120/220 Film for Medium Format Cameras

120/220 Film for Medium Format Cameras
by Robert Monaghan

Related Local Links:
Lens LPM Ratings for Sundry Films
Classic Camera Film Sizes, Sources, and Film Adapters
Sources of 127 film (4x4cm)
Al Thompson's Rolling 120 Film Onto a 620 Spindle article
Reciprocity and Film

Related Links:
Film Discussion Group (8/2000)
10X faster films? (new research..)
Kodachrome List
Film Characteristics (lpmm..)
Agfa Scala B&W; Slide Film Lab
High Speed Film Comparisons
Sources for 620 film etc.
Film History
35mm Film Jungle
Kodak Films
Kodak Consumer films
Forty B&W; Enlarging Papers Compared by Fred Singer
Kokak Professional Films - Black and White
Kodak Professional Films - Color
Polaroid Instant Film Products
Photo Info Sheets (films, 120, and development..)
Kodak Processing Pro Labs Worldwide
Kodachrome Forum (mailing list)
Reciprocity Failure (NYIP)
Film Reciprocity Failure Guide (local)
Ilford Site (includes reciprocity data!)
Bulk Film Loading FAQ

70mm Film, Infrared, Film Backs:
Konica 750 Infrared Film Data Sheet
70mm Infrared Film FAQ (W.J. Markerink)
70mm Film Emulsions (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji)
70mm Film Cameras and Backs
Film Overview - Color Slides, Prints, Black and White (Chris Bitmead)
Films that I Use (Chris Bitmead)
Film Companies (Chris Bitmead)
Film Recommendations (Philip Greenspun)
Film Shop (sales)
Negatives vs. Slides (Nelson Tan)
Film vs. Slides (A Tale of 2 Films)
Medium Format Digest Postings on Films
APS - 1.5 times the cost, half the quality?
Photo Connection Int'l Film
Film Links Page
Why Shoot Slide Film? [added 10/99]
Film Reviews by Jed Wee [added 10/99]
Film Review by Edwin Leong

Email suggestions, updates, comments, links, and glitches to fix - Thanks!
Thom Bell's Film Site (Kodak etc. film info)
Liquid Emulsion on Glass (6 pane art show)
Film Storage (Kodak)
B&W; film Developing
B&W; Film Developing How-tos (steps..)
B&W; Film Developing (slide show)
Photographers Shooting Log (MSWORD .DOC)
Pushing Film in C41 Chemistry [12/2000]
Gigabit High Resolution Film and Lenses Study [1/2001]
Digital Equivalents to Film by Dr. John Owlett
Huge list of black and white films (1998) [includes formats, 35mm to 120 to .. 8x10"..]
John Sexton on Tmax [5/2001]
Kodachrome 25 by Erwin Puts (in requiem ;-) [6/2001]
Black and White Film Guide by Mike Johnston [7/2001]
Orwo Films [7/2001]
Frugal Photographer (127 and 620..) [7/2001]
Evolution of Film [7/2001]
Kodak "improves" B&W; Films [3/2002]
Film Market Changes [3/2002]
Maco IR Film
Maco IR Film Notes
Brit. Jrnl of Photogr. Reviews 400 speed films [8/2002]

Film Selection and Sorting Spreadsheet (by Michael K. Davis) [07/2000]

Origin of US Supermarket Films

Agfa if box says ''Made in Germany''

Konica if box says ''Made in Japan''

3M if box says ''Made in the U.S.A.''

Free Film Offer From Kodak

From: Bob Dickerson bdickers@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Free Film Trial
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998

Kodak is offering two rolls of their newest professional film free. Call 1-800-336-8868, ext. 200 They offering the E100S or the E100SW Ektachrome.

Super Fast Film Advance Announced

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Geo geo@accesshub.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.
+ large-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[1] Researchers Make Faster Film
Date: Wed Dec 22 14:34:29 CST 1999
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/991222/14/faster-photography
Updated 2:00 PM ET December 22, 1999
By CHRIS TOMLINSON, Associated Press Writer
Scientists say they have found a way to produce photographic film that is 10 times more sensitive to light - an advance that could make true-to-life pictures of candlelight dinners possible without a flash or muted colors.
Agfa, the European film manufacturer that sponsored the study and holds the patent, would not comment on when the film might become available commercially. And researchers acknowledged more work is needed to determine how well it can reproduce certain colors.
But if the approach works, it could revolutionize photography, improving on the basic design that has been around since the 1840s. In a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, researchers at the University of Paris-Sud said they have managed to capture every bit of available light on film by adding a simple chemical.
"A real breakthrough," said Richard Hailstone, a scientist at the Rochester Institute of Technology.
--
George Struk - Natural Light Black & White Photography
http://www.accesshub.net/naturalight

Kodak Professional Roll Films
Color Negative Films:

Pro 100 (PRN)
Vericolor III (VPS)
Pro 400 (PPF)
Pro 400MC (PMC)
Pro 1000 (PMZ)
Pro 100T (PRT)

Black and White Roll Films:

Plus-X Pan (PXP)
T-Max 100 (TMX)
Tri-X Pan Professional (TXP)
T-Max 400 (TMY)
T-Max T400CN (chromogenic C41 process)

Color Reversal Films (slides):

Ektachrome 64 (EPR)
Ektachrome 100 (EPN)
Ektachrome 100 Plus (EPP)
Ektachrome E100S
Ektachrome E100SW (warmer)
Ektachrome 64T (EPY) (tungsten)
Ektachrome 160T (EPT) (tungsten)

[Source: Kodak Professional Films booklet from Hasselblad University Course]

Agfa Roll Films (120)

Agfa APX 25 Black and White
Agfa APX 400 Black and White

Ilford Professional Roll Films (120)

Ilford Delta 100 Professional (120 Roll Film)
Ilford Delta 400 Professional (120 Roll Film)
Ilford FP4 Plus [midspeed EI 125] (120 Roll Film)
Ilford HP5 Plus [hi-speed EI 400] (120 Roll Film)
Ilford Pan F Plus [lo-speed EI 50](120 Roll Film)
Ilford XP2 [hi-speed EI 400] (120 Roll Film)

Konica Infrared 750 Black and White Film

[Source: Jack's Film/Paper/Developer Page]

From Midwest Photo. Exchange Ads:
Reala Color Print Film - 120/220
Velvia Color Reversal Film (slides) - 120/220
Provia Color Reversal Film (slides) - 120B

Konica Film Site
Konica Films are:

Type ISO Sizes
Impresa 50 Prof. 50 120
VX 100 100 120
Professional 160 160 120/220
SR-G160 160 120/220
SR-G 3200 3200 120

(Thanks to Harry D. George, Jr. for this list!)

For some reason, I can't find a consolidated listing of available roll-films for medium format users. So I figured I would at least start one, and add to it as I find more information.

Medium Format 120 Rollfilms

Film ISO 1000:1 lpm 1.6:1 lpm Type

Agfachrome Pro RSX 50 50 125 55 color slide

Agfachrome Pro RSX 100 100 125 50 color slide

Agfachrome Pro RSX 200 200 110 50 color slide

Fujichrome Velvia 50 160 80 color slide

Fujichrome Astia 100 100 135 55 color slide

Fujichrome Provia 100 100 140 60 color slide

Fujichrome Provia 400 400 125 40 color slide

Fujichrome 64T (tungsten) 64 125 50 color slide

Fujichrome MS 100/1000 100-1000 135 55 color slide

Agfacolor Ultra 50 50 140 50 color print

Agfacolor Optima 100 100 140 50 color print

Agfacolor Portrait 160 160 150 60 color print

Agfacolor Optima 200 200 130 45 color print

Agfacolor Optima 400 400 100 50 color print

Fujicolor NPS 160 160 125 63 color print

Fujicolor NPL 160 (tungsten) 160 125 63 color print

Fujicolor Prof 400 NPH 400 100 50 color print

Fujicolor NHGII 800 800 100 50 color print

Konica Impresa 50 50 130 80 color print

Konica SR-G 160 160 100 50 color print

Agfapan APX 25 25 200 n/a B&W

Agfapan APX 100 100 150 n/a B&W

Agfapan APX 400 400 110 n/a B&W

Agfa Scala 200X (slides) 200 120 55 B&W

Agfa Ortho 25 (no red..) 25 350 n/a B&W

Kodak T-Max 100 100 200 63 B&W

Kodak T-max 400 400 125 50 B&W

Kodak Tech Pan 6415 25 320 100 B&W

n.b. Kodak has stopped providing current film resolution values in the lpmm format, so those shown above are from previous values and tests by Petersen Photographic magazine and other resources. Where only the high contrast value was provided, it is shown above with not/available (n/a) where no data was provided.
More 35mm lpmm data

Postings:

From: dkfletcher@aol.com (DKFletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best resolution - neg or transparencies?
Date: 1 Mar 1998
A trans is capable of reproducing 7 stops-a neg 5.
Which do you think will be better?
Just my two cents worth....

