Re: [APML] Kodak's final response and my film analysis (kiss ofdeath)

["Kevin Wigell" <kwemail@twcny.rr.com>]

Alan, thanks for your research into this "improved" film, although the news is certainly very disappointing and disconcerting. I'm especially disturbed that this change was made with no change in the name or packaging, other than the "improved color" starburst that caught my eye in the first place. But I guess Kodak does that all the time.

I have just emailed B&H for an RMA number to return the 20 rolls of  "improved color" Supra 400 that I received last week. I hope they come through for me. I also asked them if they still have any of the old stuff. If they do, I'll post (after hoarding of course).

Kevin Wigell
www.kwastronomy.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Voetsch" <critter12952@yahoo.com>
To: "APML" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 19:09
Subject: [APML] Kodak's final response and my film analysis (kiss of death)


> Hey all,
> 
> Below you will find Kodak's response to my last e-mail. He confirms
> that starburst Supra boxes are in fact the long dreaded Royal Supra.
> It's possible that there are exceptions, you may want to check the
> catalog numbers (CAT) on the boxes below where it says "Process C-41".
> Then compare to the numbers below. I can not find the numbers he refers
> to; "8182 is the older version and 5926 is the new Royal Supra".
> CAT 861 0800 is what we want. CAT 814 1665 is EVIL.
> 
> Now to the film results. On a previous roll (old Supra) last week, I
> had shot the HH area of Orion many times with exposures ranging from
> 30-65 minutes using a piggybacked 350mm f/4 lens on my OM-1. When all
> this came up, I reloaded the same setup with Starburst Supra and took
> three shots of the same area using the same guidestar. Because of the
> moon, I kept these a little shorter but still in the same range; 40,
> 40, and 22 minutes. Not one of these 3 shots picked up anything except
> a faint Flame Nebula. The old fim showed plenty of rich reds in this
> area, the new film showed absolutely nothing. There is no comparison,
> it is crap. It is BS. This film says "Supra" everywhere including the
> cannister, even though it is royal Supra. The Kodak guy calls it "Royal
> Supra", so why is it being marketed as "SUPRA"?
> 
> What should you do? Call your supplier and see if you can send it back.
> What then? Find suppliers of the older stuff and see if they still have
> some. If so, post to the list and let everyone know.
> 
> I have talked to the people I ordered 85 rolls from 2 days ago. He says
> he has some Fuji film that he thinks might be good for our use. He
> offered to send 100 rolls for us to try. I think a better idea is to
> let him send a few rolls to Don Westergren (how many Don?) for testing
> and then he can post results. These films are 800CZ and 1600 CU. I
> never heard of them and they're probably too grainy.
> 
> Anyway, I need to get this sent. I would like to thank Greg Hartke
> quickly for pointing out the correct CAT #'s last night.
> 
> See below for Kodak's official word.
> 
> Alan

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo