Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 22 Aug 2014 (Friday) 00:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Bummer to see an awesome film go away

 
thecackster
Senior Member
Avatar
915 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 96
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Aug 22, 2014 00:58 |  #1

Kodak kills BW400CN (external link)

One of my favs!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,141 posts
Likes: 155
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Aug 22, 2014 08:04 |  #2

Never used it. I preferred Tri-X as did the article author. Nonetheless, things change and the past has to be let go. Even tho many lamented the passing of the horse and buggy at the time, I ask: would you prefer it over your car now?

But there are alternatives:

https://www.google.com …=photoshop+acti​on+bw400cn (external link)


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,344 posts
Gallery: 143 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3600
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Aug 22, 2014 10:53 |  #3

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17111101 (external link)
Never used it. I preferred Tri-X as did the article author. Nonetheless, things change and the past has to be let go. Even tho many lamented the passing of the horse and buggy at the time, I ask: would you prefer it over your car now?

But there are alternatives:

https://www.google.com …=photoshop+acti​on+bw400cn (external link)

But the horses and buggies have not been discontinued; you can still get them if you want them. Brand new, nonetheless.
Unfortunately, the same can not be said for this film.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,220 posts
Likes: 171
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Aug 22, 2014 12:25 |  #4

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17111101 (external link)
Never used it. I preferred Tri-X as did the article author. Nonetheless, things change and the past has to be let go. Even tho many lamented the passing of the horse and buggy at the time, I ask: would you prefer it over your car now?

But there are alternatives:

https://www.google.com …=photoshop+acti​on+bw400cn (external link)

As long as black & white film is available (preferably Tri-X), I feel no obligation to let go. And should absolute inaccessibility occur, I might just let go of photography altogether.

Choice, it’s a good thing.


Sept 2017-July 2018 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 186
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Aug 22, 2014 12:45 |  #5

If you offered to buy enough of it at the right price then I'm sure they would be willing to do a custom run just for you.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,141 posts
Likes: 155
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Aug 22, 2014 13:05 |  #6

Luckless wrote in post #17111631 (external link)
If you offered to buy enough of it at the right price then I'm sure they would be willing to do a custom run just for you.

LOL. Yep/ Considering the economics, cost, profit of manufacturing, I'm sure a large train boxcar full might at least start them considering the offer.

Where to store it? Well, I guess you could buy your own refrigerated boxcar and store it there.


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,141 posts
Likes: 155
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Aug 22, 2014 13:11 |  #7

sjones wrote in post #17111601 (external link)
Choice, it’s a good thing.

But you already have that, and some good ones, too! APS-C, full frame, Nikon, Canon, mirrored, mirrorless, and on and on... the choices are endless! ;)


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Aug 22, 2014 13:24 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Well, is C41 BW film. Is not really a truth BW film. So, it isn't that popular I supposed.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,428 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Aug 22, 2014 20:47 as a reply to  @ TooManyShots's post |  #9

I was given two expired rolls of it, day before they terminated it.
Who needs it if C-41 developing costs $5 at least.
I'll use those two just for curiosity, but nothing to miss, really.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 23, 2014 08:14 |  #10

I thought Kodak went out of business selling things off. Wasn't this the color film that was just printed b+w?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Aug 23, 2014 09:34 |  #11

When I was first starting out, I shot a lot of BW400CN. It was mostly because I was just learning, and it meant that I could still take the film to Kroger to process it (as they only did C-41). I always thought that the real point of the C-41 B&W films were to allow processing by "normal" methods. I imagine as film becomes more rare and a specialty thing to process then it makes sense for these films to be the first to go.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 24, 2014 09:13 |  #12

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17111101 (external link)
Never used it. I preferred Tri-X as did the article author. Nonetheless, things change and the past has to be let go. Even tho many lamented the passing of the horse and buggy at the time, I ask: would you prefer it over your car now?

But there are alternatives:

https://www.google.com …=photoshop+acti​on+bw400cn (external link)

No.

But you know what I do sometimes choose instead of a car?

A bike. Slower than a car, and takes far more work to use on my part. But it's fun to climb those big hills, sometimes.