[Ed. note: in other words, slides beat prints in dynamic range by 2 stops, but watch those highlights ;-)]

From: steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: BEST RESOLUTION - SLIDE OR NEG...?
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
WHICH FILM GIVES THE BEST RESOLUTION? SLIDES OR NEG?
It doesn't matter. If you're shooting 4X5, the film is not going to be the limiting factor as far as resolution goes. (And, of course, the resolution depends on the individual film you're using).
Do you mean that the measurable resoltion in cycles/mm linepairs/mm is the same on slide and neg film? And sureley resolution is a factor even when using a format like 4x5 inch.
I think what he was saying is on 4X5, the lens is going to be the limiting factor not the film...any 100 asa film is going to resolve more than a 4X5 lens will record..and yes the less magnification of 4X5 vs med format will show on 20 X 30 prints...no one said that, but unless your shooting 400 asa film, the film isn't going to limit resolution.. The taking and enlarging lenses are going to be what limits it in addition to technique used to take the picture (ie tripod strength, aperture used..ect)And if you're going to make prints only...shoot neg film..IMHO they are easier to get good prints made from them by most labs...
--

steve's photography & Z car stuff
http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
skoontz@mindspring.com

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998
From: Clive Warren Clive.Warren@src.bae.co.uk
Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] IR Film
At 10:01 am -0800 4/3/98, n1965n wrote:
Hi: I saw that Clive has been using infared film in his KO. I assume that it is B&W; film. If it is color, please let us know where to buy it. Also, how do you achieve percise focus using IR film in the KO? Jim Bushelle
Yep, B/W Konica 750 - not really a fan of the colour IR effect, even if you could buy the film...
Generally I stop down to at least f11 and use hyperfocal focusing. If anyone is unfamiliar with the technique most photographic ''how to'' books will cover it. Please feel free to send me personal EMail if you cannot find the information.
All the best,
Clive http://clive.bel-epa.com

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998
From: Les Jackson LRJ71@pacbell.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Looking for 120/220 Film Listings, what I've found so far...

Calumet puts out a Essentials catalog that has all films listed and what formats they come in 1-800-225-8638 . I was thinking about typing it up and putting it one my web page but havn't found the time
Les Jackson
http://home.pacbell.net/lrj71/ check out my page

From: Dave Jenkins ljenkins@vol.net
Subject: Response to ISO VPS 120
Date: 1998-03-07
If you like Kodak products, there is absolutely no benefit to be gained by using VPS over PMC in a 6x7 format camera. In fact, you make problems for yourself by using a slow film.
I have recently completed a test in my studio in which I photographed my assistant with seven different color negative films under the same lighting setup. I used a Canon EOS A2 with the 85mm f1.8 EF lens, and made all exposures at f8.5 as read with a Minolta flashmeter. I place my model so that her head was in the center of the viewing screen and made several exposures on each roll of film. After processing, I used a 10X Peake loupe to select the sharpest negative in each set, then took the film to a custom lab where the enlarger was set for a 20x30 print size, but only the center of the negative was printed on a sheet of 8x10 paper. I was thus able to evaluate my test at 20X magnification without actually paying for 20x30s.
The films tested were Fuji's Reala, NPS-160, NPH-400, Superia 400, and NHG-II-800, and Kodak's VPS and PMC-400. The 160-speed films were rated at 125. Reala was superior to the other films, although one experienced printer had difficulty discerning Reala from NPH. VPS and NPH-400 tied for second. They were about equal in sharpness, with the grain a little finer in VPS but better color in the NPH. The Kodak films displayed a grayness in their skin tones that I don't care for. Kodak's PMC-400 was the least sharp of the films tested, actually less sharp than Fuji's NHG-II at 800 speed. The Fuji 800, by the way, is a revelation. You will simply not believe that a film this fast could be so good. Remember, all these tests were at 20X magnification, the equivalent of a 20x30 print from a 35mm negative.
The Fuji NPS-160 was the big loser in this test -- there's really no reason to use it. The grain is no better than NPH400, and it's actually less sharp than NPH. Fuji did photographers a real disservice when they discontinued Reala in 120 & 220 sizes and tried to ram an inferior film like NPS down our throats. I quit using Kodak products because of tactics like that. As for Fuji Superia 400, an amateur film,it's almost, but not quite as good as NPH. I will certainly use a lot of it for family snapshots with the confidence that it will make an easy 16x20 from 35mm, and a pretty good 20x30 if I should ever want one.
Getting back to the original proposition -- If you want to use Kodak, then use PMC-400. You will not likely be able to see the difference between it and VPS on a 20x24 print from a 6x7 negative. If you want to make a real improvement, load up with Fuji NPH-400.

From: James Chow jchow@atom.isl.melco.co.jp
Subject: Response to ISO VPS 120
Date: 1998-03-09
Actually, Fuji still does make Reala Ace in 120/220. I can buy it just about anywhere in Japan, even at the local grocery/dept. store. They don't sell NPH-400 here, though. There's only Reala Ace, Super G 100/400, NS-160 (''short speed''), NL-160 (''long speed''), and NC-160 (''commercial'').
I haven't used any of the 160 speed films, nor do I know how it differs from NPS sold in the US.

