Why there´s no new B&W MP films from Kodak?

[Carlos 8mm]

Maybe a silly question, but Kodak´s B&W negative MP films as Eastman Plus-X and Double X were released more than 50 years ago.

Reversal films as Plus-x and Tri-x were released in 1955, with a little improvement today, especially in developing process.

According Kodak, B&W T-grain emulsions don´t make a big difference with the old filmstocks.

If color films were dramatically improved during the last 50 years, why not B&W films? :?


Carlos.

[Angus]

Eh? Weren't plus-x and tri-x both totally overhauled with new emulsions and developing process in 2003 ???

[Carlos 8mm]

Eh? Weren't plus-x and tri-x both totally overhauled with new emulsions and developing process in 2003 ???

Only Tri-x 7266 got a new emulsion, (this way with the new developing chemistry, this film is less grainy than 7278).

Plus X 7265 is essencially the same 7276. The new D94-A developer and R-10 bleacher allows to get a higher (or maybe the real) speed of film (in the case of Plus -X 7265: ISO 100). Remember that if you want to shoot 7265 as negative, you must to overexpose the film at ISO 25 just like the old 7276.

This is different with Tri-x 7266 because the original speed of the film was reduced because of the new developing formulas. (if 7266 were equal as 7278, with the new chemistry the (reversal) film speed could be 250-320, with silmilar granularity).


Carlos.

[Astro]

Don't touch what isn't broken
:roll:

[al77]

Don't touch what isn't broken

absolutely! tri-x & plus-x look great to me :-)

[jpolzfuss]

Uhoh! We shouldn't have mentioned these films here! John P. will probably now tell Kodak to replace them with some 88 and 324 ASA films so that Kodak can get rid off Super8 due the lack of consumer's interest in one or two years completely!

[Carlos 8mm]

Uhoh! We shouldn't have mentioned these films here! John P. will probably now tell Kodak to replace them with some 88 and 324 ASA films so that Kodak can get rid off Super8 due the lack of consumer's interest in one or two years completely!

Why? I´m talking about new B&W films that can benefit S8 filmmakers.

A new fine-grain B&W filmstock intended for 35 & 16mm could be released for super 8 as Kodak did with V2 200T and 500T and *maybe* V2 50D.

Carlos.

[Angus]

But there's actually nothing wrong with tri-x and plus-x....and in addition they are "brand" names that photographers know and trust.

[David M. Leugers]

Jeez.... with all the fuss over what Kodak should or should not do with color film stock... Just a question, when was the last time anyone has gone to a theatre to see a new movie shot in B+W? Why on earth should Kodak devote millions of dollars into research to develop an improved B+W motion picture stock??? Especially when what is available already is so freakin good? I love B+W but I don't see where improving it more than it already is should be a high priority with anyone. If I was to dream, I would wish for an ultra sharp fine grained 25 ASA stock. Even then, it would be hard to beat Plus-X reversal.
8)

David M. Leugers

[sophocle]

I toyed with the idea to have TMX fitted in S8 carts by pro8mm, and then sent to dr5 for reversal processing.

I have worked with tmx reversed for decades--I can guaratee that this will result in a completely grainless super 8 image.

But whether it will look better than plus x I am not convinced--in fact I would not want tmx image for people photography.

And then there is the halation problem--so I am not sure the experiment is worth it at all.

[mattias]

t-max negative would be nice...

/matt

[Nigel]

There are....

Shoot color and then pull it all out in Xfer.

That is what I wanted to do on a shoot last fall but the director just wouldn't listen. Mostly because he was confused. It makes for a really great look when you pull almost all the color out and you are left wondering if what you saw was color or B&W.


Good Luck

[Carlos 8mm]

t-max negative would be nice...

/matt

That´s the point.

Why Kodak can´t improve B&W MP films using T-grain technology?

Many people shoots using color negative films and the final copy is B&W.

New B&W stocks could reduce the costs in this case.

Carlos.

[etimh]

It makes for a really great look when you pull almost all the color out and you are left wondering if what you saw was color or B&W.

That sounds like a nice effect. But there is a distinct difference between "black and white" that is just color drained in post and true B&W film. I've seen both, as I'm sure you have, and its quite obvious to me.

If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what else to say.

Tim

[mattias]

That sounds like a nice effect. But there is a distinct difference between "black and white" that is just color drained in post and true B&W film.

true, but isn't that most likely because the black and white stocks are old? 7222 which i've shot a lot of looks the way it does because it's super grainy, rather soft, has very little highlight detail and a quite annoying but cool tendency to flare "internally". a modern black and white stock would probably look a whole lot more like color without color. after all color film is just three layers of black and white, even though i guess the dyes have slightly different characteristics than silver grain. maybe this is the reason they don't release a new one? those who shoot black and white want it to behave and look like it always has?

/matt