Talk:List of discontinued photographic films

Verichrome Pan at ASA 80?

When did VP go from ASA 80 to 125?

I have the backing paper from a roll of VP620 which says right on the leader that it is ASA 80. (and am about to develop it and see what comes out.)

When I first started photography in 1967 it was already 125.

Gah4 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this was from before the ASA changed the way the speeds were computed. I do have some interestingly old rolls of film. Gah4 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is fuji making black and whites at all anymore?

Their website makes no mention of it.  Jazzbox (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, at least Fujifilm ACROS 100 is in production. http://fujifilm.jp/personal/filmandcamera/film/monochrome/film.html --- [Tycho] ^talk 01:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I believe that there is black and white Instax still in production. Does that count? Gah4 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

AGFA B&W film

AGFAPhoto is currently selling APX 100 and APX 400 Black & White negative file. I do not know what relationship these products have to the AGFAPan products of the same names formerly sold by AGFA. However, the page needs to acknowledge their existence and if possible find out the origin of this film and if it is an attempt to reproduce the AGFA product or if this is just some other film with that ISO rating.

Tyrerj (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And then Rollei Film (a product of MACO) is selling AGFA film (not AGFAPhoto). They have RPX 100 & RPX 400 which might be the same or similar to the APX 100 & APX 400 that AGFA was selling before their bankruptcy.

Tyrerj (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Find out and update the page. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Agfa Ultra and Ektachrome

Agfa Ultra was available in more sensitivities beside 100. This 1992 ad[1] mentions three different sensitivities (though not naming them) for Agfa Ultra, Agfa Optima, and Agfa Portrait each (all three films combined made up the "Agfa Triade System" line). The ad itself has a box shot of Agfa Ultra 50, another shot of the 50 ASA version box is here: [2] It's not quite certain what the third sensitivity beside 50 and 100 was: One photographer on Instagram mentions using a 200 ASA version: [3], while especially Asian sources mention a 400 ASA version: [4].

Also, it should be mentioned that 1991 was definitely not the launch date for EliteChrome ExtraColor, at least not by that name, and it was not separate from E100 VS. It was all just one line of a highly saturated Ektachrome film. Back in 1991, the film was still called Ektachrome Panther (with an internal codename of Ektachrome PRP), which was available as 50, 100, 400, and 1600 ASA: [5], [6], [7], [8]. In 2002, in line with the re-branding of all Ektachrome products to "E + ASA + special feature", the highly saturated Panther line was re-named E100 VS ("Very Saturated") and reduced to 100 ASA only. And finally, with the re-branding of the E line to EliteChrome around 2006-07, the film was re-named into EliteChrome ExtraColor (or ExtraColour in the UK; codenamed Ektachrome EBX).

None of the EliteChrome brand names were around by 1989-1991, even though that's when the modern line of Ektachrome films began which around 2000-02 were re-branded as "E + ASA + special feature", and around 2006-07 as EliteChrome (+ special feature).

Also, beside VS, G, and XS, there were S and SW versions of the "E + ASA + special feature" line: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. So far, I've not been able to find out what the special feature of these were. --2003:48:2E4C:B139:4DB7:3AA4:B9D8:D4ED (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

P. S.: From the high-rez shots above, it appears S and SW stood for "Saturated" and "Saturated Warm", obviously. --2003:48:2E4C:B139:4DB7:3AA4:B9D8:D4ED (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

More on Agfa: Agfa Vista (with "Made in Germany" on the box) was remaining stock produced by Agfa Germany, while Agfa Vista Plus (with "Made in Japan" on the box) is really recans by Fuji. The difference is notable in the old version (without the Plus in the name) had more saturation and more neutral colors, while the Japanese Plus version has low saturation and often a yellow cast. --2003:48:2E4C:B125:7134:5C83:20A5:E29D (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Tri-X

Tri-X is in this article. As someone noted, it isn't discontinued, but it has been improved enough that it isn't the same film. That is, 400TX is different from Tri-X. Should we make this more obvious? Gah4 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(carried over from @Gah4:'s Talk page) All films change over time. If they're still calling it TX, which was the type pre-exposed on the film, then it's still Tri-X even if it's a different formulation. I don't know what the photochemists who worked on the film would say, but the name "Tri-X" and "400TX" is marketing. Tri-X has changed speeds over the time, but the basic concept remains the same. It's a fast B&W film requiring very simple processing. - Denimadept (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, first of all, I didn't add Tri-X to this article. Someone else added it, but put the wrong section header on it. I did some editing, and corrected the section header. The previous Kodak data sheet explained that there were two different films, with different development times, but also that is is a normal formulation change. The current (Kodak Alaris) data sheet removed the note. (I still have some old Tri-X, though.) Some photographers seem to notice the difference, and others don't. It seems that 400TX is the new symbol name, instead if just TX as before, and the name is now "Professional Tri-X" instead of just "Tri-X". We could just comment this out until it is really discontinued. Gah4 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I now put comment signs around the whole Tri-X section. That should do for now, but if anyone wants to discuss it more, this is a fine place. Gah4 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that in: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/databanks/filmDatabankBW.jhtml?pq-path=13700/14472/14475 Tri-X is on the discontinued list, and Professional Tri-X on the products list. (But the links don't work.) Gah4 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