Low Light Film Tip
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Many of you have been following my permutations with this jazz assignment I have, to shoot a jazz combo over six months or so, and to provide 8" by 10" prints on order.
Lots and lots of you gave advice, all of which was digested and pondered, and thanks to those who offered aid! But my friend Mike Fletcher, a professional Leica and Hasselblad shooter in St Louis, simply snorted and said, said he: "TMZ and Rodinal, 1:25 at 8 minutes". I spluttered and said, "But Rodinal gives GRAIN!" And he said, "try it".
I did, and he was right. Wonderful negatives, albeit a bit thin. Tonal range, contrast, sharpness, not even objectionable grain. A thousand times better than TMZ in D-76 or T-Max Developer.
...
TMZ (aka, Kodak's T-Max P3200) is only available in miniature-format, so we are damned to use it in our 35mm cameras. If it were available in MF, I would be blasting away on Rolleiflex TLR or Hasselbald, cheerfully.
And Ilford is to produce a Delta 3200: B&H; has announced it, though Ilford is yet to acknowledge its existence. Gads, but I will probably prefer this to TMZ!
Marc

Q: is this developed at 68 Degrees F.?
Yup.
Marc

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:52:35 EST From: JDavis9077 Reply to: Koni-Omega Mailing List To: koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com Subject: Re: [KOML] Film sources Steve - Check out Freestyle Sales Co. I've always had pretty good luck with film, paper, etc. with them. Their web site is www.freestylesalesco.com or call 213-660-3460 for a catalog. Good luck. Jeff Davis.

From: zoomr@skypoint.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Life of film? Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 Once I developed a roll of film for a friend of mine where the film and latent images were more than 30 years old. I was amazed at how well it came out. As long as the film has not been affected by excessive heat and humidity, fogging of a B&W roll seems to cause just a nominal loss of quality over time. I have wondered what the "humidity" is inside a foil sealed film package, and if there is any possibility of frost or condensation inside if the roll is warmed to room temperature and then re-frozen. I have heard of people who buy and freeze huge quantities of a favorite film if it is going out of production.

From: Dave Jenkins Subject: Response to ISO VPS 120 Date: 1998-03-09 James Chow is lucky if Reala 120/220 is readily available where he is. There is still some available in the US, but it is shortdated at this point and no more is being imported. Fuji is really missing the boat on this one.

From: Frank Sheeran; fs@speedcore.com
Subject: Response to Duplicating 120 transparencies
Date: 1998-03-11
Hi Blake,
Have you duped before? You probably know that dupes look awful compared to originals. My strategy is: shoot a scene twice or more if I'll need copies to submit it to multiple stock customers.
Other tip: scan useful shots onto PhotoCD Pro. Publishers can always (?) use the digital file, I can use it as raw material for other art, and it lasts a good deal longer. And the original stays locked away and clean for the eventuallity that I make an optical enlargement.
Frank

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 15:06:25 +0100 From: Robert Claeson Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: TMZ and Rodinal Dan Cardish wrote_ >I have oftened wondered why more high speed films aren't made available for >120 format, where the grain would be less of a factor. I would love to use >TMZ, Fuji 1600, etc. in 120 format. Well, if you with Fuji 1600 mean Fujichrome 1600, I certainly do have some of it in 120 format in the fridge. Also, the Kodak color neg ISO 1000 film (can never seem to remember its name) is also available. Robert

From: Bob Carpenter Subject: Response to Fuji Velvia question Date: 1998-03-12 Fuji recommends rating Velvia at 40 rather than 50. They claim it's because the 'objective' tests that rate it at 50, as set by ISO, don't take account of the film's incredible color saturation. The thinner result you get from the 1/3 stop 'overexposure' by rating it at 40 seems better 'subjectively'. (Fuji's web site is a mess -- I found this in their pro film FAQ when I was trying to find reciprocity data for their films, which I didn't, so if anyone has those, I'd be delighted to see them -- I did find the reciprocity for Velvia as computed at Brookings on photo.net)

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: jaybell@aol.com (Jaybell) [1] Re: Rollfilm question on light damage Date: Sun Mar 15 15:08:27 CST 1998 >This may seem like a silly question There are really no silly questions - only silly answers, and I hope this isn't one of those! Roll film is protected from light by being wrapped tightly around the spoo,l wth the backing paper wrapped around the film. (On 120 film the backing paper runs the entire lenght of the film, on 220 film the backing paper is just taped at the beginning and end of the film, for reasons of total thickness). At the top and bottom on the spool there is a black plastic disc to prevent light egress down the sides of the roll. It is important to ensure, when removing the film from the camera that the film is kept tightly wrapped, not allowed to slacken, as it is just this tightness that keeps the light out. Having said this, it is more important to load and unload rollfilm in subdued light than 35mm film, and to store exposed rolls in a light tight bag or container. I'm sure every medium format shooter has at some time or other seen roll. I hope this answers your question... John Bellenis Photography

