Timoleon Wilkins

Very great news! I've shot this stock in color slide form, (available from Freestyle as "Rollei CR200"). Unfortunately this is not the same as "RSX 200" (which was produced by Agfa Photo, Germany--bankrupt in '05). This stock is a different animal, produced in a different factory (Agfa Geveart, Belgium). It has an estar base, and at this point it probably will (unfortunately) remain so for us cement splicing dinosaurs. I believe it was originally an aerial surveillance film. My impression of it: is significantly lower in contrast than Ektachrome, with a muted color palette but still with that characteristic reversal "pop" in particular with reds. Very sharp and fine grained (finer grained than Ektachrome 64T but more than 100D). I am very eager to shoot some of this, because I believe this will finally solve the problem of contrast build up when making internegatives (should make for easier transfers too.) And I like a little grain in my images, so this could be a real revelation, with new possibilities of color subtleties. And the best news for last, it seems to be extremely reasonably priced, on the order of 15 cents a foot for 16mm (this was what I pieced together from a forum in German, to get that low of a price is by purchasing directly from Agfa, with a minimum of something like 130,000 feet on 1000ft rolls. Surely an American distributor could get on board for this and make a healthy profit while still beating Kodak's prices--hello Christy's? Freestyle? anyone?).

My experience, shooting for almost 10 yrs with this stock--its extremely robust, almost like Kodachrome. Six months is nothing to worry about, unless you're in the Sahara or tropics. Refrigeration is sufficient for up to two years. Even if stored after shooting, the image color/d-max etc. is stable for a year or more with simple refrigeration. Honestly, you'll find more variation in the image depending on which lab that processes it. I found Alphacine has the best density, with slightly more grain (I like this look the best). Yale with less grain, but thinner blacks. Dwayne's is right in the middle of the two.

Anyone have experience with Film & Photo? http://www.film-photo.com/ They seem to have been in business all along (and still are as far as I can tell), including printing 16mm.

Ernest, Thanks--that last article is wonderfully articulate and hopeful. Please do contact me if you get anywhere with Kodak, I can give you some names of businesses and filmmakers who would support the effort. (Anyone reading this who works at Kodak? Willing to do the right thing and help?--we're only asking for information at this point.) As the article said, I for one would gladly pay more for a consistent supply of a color reversal film. But consistency has to be one of the clear benefits of any large increase in price. There's no way people can finish, or even begin projects, without reliable supply.

Sorry for the silence...down with the flu for the last week, and with the relatives here for the Holidays, and a fried computer...well, when it rains it pours. I have several friends who put in orders with Kodak (for 7285) around the 15th of December and have yet to receive anything. The last word, as of a few days ago from the order desk, was they are no longer taking any orders for it, period. Further, I have it on very reliable authority they will only be able to fill a fraction of the back orders they received. How they parse it out, I do not know. A previous poster is correct in assuming they have some stock "to finish", but no newly manufactured stuff in the pipeline. Even if they were to start another batch, it wouldn't be ready for sale for months. After coating, there is an aging process on the order of months from what I understand. It will not be coming back. And I couldn't be sadder. I've hatched some real Kafkaesque plans to save Ektachrome, including basically an unofficial kickstarter-type campaign, to put together as many businesses and individuals who care about this medium to buy an entire new batch of 7285 "up front". I can only venture to guess the minimum needed--$100,000? $500,000? More? Or perhaps no price would be high enough, short of bailout. Personally, for me, this is a task that (after much anguish) I have to leave for someone else. My interest in film is just too artistically oriented to make a proper go at it. It needs to be a business, and a properly run one at that. A la the example of Ilford for B/W still films. At least the idea is out there: FOR SALE: a niche business with potential yearly earnings in the millions of dollars. (Please, if someone out there reads this, and decides to do it, I will commit to buy your product--on the order of several thousand $ per year, or more.) This of course means nothing to a company that's disposed of billions of it's customers' and shareholders' cash due to continual withdrawal of their best products, lack of vision, and non-existent marketing for more than a decade. Can you imagine if Kodak had just started a persistent advertising campaign circa 2000: Something like--(insert celebrity here:) "Digital's great...but when it really matters...I shoot film". Or even "Film: Yeah...we make that". If Apple can create such a rabid need for its I-products, Kodak could have just kept even a small piece of their pie the same way. But, like the entire social world today, it seems run not by vision, nor hope, but the fear job-loss and shame of exclusion. So much lip service paid to "individuality" "creativity" "hard work". Not uncoincidentally, these are the exact same values demanded by the unwieldy, dirty, physical, and at times frustrating medium of film. No one seems to remember that the rewards can be so very high! But people want "guarantees" of fame and fortune these days, not artistic sublimity. OK, end of tirade. I am committing myself to finishing a few more films this year; I believe out of several hundred hours of Kodachrome and Ektachrome I've shot in the last 20 years there ought to be at least an hour long film in there, maybe two. I need to put all my energy in that, because there may be no Kodak, and no internegative or even positive stock sooner than we'd like to believe. I do still hate arm chair speculation like that, but I think some paranoia is in order right now. On the up side, I believe our long term future belongs to companies like ORWO, ADOX or perhaps one that isn't even born yet. By no means do I believe its the end of film. But it sure hurts like it is.

