Talk:List of photographic films

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Photography: History

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Untitled

This needs a clean up, Putting Wide for lattitude and Fine for Granularity is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.234.64 (talk • contribs)

What would you suggest? Those terms aren't meaningless, would you like numbers instead? Unfortunately Kodak uses a different measurement for grain from everyone else ("print grain index" vs RMS). Imroy 13:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a lot of Kodaks RMS figures have been worked out by third parties

Cleanup advice

I think that the intended scope and depth of the list is too big for this to become both informative and comprehensive, due to acceptable sizes as per the Manual of Style. What may be more workable and better formatting-wise would be to create an infobox for film specs and characteristics, which you could then incorporate into the individual articles for the films. Then you could simply format this list as a table with the film name (and link to the film's article), maybe a year of introduction, year of discontinuation (if so), manufacturer, and simple qualifiers like color/b&w/infrared, negative/reversal, so on. Anyway, that's my two cents. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola 17:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. It could certainly help get much of the listcruft out of this article. I can see a number of problems though. Firstly, many films don't have articles. Creating a bunch of articles, each containing little more than an infobox, might see them quickly being nominated for deletion (AfD). I'm not sure much can be written about many films. Secondly, most films have several speeds, some of which are quite different. For example - Velvia 50, 100F, and 100. Each speed was developed and introduced with many years inbetween. Velvia 100 also has colour correction layers from Provia. So I'm not sure how all this different information should be shown in an infobox (presumedly just one per film). I guess the only option would be to remove much of the data. What information did you think should be in an infobox? --Imroy 06:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made Template:Infobox Photographic film and have added it to a number of existing film articles. --Imroy 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English

X570's edit and logic ("Kodak - kodak is an American company, use American spelling. on pages regarding british topics eg Ilford, by all means use brit spelling.") makes little sense. Following this logic we would have variant versions of English within the same article based on the nationality of the film producer (thankfully no British color films are represented). Since this edit violates WP:ENGVAR in that we are told to "Stay with established spelling" and to use the same spelling convention throughout an article, I am reverting the edit. TheMindsEye 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Both the established and original spelling (see first edit) per WP:ENGVAR in this article is American. Please stop using and reverting to British spelling. To do so is a violation of WP:ENGVAR. Also please note that "Agfacolor" is a German brand name and should never be spelled "Agfacolour". To spell it "Agfacolour" could be considered vandalism. --VMS Mosaic 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some help

I noticed the French article is quite good so here is a translation

Missing Agfa films

AgfaPhoto is still producing films, albeit only available via mail order. The two currently produced emulsions missing from this list are:

Vista (100, 200, 400 ASA), color negative
CT Precisa (100), color slide film

Source: [1] --79.193.37.36 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing manufacuturers

the article makes no mention of the German company Adox who are now a significant manufacturer of photographic films. There is also no mention of Lomography who are now making 110 cartridges in colour and monochrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.228.255 (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another missing brand is ORWO, which used to be the east-German branch of AGFA. I understand that a number of "boutique" 135 B/W films are simply re-spooled ORWO stock. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of 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:

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) 10:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New colour key

I don't think it makes sense to have a list of films that have been introduced in the last 12 months because that's not really in the encyclopedic style. Bostwickenator (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a year since this comment and as no one has disputed it I'm going to modify the article across the next few days to make this less of a current events page. Additionally I will see if it is possible to break the page up into manufacturing brands and purely marketing brands eg FUJI Film, Japan Camera Hunter Bostwickenator (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the key was modified within a few days to address your specific comment so it doesn't place a timescale on a new film. It simply identifies films announced in the media/marketing with references (e.g. Ektachrome) prior to its introduction but not yet available for sale and also those discontinued, but still on sale from stock e.g. currently Acros in 135 which is useful information to the reader. Arcadia4 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your proposal to breakup the page into 'manufacturing' and 'marketing' brands (why does this distinction matter to the reader/end user?) rather than a simple alphabetical list by brand which is what this list is. Its clearly described in the text where known. However this split isn't straightforward because definitive information to reference is hard to come by for commercial reasons, some brands have partial capability - what counts as manufacture? and some people are convinced that some brands have capabilities that they do not. (for example a film may be coated in one location but converted/packaged by another, neither ilford or kodak make/package their photo chemistry etc) If you want to pursue this idea suggest that this would be better as a table of capability by brand/manufacturer on the 'photographic films' wiki page section on manufacturers (which is in need of updating!) or a new list of film manufacturers. Arcadia4 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 on

Someone should clarify what "on" means next to the years. Does it mean onwards? If yes, what is the difference to available? The article is dense in useful information, but this "on" has me puzzled. 2A01:C23:8835:8E00:9857:B978:5A94:ECF (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes onwards, but updated sections have been amended by a hyphen instead to remove this point of doubt.

Missing some Tasma films

Russian manufacturer Tasma is still producing films

Tasma Type 25L (450 iso)
Tasma Type 42L (1000-1400 iso)

source: https://tasma.ru/en/products/fotoplenki-i-plenki-spetsialnogo-naznacheniya/ --Gnomez (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollei RPX 400

According to the datasheet on RolleiAnalog.com, RPX 400 has a Triacetate base. It is not Polyester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.118.73 (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tables lists T/P. RPX 400 in 135 and 120 formats has a triacetate base. The 4x5 was on a PE base - which is what the reference refers to (It is currently unavailable). The link for 4x5 is from the Maco website which is owned by the holder of the Rollei brand for film use - Hans O.Mahn. It is also listed as being a PE base on other stockist website such as B&H [2]. I have amended the text to avoid ambiguity.