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: ryan shaw [1] Re: Rollfilm question on light damage Date: Sun Mar 15 22:34:32 CST 1998 > This may seem like a silly question but how is rollfilm protected from light > since it is not encased like 35mm. Am trying medium format for first time > tomorrow and wouldn't want to damage the film while loading or extracting > exposed film. How is the film usually turned in to the photofinisher with no > plastic case or wrap for the exposed film? Thanks in advance! roll film is backed with paper. when the paper is tightly wound around the spindle it keeps most if not all light away from the film. the paper also extends past the film on both ends so that you will have several wraps of paper backing outside of the film. it is suggested that you load and unload in dim light, although i only do that on very special occasions. keep that wrapper around because the exposed film can then be placed back into the wrapper and into the box for safety. however, i must still note that i have loaded and unloaded roll film in blinding light and not put it back in a wrapper and have not lost anything up to this point. it could happen so if you are shooting something very important or if there is a lot of money riding on it -- be careful with your film.

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:59:36 EST From: FotoBo Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 70mm Hi Les, 70mm emulsions available: B&H Photo Tri-X 400 15ft cassette (#488 perforated) $22.95 VPS 160 100ft roll (#475 perforated) $92.50 Calumet (Special order not listed in retail Kodak Film Listings) Ekta 100S 100ft roll (can't remember price, but was pricy) 5071 Slide Dupe 100ft roll (couple of years ago, can't remember price) I get my film developed at A&I Lab in Hollywood (4 hr. E-6 if you deliver/pick-up yourself at around $2.50 per foot of film) You need bulk loader (available through KEH Camera), 15ft cassettes, 70mm Hassy back. To mount your slides you can get 70mm slide mounts from Gepe or Wess or cut off the perforations off yourself and use any 6x6 slide mount. My applications is for underwater use where the 70 shots per roll advantage is obvious. Hope this info helped; Good luck, Bo Mulder

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:35:15 -0500 From: "Eugene A. Pallat" Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 70MM -Forwarded - Kodak's number Kodak's number is (800) 242-2424. Gene Pallat eapallat@oriondata.com

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:57:22 -0700 From: Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 70MM -Forwarded >>The 64 Professional Ektachrome has been discontinued and E100S has been >>substituted instead, but does not appear on the Kodak Film Catalog >>Bo Mulder I know that, and like I tell others, many things are still offered by Eastman that are not carried in their Pro Catalog. In fact, if you visit some "Dealers" they cant even tell you what is available. I order items from several Eastman divisions that are not listed in any Catalogs. Regards, RM

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:20:49 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Monaghan Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: kodak's secret films - was Re: 70MM -Forwarded This observation brings up a problem I have with Kodak's catalogs and web sites. I recall reading in Shutterbug that Kodak 620 film was available in some professional emulsions but not listed - so how the heck do you or the dealers know what to order? Then Kodak says there wasn't any demand for it so we dropped it - orphaning lots of 620 classic camera users to respooled 120 film. Circular reasoning to me. If you don't list the films so even your own dealers can find it to order it, how can you sell it? I am in the process of trying to list medium format films at my own page as Kodak doesn't appear to list out films by format - which would seem logical to me. They list their films, then you have to go look at each one to figure out if they make it in 120. Usually when I am convinced that this or that fast film is just what I need, I discover they don't make it in 120 rollfilm, just 35mm, which just makes me more mad ;-) ;-) I would hope that Kodak would use their web site to make and keep a full current list of their product offerings, since it is easily updated and searched, even if their catalogs are incomplete. as for 120 film listings, I am still looking for consolidated listings, having posted what I found so far at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/film.html more sources or pointers/links would be welcome - regards to all bobm

From: Garry Lee Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: 120 *Consumer* Films ?? Date: 18 Mar 1998 This consumer and pro thing in film is nonsense. Pro film is film which is kept cool so the colour balance will be exact for things like skin tone. Colour balance changes slightly with age, otherwise. That's all. I've shot weddings on amateur film and as far as Joe Soap could see, the results were perfect.

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:55:42 -0500 From: "Eugene A. Pallat" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: kodak's secret films - was Re: 70MM -Forwarded Reminds me of an incident 20 some years ago when I was speaking to someone employed by Kodak. I mentioned that professional photographers had been begging Kodak to bring out Kodachrome in 120. The answer was "If there was a demand for it, Kodak would make it." I then said that the demand was there practically ever since Kodachrome was brought out in 35. That person just repeated the same mantra, parroting the company line. Have you tried to get Kodak Mural paper in rolls? Kodak dropped it. Now I have to piece together smaller size papers in order to make a mural. At one time Kodak dropped Panatomic-X in 120 saying "Plus-X is good enough." Ilford then announced that they would make Pan-F in 120. Even after Kodak realized their mistake and re-released Panatomic-X in 120, I kept with Pan-F because I think it's a much better film. As for dealer information, Kodak has had, and still might have, a policy that a dealer can't carry certain products unless they have a salesman "on the road" selling the product. I know of more than one dealer that would have been able to sell huge amounts of the products, far more than a single sales rep, but were banned from doing so by that policy. Gene Pallat eapallat@oriondata.com

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:39:08 -0400 From: "Lionel F. Stevenson" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: kodak's secret films - was Re: 70MM -Forwarded -Forwarded Then there's the case that the great yellow father will not sell some products other than in quantities that a photographer can never use up in a lifetime!

