[Eyewanders]

A third of the worlds supply of T-Max 100 is packed in dry ice in the depths of my freezer.

Mystery solved.

---------- Post added 02-25-18 at 08:57 AM ----------

T-Max 100 & 400 are exceptional. I have used TMAX and XTOL developers with good success. Do you have a preferred developer?

XTOL doesn't seem to get a lot of love in most of the internet film circles I frequent, but it's been my favorite for a long while. Creamy and contrasty with just enough bite. I love it with HP5.

[LesDMess]

XTOL doesn't seem to get a lot of love in most of the internet film circles I frequent, but it's been my favorite for a long while. Creamy and contrasty with just enough bite. I love it with HP5.

Some of those folks are just alchemists!

[gofour3]

E100VS seems like the most likely candidate. It will be in direct competition to Fuji Velvia.

I was speculating about which version Ektachrome was being re-released - E100G or E100VS or other? Kodak previously announced it and I believe they are supposed to re-release it this year. I haven't heard about any other formulation being released.

My guess Kodak will just release a new film called Ektachrome 100, without the version letter. So it would be just E100, since there are no other versions planned. As for the emulsion it probably will be the old E100G, due to it's better archival rating compared to the E100VS version.

Looking forward to whatever t is and hopefully will be released in both 135 & 120 at the same time.

Phil.

[LesDMess]

My guess Kodak will just release a new film called Ektachrome 100, with out the version letter. So it would be just E100, since there are no other versions planned. As for the emulation it probably will be the old E100G, due to it's better archival rating compared to the E100VS version.

Looking forward to whatever t is and hopefully will be released in both 135 & 120 at the same time.

Phil.

There used to be Ektachrome without the version letter and number . . .


I would like E100VS for it's sharpness and vibrancy or E100G for it's truer colors and wide latitude. But I would be good with any version they release!

---

Last edited by LesDMess; 02-25-2018 at 12:20 PM.

[Eyewanders]

Yup. I'm down with whatever Ekta-flavor they give us. I just want it now. I've got about 15 rolls of Elite Chrome buried in my freezer and that's it.

[LesDMess]

Yup. I'm down with whatever Ekta-flavor they give us. I just want it now. I've got about 15 rolls of Elite Chrome buried in my freezer and that's it.

Plus I am fortunate to have local slide processing just down the street from me . . .

[Eyewanders]

Plus I am fortunate to have local slide processing just down the street from me . . .

I did as well until 3 months ago - we moved and now I'm looking at doing it myself, driving about 50minutes, or mail order. Definitely not one of the benefits of the move, but those that there are have been worth the trade.

[gofour3]

I've got about 15 rolls of Elite Chrome buried in my freezer and that's it.

I shot Elite Chrome back in the 1990's, good film.

Phil.

---------- Post added 25-02-18 at 12:36 ----------

There used to be Ektachrome without the version letter and number . . .

Yep used that as well. But as you said any Kodak slide film will be a pleasure to shoot again! I also have an E6 processing lab close by and they have a quick turnaround even when mounting is required.

Phil.

[Jonathan Mac]

My guess Kodak will just release a new film called Ektachrome 100, without the version letter. So it would be just E100, since there are no other versions planned. As for the emulsion it probably will be the old E100G, due to it's better archival rating compared to the E100VS version.

Looking forward to whatever t is and hopefully will be released in both 135 & 120 at the same time.

Phil.

I think you're right. They'll release just one new slide film, not several, so no need for any letter in the name. The emulsion will be something new due to the trouble they've had getting the formula to be compatible with current environmental laws.

[Digitalis]

Do you have a preferred developer?

For larger formats I have a preference for Pyrochatechol based developers. I do pure Platinum*, Tintypes, Carbon and alternate process printing methods so the contrast control that PyrocatHD provides, affords me greater freedom with what I can do with a single negative. With 35mm i'm a big fan of making my own Rodinal.

* I also use Halides derived from Palladium/Ruthenium/Osmium/Rhodium/Iridium to produce toned platinum prints - these halides are hard to buy in any quantity and quite expensive, and in some cases are extremely toxic.

[tuco]

...
. The contrast of Ilford XP2 is flatter than graphene.

I think a lot of the people here who use and post pictures with XP2 will disagree with you. I've seen lots here and they have excellent tonal scale. You said 320TXP was terrible too but yet I've posted many picture with that film rich in tonal scale and good contrast. I've only seen you post one BW film image in all the time I've been here.

[mtgmansf]

I think you're right. They'll release just one new slide film, not several, so no need for any letter in the name. The emulsion will be something new due to the trouble they've had getting the formula to be compatible with current environmental laws.

New Ektachrome will likely be optimized for scanning, so flat and with a long scale. Probably not optimized for a final slide, which is still the domain of FujiVelvia for landscapes and Provia for everything else.

[Digitalis]

You said 320TXP was terrible too but yet I've posted many picture with that film rich in tonal scale and good contrast.

I never liked its tonal scale, there is an element to its spectral sensitivity that flattens contrast in certain areas that just doesn't agree with me and my preferences for tonality. I never unilaterally declared 320TXP was terrible. And I'm prepared to admit you have posted excellent work with it. On the flipside I have seen abysmal work produced on T-Max 100, but at least the tones were in the right place.

As for XP2 - I have an LX loaded with it, and I have been doing some experimentation to see if I can get it to work for me, and from what I understand now it is better to completely ignore the box speed and pull the film two stops.

I don't expect you to follow my every post I make, but I have posted plenty of B&W work over the years: I have no idea how you could have missed it.

[timw4mail]

I never liked its tonal scale, there is an element to it's spectral sensitivity that flattens contrast in certain areas that just doesn't agree with me and my preferences for tonality. I never unilaterally declared 320TXP was terrible. And I'm prepared to admit you have posted excellent work with it. On the flipside I have seen abysmal work produced on T-Max 100, but at least the tones were in the right place.

As for XP2 - I have an LX loaded with it, and I have been doing some experimentation to see if I can get it to work for me, and from what I understand now it is better to completely ignore the box speed and pull the film two stops.

Are you saying XP2 has more of a halftone look compared to TMax?

[gutter rock]

Heh? Where did Tmax100 go? Hasn't it been around the whole time?

(and welcome back!)

TMax 100, at least in 120 size had a manufacturing problem with the backing paper. Kodak had to pull all it and get the paper fixed. The plant that makes the backing paper was also having a hard time keeping up with production (good sign for film!). So, Kodak had to wait on paper to manufacture more TMax 100, thus leading to back order status everywhere and greatly exaggerated rumors of it being discontinued.

And welcome back TMax 3200. One of my favorites!