Kodak Aerocolor 125

[Kotobukicat]

So now another film extant / extinct question. I viewed some photos (alas scanned... claimed that there was not digital tampering, but it was displayed on my monitor... so color is suspect) However with that said, the color balance was amazing alt least to me. Photos of fall foliage with the yellow leaves and green grass was amazing. Of course afternoon light in the fall has always been one of my favorite times to shoot outdoors. The film stock was Kodak Aerocolor 125. A color print file, but it is not infrared. As the name suggests, it was meant for aerial photography. Most likely military spec'ed, but I do not know that as fact. It appears to be red dominant, but that is just my eye. I am no expert. So here is my question... what little I could find on it was in some articles from several years ago, around 2022. It seems, that there are (were?) Russian or East European companies buying it in bulk and respooling it So, is this film still being made or is it gone? It makes beautiful images with red forward. I am not interested in a digital recipe. I am looking for the film.

One interesting note... though it is a C-41 film with no remjet, the film base was / is very thin and a real nuisance to spool. I suspect that Kodak did not want to deal with that problem, and was willing to let others do that grunt work. I have never been able to find anything searching Kodak websites, so any information that anyone here would be most welcome.

Thank you very much in advance!


Joe

 

[cgw126 151]

I'd ask around at photrio.com where there's a community of interest in fossil film materials.
Problems are cost and no clue often of freshness or past storage.

https://www.analog.cafe/r/santacolor-100-film-review-n4pm

 

[webestang6419 1]

No it's not being made anymore. But like cgw said above you can find rebranded products like SantaColor 100 and FlicFilm Elektra 100, which are repackaged versions of the original Kodak film.

 

[Kotobukicat]

Thank you! I will look at those sites this afternoon. I feel my bank card twiching in my wallet as I type this...

 

[cgw126 151]

Dunno about these boutique re-spools with cute names and packaging. Happy to pay the going rate for fresh, legit stock that produces consistent results. The other stuff can give new meaning to the term "crap shoot." Feel the Lomography ship sailed about a decade ago along with insistence about a film "revival." YMMV, as always.

 

[Kotobukicat]

Normally I would agree, but Kodak does not spool Aerocolor (if they still make it) in individual carts for 35mm cameras. If I were to buy it from Kodak, assuming they still make it, I would have to buy 150,000 dollars worth. That is undoable on my part. I am n a fixed income. The only way that photographers can get a roll is through a respooler. The problem with Aerocolor, is that the film base is very thin, and is quite difficult to respool, and the other issue is that since there is no color mask, and the film base is clear, it light pipes very easily. So even loading into a camera is a nuisance. one must load and unload it in a darkened room (not a light proof darkroom). According to what I have read, usually the first two or three shots are fogged. But what I have seen on my computer monitor (which is always suspect), the color rendition is to my eye and taste, spectacular. This of course, is subjective, and others may hate it. It has a hazy, but very color realistic look to it without being so saturated that it looks like it is posterized or silk printed. In my opinion, (again not having looked at an actual darkroom, non-digital print, it is in my opinion, about 3/4 of the way to a decent Cibi print.

The images that I have seen actually remind me of being a 15 year old boy walking through the woods behind my mothers house right around late fall before most of the trees had lost their leaves, but still with a good amount of leaves on the ground.

Part of the problem with getting old like me is that the "digital color processing center" of the brain does the same thing to memories that photoshop does for images.

All that said, I do so miss Cibi that anything that gets close to it without a damned computer in the mix seems quite good to me.


Peace,

Joe

 

[cgw126 151]

Seemed to me that boutique respoolers suckered buyers into believing their films would consistently produce an advertised "look," much like a Photoshop plug-in. Far from it. The variation in less-than-tight C-41 lines guarantees inconsistent results IMHO. Shoot a roll of fresh consumer Fuji or Kodak, get it processed and scanned, and see if that works.

 

[webestang6419 1]

From someone who develops/scans all this odd/mostly old out dated stuff everyday, be it C-41 or BW. In my opinion (each to his own) it's all garbage, looks like crap, scans like crap.
But I'm a purist when it comes to film. I only shoot films I have known for decades, save for shooting E-6 to cross process in C-41.
FIY, it's best to shoot films near or on the month/year of "expire" date. At that time the film is at it's peak curve and will yield it's full potential.

 

[cgw126 151]

From someone who develops/scans all this odd/mostly old out dated stuff everyday, be it C-41 or BW. In my opinion (each to his own) it's all garbage, looks like crap, scans like crap.
But I'm a purist when it comes to film. I only shoot films I have known for decades, save for shooting E-6 to cross process in C-41.
FIY, it's best to shoot films near or on the month/year of "expire" date. At that time the film is at it's peak curve and will yield it's full potential.

Amen, brother!