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 From: Russ Rosener rrosener@mail.stlnet.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: x-processing film I would recommend using Kodak Ektachrome E100S. Cross processed Fujichrome just tends to go very yellow. Ektachrome gives more variations on color cross over and subtle tones. There is an excellent online comparison at http://www.photo-magazine.com/de/1tes1de.htm There are direct comparisons of a model shot with both Fuji & Kodak 100 ASA films at various f/stops. -- Russ Rosener Washington University, St. Louis http://home.stlnet.com/~rrosener/Archaic_Cyberspace.html

From: msherck@aol.com (Msherck) [1] Re: Medium Format Films Date: Wed Apr 01 08:28:24 CST 1998 >Kodak Vericolor III 160 < Beautiful portrait film: lower than usual contrast with excellent color, good sharpness, fine grain. >Kodak Pro 100 PRN 100 < Punchier than VPS, more saturated colors. Don't use it much in my work. > Pro 400MC PMC 400 < Superb high-speed film for color prints. Lower contrast than usual makes this my favorite wedding and indoor natural light film. Colors accurate and bright, fine grain, excellent sharpness. Wonderful stuff: this film makes my living. >Fuji < I don't use it. Fuji doesn't give a rat's ass about photography or photographers and until they look at me as something other than a vehical for corporate profits, I'll continue to ignore them. Not, of course, like they've noticed... :) >Agfa < Oddly enough, while I have used some of their 35mm stuff, their 120/220 film doesn't seem to be available around here. Well, you don't live in Indiana for the excitement of it all! >Kodak Tri-X Pan TX 320> *Sigh* I grew up with this stuff. Another lovely film, but definitely not the same film as the 400-speed Tri-X 35mm photographers are used to. Unique tonal gradiation: along with Plus-X produces negatives which are almost too beautiful to print. > Plus-X Pan PXP 125> A uniquely gorgeous B&W film. May be the single best B&W portrait film in existance, in my humble opinion. :) Tri-X and Plus-X may be the easiest B&W film to print, although admittedly I'm pretty jaded about that... > T-Max 100 TMX 100> T-Max films inspire one of two reactions: you either love them or you hate them. This isn't a scientific survey by any means, but it seems to me that photographers who process their own film and who have figured out how to do this stuff love it; otherwise they hate it. I'm in the love camp, for landscape use especially. Note: grain is so fine that it can be difficult to focus on when enlarging, if you use a grain magnifier. No, I'm not complaining... :) > T-Max 400 TMY 400> If I had to live with one film for the rest of my life, this would be the one. Not the singular best in anything, it's just excellent for almost everything. Very fine grained, very sharp: can be difficult to print, takes practice. More than any other film I know of (except Tech Pan) this is a film you have to get to know in order to produce consistantly excellent results. But the effort is worth it. > Technical Pan 25> (Not mentioned in the original list) My absolute all-time favorite landscape film. Properly exposed and processed this film is grain-free. Like Plus-X and Tri-X, tonal gradiation for this film is exquisitely beautiful in itself. I sometimes just lay a strip of negs on the light box and look at them. A bitch to process, however: get just one little thing wrong and you've hosed the whole roll. If that isn't an argument for large-format I don't know what is! This film has a very steep learning curve: don't count on getting anything useful from the first few rolls but don't get discouraged. >Fuji Neopan 400< Appears to be a direct rip-off of an older Ilford or Agfa film. Grainy, low contrast: ugly, ugly film. And not even particularly cheap. Even the Hungarian stuff is better than this. >Agfa APX 25 25> Nice film: I could use this if I had to (and if Tech Pan wasn't available.) But Tech Pan blows it away. One advantage: MUCH easier to process than Tech Pan. >Ilford 100 Delta Prof. 100> Ilford's equivalent to Kodak's T-Max films. Most of the same comments apply: Ilford film is good stuff. To me, T-Max has the edge in grain and sharpness but Delta is easier to process and negatives seem to be a bit more 'brilliant'. > 400 Delta Prof. 400> Same comments as above: I like this film although I tend to use T-Max much more often. > XP2 400 400> Oddly enough, I don't like this film. Again, there seem to be two camps: those who love it and those who don't. Alas, I'm in the latter camp. Frankly, my whole attitude could be due to the fact that I think that the negatives are ugly, compared to a more traditional B&W film. > Plus Pan F 50> Almost as beautiful as Tech Pan, but a whole stop faster and easier processing in the bargain! A little difficult to come by here in Indiana but then so is Tech Pan. Frankly, if I hadn't gotten used to Tech Pan first I'd probably use this more often. As it is, I use mostly Tech Pan in the field, Ilford's indoors in the studio. Don't know why it turned out that way, but it did! Note: all of the above are my opinions, formed from using these products. There's no inherent attempt here as presenting these views as anything other than my opinions. If anyone takes offence, well: sorry 'bout that. Get a life . Mike Sherck No, that's not a fire in my eyes: I was just up too late last night.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: rfung@uclink.berkeley.edu [1] Re: Medium Format Films Date: Wed Apr 01 14:26:39 CST 1998 I beg to differ about Fuji -it's better for color balance in the darkroom than Kodak film. Especially when Kodak Gold has that imbedded "gold warm tone"color in the emulsion that you cannot filtrate when printing. You forgot Fuji Reala - the best 100 ASA film for everything in my opinion and I've only been using it for the past five years in my medium formats. Richard

