Re: Infared Film for MF?

[George L Smyth <GLSmyth@xxxxxxx>]

Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> 
> Found this interesting note about IR/MF on rec.photo.*:
> 
> >The last I heard is that they can't make IR film for MF because the film
> >is only protected bt paper. It was the same reason they coulnd't make
> >T-Max 3200 for MF because the film was so sensitive, it would get fogged
> >just sitting on your desk.

I really don't think that this is the case.  I remember speaking with
Ctein a while back about TMZ not being available in the larger sizes,
and I "think" I remember him telling me that it had something to do with
the substrate binding (I could be wrong, but I know the reason was NOT
the paper backing).

I would think that this is primarily a marketing decision.  Remember,
Kodak's 35mm is actually split 70mm, and their 4X5 is cut 8X10.  I don't
believe that Kodak makes much money on their IR for customer use, but
make their money with their sales to the government.  The relatively
inexpensive step of cutting the film allows them to be able to market it
to the public.  IR in the 120 size would be a new process, and too
expensive to market.  Don't get me wrong, I'd be elbowing many of you to
get to 120 IR regardless of the price, but I doubt the market would be
there for them to turn a decent profit.  At least Konica is there to
fill the gap.

george

-- 
 Handmade Photographic Images     
  http://www2.ari.net/glsmyth/

------------------------------