Thanks, will do!

I've been a reversal shooter for over 30 years, both in Super 8/Reg 8 and 16mm...and slides too. It seems like I just got a real handle on Ektachrome 100D, the particular way it responds to light, and when and where it can be subtle, or over-the-top with color. This has been my learning curve over the past few years since the Kodachrome ran out in '05 or so. 100D is a very special beast, nothing like it in the history of cinema. I don't believe the small formats (Super 8 and Reg 8) had ever been better. And now it's gone after far too short a life. I belong to the small minority that finishes on film without a workprint. A decent projector, careful hand, and liquid gate printing, and you have a 100% analog 16mm print that looks like no other moving image being produced today (that's a good thing). Another great point in Ektachrome's favor was its color response to internegs--colors shifted much less than Kodachrome (contrast build-up was still a problem, but could be reduced by a minimal post-flash and 1.5 stop pull process on the interneg--done correctly, the d-max on the positive print still betters prints direct from Vision negative). Ironically, I published a piece titled "At this moment" on just this topic in the Winter 2012 issue of The Moving Image (Journal of Motion Picture Archivists). Published literally weeks before the first announcement of slide film getting the ax. My working process is the simplest way to make a beautiful color film, and gives me a necessary visceral connection to the craft. When I can't afford an interneg, I project my originals. I had a show at REDCAT back in September where I showed 30 minutes of camera original films on their excellent Eastman projector, without a scratch (thanks REDCAT!). 16mm 100D on that large screen was absolutely stunning, even if I do say so myself. I know I personally couldn't possibly spend enough at Kodak, at the rate I shoot, to save color reversal. But I believe there are enough of us to keep it alive (regardless of what your process, or whether your final product is digital, original or print). Color reversal is simply too unique, too efficient, and too user-friendly to disappear at this date. All of the prior discontinuations by Kodak could be understood on some level, but this time they have crossed the line. Everytime I went in to the Hollywood office, they were selling Ektachrome--a lot of it. There was a ton of interest. This was not the case at the end of Kodachrome. Kodachrome was loved very much in name only, but Ektachrome 100D seemed to be really starting to catch on in its niche-market kind of way. (And in actuality, if it were only motion picture they were considering, they would not have discontinued it. This was a decision made in the professional still photography division. Most of the assumptions by posters here are correct--I've talked to Kodak employees and they simply did not believe that users would continue to buy it with a price increase necessary to produce it on a smaller scale). I'm not posting here to lament (much) but to really put out feelers to the community to see if we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. I believe what Kodak is looking for (in this age of restructuring) is an outside entity to take on the risk of producing an emulsion (they have said as much). By simply contracting with Kodak to do another run of this film, and paying for it up front, we could supply 35/16/Super 8/8mm motion picture users with another 5 years of this wonderful film. (And it keeps wonderfully well, much better than negative: I've shot rolls that sat in my crappy old 70s fridge for over a year before being processed with no loss of color or d-max). Anyone interested, either with ideas, inside information, committments of support...please contact me. I will be starting the preliminary footwork after the New Year. (I'm also looking at contacting ADOX, who announced a completely in-house produced B/W reversal 100 speed Super 8 this year, though I haven't been able to get my hands on any yet.) Best wishes to you and yours, Timoleon

I understand some labs have a trick, or work-around, for processing Fomapan in Kodak's D-94a (potassium permanganate) process (Fomapan is really designed for the older D-94 w/ pottasium dichromate bleach.) Part of the the work-around is to process the Fomapan in a separate run, while none of the Kodak film is in the baths at the same time. It isn't perfect but minimizes the solarization effects. It all depends on the lab, their particular machine, and so on. The lab I had good luck with this trick was Yale. On the other hand, back when Forde lab in Seattle were in business, they could barely get an image at all. I don't know about Alphacine now.