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: "Harry D. George, Jr." CAPTAINH@prodigy.net [1] Re: Medium Format Films Date: Wed Apr 01 Fuji Reala wasn't included in the list because it's no longer available in medium format. It's only available in 35mm and will soon be replaced in that format by Superior Reala. I did inadvertently leave Kodak Technical Pan (ISO 25; 120 size) off the original list. Harry

From: steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com [1] Re: Medium Format Films Date: Wed Apr 01 well you are limiting your photography taking this aproach.. I use AGFA ULTRA 50 PRN 100 NHG 400 NHGII 800 E100S KONICA IR APX25 DELTA 100 and T-max 400 because I like them, not because who makes them, where they come from or how hard it is to find them... Different paints for different paintings... -- steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz skoontz@mindspring.com

From: "Harry D. George, Jr." CAPTAINH@prodigy.net [1] Re: Medium Format Films Date: Thu Apr 02 Konica Films are: Type ISO Sizes Impresa 50 Prof. 50 120 VX 100 100 120 Professional 160 160 120/220 SR-G160 160 120/220 SR-G 3200 3200 120

rec.photo.equipment.misc From: dbingham@bcm.tmc.edu (Howard Bingham) [1] Re: APS slide and B&W film Date: Tue Apr 07 16:21:20 CDT 1998 (Dale DePriest) wrote: (clipped) > > The last line is the key, otherwise the first line is wrong. When APS > cameras first came out they released a new film that had better quality > than the then existing 35mm. Later they released the new film in 35mm > format but you must buy this one kind of film to make the claim that > aps film and 35 mm film are the same. For most users who continue to > buy the cheaper 35mm films the aps film is better. -- How could APS be better, when the same film is in 35mm(Sans: magnetic stripe), considering that the 24mm film needs to be enlarged more than 35mm, in order to achieve standard sized prints (Such as 8 x 10, 16 x 20, etc.).. Sales of APS camera's in my area are flat.. IE: They are not selling.. Explain, also the benefits of APS, being that neither b & w, nor slide film are available for it..(True, that Kodak has announced b & w, & true, that Fuji has announced slide film.. But they have been saying this for a year.).. Please also explain why APS processing cost's more than 35mm, on a per exposed frame basis.. (Consumer Reports (Nov. 1997) issue points this out..).. 35mm has been around since sometime in the 1920's & continues to gain market share, to spite all of the new formats that show up & disappear.. I predict that the lifetime for APS will be at the most 15 years, if that long.. Full digital technology is where the market is going & that is evidenced at the many professional trade shows, both in the technology & in price.. The entry level digital camera's are becoming more affordable & the quality of the image has significantly improved over the past year.. The best buy on the current market, in the point & shoot & advanced amateur cattegories, is 35mm.. APS will only be a stepping stone for some, to the digital field.. -- > APS cameras are coded with IX information that includes photgraphic conditions > and information that can be used by the developing machine to improve the > picture. -- How, unless your lab is willing to flip for an $ 80,000 piece of equipment.. Most labs have only upgraded their existing machines.. It takes special equipment that only a few of the larger labs have been willing to aquire, in order to take full advantage of the APS magnetic stripe features & only a few advanced camera's have full ability to perform those.. -- > What this means is that while an individual picture shot by > a professional with 35mm film will be better than APS the same cannot > be said for average picture takers. The idea is the percentage of good > pictures taken with APS cameras will be higher. > > I am very satisfied with the quality of pictures taken with my Minolta > Vectris 40 camera and APS film from both Kodak and Fuji. They are, > on an average, better than my old Pentax. > > By the way, if the lenses are exactly the same between APS and 35mm you > will notice that the APS lens seems faster and longer due to the smaller > negative area. -- I get the same effects on my Olympus Pen 1/2 frame camera.. This is not a new feature & the Pen F, can still use most of the lenses made for standard Olympus camera's.. With the 1/2 frame camera, there is no need for labs to buy expensive equipment to handle it, because it has been around for years & slide mounts (For those that prefer slides), are available from most manufacturers of mounts & mounting equipment.. -- > -- > _ _ Dale DePriest San Jose, California > /`) _ // daled@Cadence.COM voice: (408) 428-5249 > o/_/ (_(_X_(` ISO 9000 Program Manager fax: (408) 894-3484 -- The only winners on the APS camera's, are the manufacturer's that make the special equipment that is needed to process the film in a way to fully utilize all of the features.. One guess what manufacturer, is manufacturing that equipment (One hint, it is not Kodak.) Howard Bingham (With over 35 years experience in the professional photofinishing field..) -- (Opinions stated, are personal & are not those of my employer.) D. Howard Bingham, Color Lab Mgr., Baylor College of Medicine One Baylor Plaza, Suite 303-A, Houston, Texas, 77030 USA Phone (voice): 713-798-4681, (Fax): 713-798-6853 Visit our web site at URL: http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/miave/

