dave_b16

<p>Kodak is having some serious issues these days. Just have a look at their quarterlies and news items on your favorite financial news service ( ticker symbol: EK). Unless you see a public announcement on Kodak's website, take everything you hear and see with a grain of salt - what I say is included.</p>

<p>As far as<a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp"> Illford (HARMAN technology Limited )</a> is concerned, they are a private company and they don't have to announce anything.But keep in mind that Kodak is the market leader in film and everything happening to them is probably happening to everyone else. Is it possible that folks who are afraid of Kodak's demise are going to Ilford or Foma? Absolutely! But the real question is , how much of their market is still available?</p>

<p>My point: experiment with other company's products. No photographic film company is immune.</p>

<p>Here's my un-asked-for-advice: have a back-up plan and another plan. For me it's Foma and then Ilford for B&W and as for color, well it's digital. I'm not trying to start a film vs. digital fight here. I'm just trying to express the market reality here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think what Howard may have meant is that there is tape on the cartridge itself.<br>

When those ink cartridges are shipped, they put tape over the opening (nozzle where the ink comes out) on the cartridge itself. So, take the cartridges out and see if there's tape on the nozzles.<br>

And on some brands, there's also tape on the "breather" hole - the hole allows for the pressure inside the cartridge to equalize with the environment so that there isn't a vacuum in it. I've missed those tapes on my HP and it showed the ink empty when the cartridge was still half full.</p>

<p>If that's not the case, I'd call their tech support line.</p>

<p>First, disregard what the Israeli lab is doing - unless you know exactly what they're doing; as in following the film manufacturer's direction exactly. They could be using some other brand of chemicals or even mixing their own or their lab techs are inexperienced or ... whatever.</p>

<p>Disregard what Douglas does - you have no control over what they do and since you like the results we'll assume they are following the film manufacturer's instructions on processing.</p>

<p>So, let's concentrate on what <em>you</em> can control: your home processing and your technique.</p>

<p>So, what makes a negative have too much contrast when processing (off of the top of my head):<br /> 1. Temperature as others have mentioned.<br /> 2. Chemicals not mixed correctly.<br /> 3. Contaminated or old chemicals will give sporadic results.<br /> You're using TMax? Once you open it, the concentrate's useful (reliable) life is 6 months. It'll start turning a yellow brown.<br /> Are you using it one shot or mixing a batch and re-using it? Are you following the development times for re-use?</p>

<p>You didn't mention how large is your sample. Are you comparing dozens of rolls or just a few?<br /> Also, are you comparing shots taken at the same time of day, same location, same weather, same everything else?</p>

<p>If it's just a few rolls, did you shoot some early morning and some later? And was it the early morning shots that were precessed in Israel?</p>

<p>Let's state some obvious things that may jog your memory about capture:<br /> Did you shoot some rolls with a filter and forget which ones they were? Use different lenses?<br /> Are you comparing shots scanned with the same scanner and same settings?</p>

<p>Unless <em>all</em> the conditions during capture are <em>identical</em>, I wouldn't blame processing just yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, true enough, but there were so many categories that everybody got a prize of some kind (like a kid's birthday party).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or like the Oscar's, Grammy, Emmy, etc ...</p>

<p>"Best hard rock heavy metal R&B album goes to ..."<br>

"Best hard rock heavy metal Blues album goes to ..."</p>

<p>Aside from going digital, Peter's idea is the only option you have that fits your restrictions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Walgreens' and Walmart do not do standard B&W developing or printing.<br>

<a href="http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/newsite2006/B-W-film-processing.html">Here's Dwayne's B&W page</a>.<br>

As far as how the film will come out, it depends how it was stored.<br>

In '09 i shot and processed a roll of Plus-X from the 1980s that was sitting in my parent's basement. The shots came out fine.</p>

<p>Those photos shot in the second link you gave are from the 1970s at the latest. Meaning, those films are long gone. Kodak did a major revamp of their film lines in the late 80s (T-Grain and whatnot) and Fuji has been dong the same.<br>

So, as far as getting film to get that "look", it's not going to happen.</p>

<p>Besides, looking at the photos, I'd think shooting with any color film will do. He's not doing anything special in terms of exposure or colors. They're straight shots.<br>

And looking at the shadows, he shot at different times of the day - he didn't seem to have a preference for time or for light other than bright sunny day.<br>

Go to your local store and get any consumer color print film and go form there. I would also try different brands and don't fall in love with any particular brand or film: who knows what will still be available in the next year, especially lines from Kodak*.</p>

<p><em>*I have been watching the news wires on the finance sites and the news just keeps getting worse for Kodak.</em></p>