All I can say is, "gah", but I wouldn't say that. :-> - Denimadept (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, don't say that. I am not sure why, but it seems that Kodak (and now Kodak Alaris) doesn't want amateurs using their film, so they name them professional. It used to be that there were consumer (aged) and professional (not aged) color films. For black and white films, the professional films had retouching surfaces. But now they are all professional films? Gah4 (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Kodak Alaris

All the Kodak film web pages seem now to be on www.kodakalaris.com, and most, if not all, the old links don't work. Even many of the links from the Kodak pages themselves don't work, but presumably they are fixing that. I suspect that the links from here don't work, either. Gah4 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gah4: See the fourth paragraph in the lead of Kodak for that bit. It has to do with their bankruptcy. - Denimadept (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the settlement required them to rename the site, though I doubt it required so many broken links. It is slowly getting better. Previously most of the data sheets for discontinued films were still there, but not so many now. Gah4 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not that the settlement required them to "rename their site", the entire settlement consisted of spinning off their amateur photography department as Kodak Alaris, which is a separate entity situated in the UK and owned by the Kodak UK Pension Fund. Alaris mainly does two things: Sell (mainly chemical/analogue/celluloid) amateur still photography products (they now own all the relevant licenses and formulas and such, even), and they also include Kodak MOMENTS, which is the department responsible for the Kodak Picture Kiosks, which is basically a photo printing machine that you can use at your local drugstore or pharmacy in order to make prints from your digital photos. It was necessary for Kodak USA to spin off their amateur department as part of chapter 11 because the department wasn't profitable enough anymore for a company the size of Kodak USA, but it's still profitable enough as a smaller company on its own in the UK.

As said, the new Kodak Alaris is a company entirely separate from Kodak USA, whereas the latter is responsible for motion picture stocks, professional still photography stocks, and professional printing services for ad companies and publishers and such, and they also make and sell the two new Kodak cameras, the digital Ektra camera and the new Kodak Super8 camera. --2003:71:4E6A:B423:60BA:DC57:B52A:C7F (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Many new films

I've come across a collection of film data sheets from the mid-1960s, and I've added some of the data for Agfa black and white films of the day. There's no reference (yet), but I'm planning to scan in the data sheets and refer to them. If anybody can establish dates of production, that would help. Clearly the data sheets don't give any indication, though in the case of Agfa Isopan F I have another reference from 1943. Groogle (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of discontinued photographic films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014020647/http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX%20Films/Premium/ADOX-PAN-400/PAN400.html to http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX%20Films/Premium/ADOX-PAN-400/PAN400.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

What a brilliant resource!

This is a very useful article - thank you to User:Ajuk for starting it! Jamesmcardle^(talk) 06:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Omitted films and formats

I notice that Kodachrome 64 is listed as the successor to earlier versions of Kodachrome, but there is no entry for Kodachrome 64. There is also no entry for Ektachrome-X (ASA 64). Many films listed here omit the fact that they were offered in 120 or 220 roll-film formats. No criticism implied! Thanks for all the work that has gone into the page so far. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Kodachrome section needs work, for sure. I found some more information and added it, and removed some of the editorial comments. But I didn't feel there was quite enough yet to make a data table out of it. Apparently Kodachrome was available in both motion picture and stills formats, from 110 to 4x5 sheet film, in three (or more?) different speeds. It's a big job. Maybe someone else can pick up the ball from here. - Kzirkel (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a roll of Owl brand silvercheome pan 120 film

Please add this as a discontinued brand of still film. I have a roll sitting in front of me. It's expiration date on box is Oct 1968. Ndgrrl47 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary information

@Arcadia4: I don't think that information about the construction of the factory building is useful. After all, this is a list that shows discontinued films and does not detail the history of each factory. Also, Azomureș did not specialize recently in chemical fertilizers, but it has been so since its establishment in 1962. The photo section was attached to this factory due to the problems faced by the directors when they were a communist cooperative.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

DuPont Films?

I was at a DuPont estate and one of the museums to the DuPonts said they made photographic film, a google search confirmed this. Could somebody find out which years they were available? They are missing from this article, unless they were never comericially available which doesn’t seem to be the case BigCheddah (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)