I have a theory that I’m pursuing on
how to tell the difference between the old and new RG. Went to the local discounter
tonight and found clear differences in packaging of two rolls of RG400.
Interestingly, they both had 2004 expirations. One, though, had a 2002
copyright on it, while the other had 2000 on it. The other thing I noticed is
that the older roll clearly stated, as Howard noticed below, “Kodak
Select Series” on it (and on the film canister) while the newer one did
not. Finally, the hang-card part of the package was also different. The newer
one had a gold starburst in the upper right corner while the older package had
a blue corner stating “New!” among other words (even though that
one was definitely older). The RG200 was labeled similarly to the RG400.
Now, I can’t prove it yet, but I
suspect the package with “2002” on it is the new stuff and the one
with “2000” on it is the old stuff. All I need is a couple of
clear hours sometime soon to shoot a few exposures side-by-side and I can
prove/disprove my theory. Stay tuned…
-- Pat Freeman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-astro-photo@seds.org
[mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org] On Behalf
Of Howard Edin
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002
20:43 PM
To: astro-photo@seds.org
Subject: RE: [APML] RG200 Alert
I'm wondering if I have
gotten confused (likely 8-)
I just found some Royal
Gold Select 200 stashed in the back of the fridge. The couple of boxes I have
recently purchased was Royal Gold 200, does not say 'Select'.
Are these two different
films and I never noticed?
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-astro-photo@seds.org
[mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org]On Behalf
Of westergren
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002
7:20 PM
To: astro-photo@seds.org
Subject: Re: [APML] RG200 Alert
Very interesting that your film is
marked with a -3 instead of the old -2. Maybe Kodak changed the film
markings later than they changed the actual film. The new stuff I
had was probably an early batch, but it definitely was marked -2.
Try hypering it about 4 times as
long (or longer). the old RG 200 from my tests and as reported by Tony
Hallas really needs to be fully hypered to perform well. My limited tests
with the new RG 200 say the same thing.
If your film shows the expiration
date on the box, I think the old film expired through the end of 2003.
The early new stuff had dates of expiration of Jan and Feb in
2004. Maybe that will help tell which is which.
Don, you are absolutely
correct: it has changed.
Just got back a roll of
RG200 and it certainly is a new formulation. The negative strip says RB 200-3
where as the older stuff says 200-2 RB. Hypered 3 hrs @ 50c did nothing for the
film. The exposure of 45 minutes was virtually absent of any red, very poor
overall sensitivity.
Now I have to figure out
which unused rolls I have that are the -2 and which are -3 . Any one
have any ideas besides developing a test strip ?
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-astro-photo@seds.org
[mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org]On Behalf
Of westergren
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002
1:39 AM
To: astro-photo@seds.org
Subject: [APML] RG200 Alert
I believe another great color
negative film has been changed by the manufacturer - Kodak Royal Gold
200. Film I bought in April for a test series hypered completely at 30°C
in 36 hours with a characteristic rebate change. That film is the best
I've found to date. I bought additional rolls in late June (marked expire
2/2004) and that film doesn't hyper in 36 hours, it now takes 96 hours to get
the same rebate change. This new version has no change in the film
markings, and has slightly less light sensitivity than the "older"
film. The new stuff hypered for me in 12 hours at 50°C, with light
sensitivity better than the new 30° hyper, but less than the old 30° hyper.
It's still a great film, but I hate
to loose anything in film capability. From my tests, RG200 hypers best at
50°C.
Has anyone else observed or sensed a
change in RG200?