tones in it, with an old fashioned look to it. It really was a special film.

I wish Kodak would bring back both Plus X and Panatomic X, at least in a small run. These two films, along with Tri-X and Efke 25, were my favorite 4 B&W films. Sadly only 1 of the 4 is still available new.

Its Aviphot 80 made by Agfa. I just developed the roll and its quite dense. Its been said this film has high contrast and I can see that in mine so far, even before I do scans off of it.

I just read someone believes this film is actually Agfa Aviphot 80 which is rated around 50 ISO. Why then is RPX 25 a 25 ISO film and not 50 then? I guess I can forget it being an APX 25 clone.

I have used a few rolls of this in the past, but never got a real feel for it yet. I haven't used it enough to make any comparisons. Is this emulsion a stand out on its own, or is it based off another film from the past? Is this a clone of Agfa APX 25? Or is it its own film with no comparison? I have some rolls in 35, 120, and 4x5 at the moment. My local store has it on sale, and I wasn't sure I was wanting to stock up on some more rolls or not. Is there anything special about this film that makes it stand out? Or is it a rather blah-say film in general? I really liked APX 25, of which I also have a stash of. My favorite 25 ISO film is Efke 25, but there is no comparison there. Another favorite slow film is Panatomic X, but that is 32 ISO.

I watch a lot of Youtube videos on photography and Millenials aged 20-30 make up 90% of them. They are the ones buying these old cameras. People my age 50+ don't use film much anymore, but if they do, its usually cheap inexpensive film cameras. I never stopped using film, so I held on to some of my gear over the years. I upgraded to the P67II a year after I sold my original P6x7 camera. Im glad I got it when I did, as I'd never spend that kind of cash on a film camera today. My Pentax 67II is currently getting repaired, thankfully buy one of the few outlets that still work on the P67II.

35mm has gone up a little bit, but the big price increases are on medium format film cameras. I was searching for a Fuji GW690 camera and last year it was selling for $400-500 Canadian. Now the junk cameras go for $500 and the better units $700-800. Pentax 67II cameras in the past 10 years have trippled in price. I bought my 67II a little less then 10 years ago for a little over $1000. Now its between 3000 to 4000 dollars. Older 67 cameras have gone up a bit as well, depending on which version of the original model you get (meaning its age). Other medium format film cameras also have gone up. I dont know whats fueling this price increase, other then millenials playing with film for the first time. Im glad I got my cameras when I did, except I just purchased both a GSW690 and GW690 cameras in the past couple months at current prices.

Been thinking about this for a while. Obviously can't at this time due to Covid, but maybe down the road? I've asked people I know to pose for me on photoshoots, but it's increasingly becoming difficult to continue with that process. My only option seems to be to hire a model and do the shoot that way. I'd end up with better pictures I'm sure, but I've never used a model before. How do I go about finding one and what are the ins and outs of the entire process of hiring one? I don't even know who I'd contact in the Fraser Valley. Do they let you see pictures first? Also how do you go about this without letting on its your first time hiring a model?

I haven't used a roll yet, but I've read it can be a difficult film to work with. Developing it yourself can often give unexpected results. It has a lot of contrast and tends to be dark in tone. Its also said the film is orthopanchromatic. So reds can be very dark in tone. I'd like to try a roll in Xtol at some point, but I will wait until a later day to do so.

I am looking for one of these zooms. I have a chance to get the old one used at half price of new, so that is a factor. I read a review of the version 2 and they suggested the V1 might be a little better optically. Is that true? I know the V2 focusses faster. Am I going to lose much in picture quality if I stick with the version 1 of this lens? I am using it on a 90D camera. Anyone else do this comparison? I want to stick with a full frame lens, so I can use it on my film cameras too. And possibly mirrorless cameras down the road too. My other option is the Tamron 70-300 SP lens. What say you?

Im getting back into B&W developing myself. My bathroom sink is porceline with some chrome by the drain. Will chemicals harm the sink or drain, or even the plastic pipes? Im using Xtol, Ilfostop, Ilford Rapid Fix, and Photoflo.

Im still waiting for the Z8/ Z9 announcement. It was rumoured well over a year ago. I guess now with these two cameras, it may not come out till forever now. By then Sony will be on Mark 5 of their A7R series.

The lens flange was attached at the back of the lens in front of the lens board. The back lens is no wider then the ring attachment, so the back lens should slide right through the hole easily. I don't forsee any issues with this setup at this point. Again the flange screws in front of the lens board at the back of the shutter section. Yes I have the rear lens, as I took it off the remove everything.