Film isn't "the past", and it wasn't replaced by digital any more than watercolours replaced oil paints or bronze sculpture replaced clay. It is the choice of many photographers, including myself, who choose it for various reasons.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,019 posts
Gallery: 145 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5013
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Aug 24, 2014 09:25 |  #13

edge100 wrote in post #17114522 (external link)
No.

But you know what I do sometimes choose instead of a car?

A bike. Slower than a car, and takes far more work to use on my part. But it's fun to climb those big hills, sometimes.

Film isn't "the past", and it wasn't replaced by digital any more than watercolours replaced oil paints or bronze sculpture replaced clay. It is the choice of many photographers, including myself, who choose it for various reasons.


I shoot digital exclusively now but totally agree. If I still had a darkroom I would still shoot film.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 186
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Aug 24, 2014 10:08 |  #14

edge100 wrote in post #17114522 (external link)
No.

But you know what I do sometimes choose instead of a car?

A bike. Slower than a car, and takes far more work to use on my part. But it's fun to climb those big hills, sometimes.

Film isn't "the past", and it wasn't replaced by digital any more than watercolours replaced oil paints or bronze sculpture replaced clay. It is the choice of many photographers, including myself, who choose it for various reasons.

Film isn't 'the past', but the days when it was highly popular and profitable enough to justify a huge range of options isn't here any longer. Costs will most likely continue to rise as shooting film remains as a bit of an unusual process practiced by a small handful compared to modern digital work.

As such, if there are three competing products which fill similar roles, then we can expect the least popular one to always be at the risk of getting canned. This is one of the reasons why I'm highly interested in doing my own chemistry entirely for film/plate work. If I'm the source of the actual product which I make from supplies readily available and used in other industries, then it is far less likely that I'll ever find myself unable to get my favourite product. It might mean switching suppliers, but silver or platinum of a set purity isn't going to be that different whether I buy it from supplier A, or supplier B.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
taemo
Goldmember
1,243 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
     
Aug 24, 2014 10:15 |  #15

edge100 wrote in post #17114522 (external link)
No.

But you know what I do sometimes choose instead of a car?

A bike. Slower than a car, and takes far more work to use on my part. But it's fun to climb those big hills, sometimes.

Film isn't "the past", and it wasn't replaced by digital any more than watercolours replaced oil paints or bronze sculpture replaced clay. It is the choice of many photographers, including myself, who choose it for various reasons.

totally agree.
and looks like some Hollywood directors gets it as well.

read Martin Scorsese's statement, love his analogy about painters, should they give up canvases and paint now because there's digital painting?
http://blogs.indiewire​.com …on-of-film-stock-20140804 (external link)

We have many names for what we do – cinema, movies, motion pictures. And…film. We’re called directors, but more often we’re called filmmakers. Filmmakers. I’m not suggesting that we ignore the obvious: HD isn’t coming, it’s here. The advantages are numerous: the cameras are lighter, it’s much easier to shoot at night, we have many more means at our disposal for altering and perfecting our images. And, the cameras are more affordable: films really can be made now for very little money. Even those of us still shooting on film finish in HD, and our movies are projected in HD. So, we could easily agree that the future is here, that film is cumbersome and imperfect and difficult to transport and prone to wear and decay, and that it’s time to forget the past and say goodbye – really, that could be easily done. Too easily.

It seems like we’re always being reminded that film is, after all, a business. But film is also an art form, and young people who are driven to make films should have access to the tools and materials that were the building blocks of that art form. Would anyone dream of telling young artists to throw away their paints and canvases because iPads are so much easier to carry? Of course not. In the history of motion pictures, only a minuscule percentage of the works comprising our art form was not shot on film. Everything we do in HD is an effort to recreate the look of film. Film, even now, offers a richer visual palette than HD. And, we have to remember that film is still the best and only time-proven way to preserve movies. We have no assurance that digital informaton will last, but we know that film will, if properly stored and cared for


earldieta.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - tumblr (external link) - gear/feedback
the spirit is willing but the body is sore and squishy
4 digital cameras | 14 film cameras

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,481 views & 0 likes for this thread
Bummer to see an awesome film go away
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is danieljd
1298 guests, 327 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.