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com [1] Re: Konica Infrared120 Date: Thu Apr 09 20:27:04 CDT 1998 Gary Cole wrote: > > I just got some Konica Infrared 120 and like Shutterbug said, there is > no instruction sheet enclose. What speed should this be rated at and > does it need to be handled in total darkness? Is there a recommended > film speed? Thanks. I shoot alot of this film and have a page on IR film at my site that covers using it... check it out.. on exposing, with red 25 filter 1/4-1/2 at f22 works great in bright sun... -- steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz skoontz@mindspring.com

From: "HARRY D GEORGE, JR." CAPTAINH@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Medium Format Films
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998
Attached is a list of medium format films from Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, and Ilford taken from their web sites. I believe that it is accurate, but can't guarantee it.
My question is whether it might be a good exercise for those interested to comment on the films they are familiar with and use - especially the plusses and minuses of each.

MEDIUM FORMAT FILMS COLOR NEGATIVE (PRINT) FILMS: Brand Type ISO Sizes Available Kodak Vericolor III 160 120/220 Pro 100 PRN 100 120/220 Pro 100T PRT 100 120 Pro 400 PPF 400 120/220 Pro 400MC PMC 400 120/220 Pro 1000 PMZ 1000 120 Fuji Fujicolor NPS 160 160 120/220 Fujicolor NPL 160 160 120 Fujicolor NPH 400 400 120/220 Fujicolor 400 NHG 400 120/220 Fujicolor NHG II 800 120/220 Agfa Agfacolor Optima 100 100 120/220 Agfacolor Optima 200 200 120 Agfacolor Optima 400 400 120/220 Agfacolor Portrait XPS 160 120/220 Agfacolor Ultra 50 50 120 COLOR REVERSAL (TRANSPARENCY) FILMS: Brand Type ISO Sizes Available Kodak Ektachrome 100S 100 120/220 Ektachrome 100W 100 120/220 Ektachrome 100SW 100 120 Ektachrome 160T 160 120 Ektachrome 400X EPL 400 120 Fuji Provia 100 RDP II 100 120/220 Provia 400 RHP 400 120 Fujichrome MS 100/1000 100 120 Fujichrome Velvia RVP 50 120/220 Fujichrome Astia 100 120 Fujichrome 64 Prof. T RTP 64 120 Agfa Agfachrome RSX 50 50 120 Agfachrome RSX 100 100 120/220 Agfachrome RSX 200 200 120 BLACK AND WHITE FILMS: Brand Type ISO Sizes Kodak Tri-X Pan TX 320 120 Tri-X Pan TXP 320 120/220 Plus-X Pan PXP 125 120/220 Plus-X Pan PXE 125 120/220 T-Max 100 TMX 100 120 T-Max 400 TMY 400 120 Prof. T-Max T400 CN 400 120 Fuji Neopan 400 120 Agfa APX 25 25 120 APX 100 100 120 APX 400 400 120 Ilford 100 Delta Prof. 100 120 400 Delta Prof. 400 120/220 XP2 400 400 120 Plus Pan F 50 120 FP4 Plus 125 120/220 HP5 400 120/220 BLACK AND WHITE TRANSPARENCY FILM: Brand Type ISO Sizes Agfa Scala 200 200 120

Ultraviolet Films:

From: "Eugene A. Pallat" eapallat@orion-glop-data.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Film for UV photography (don't want to use a filter)
Date: 5 Apr 1998

Andrew Tune wrote in article <352472BB.7434@technix.com.au>... > Hi, > > Can anyone tell me if there is film which is sensitive to UV light only > and if so, what the important parts of the chemical composition of it > are?

The "Kodak Plates and Films For Scientific Photography" P-315 lists Spectrum Analysis No. 1 as being sensitive from the UV to around 450 nm. Type 103-O to about 500-550 nm.
The Kodak publication M-27 "Ultraviolet & Florescence Photography" states "All photographic emulsopns are inherently sensitive to blue and ultraviolet." Usage of an 18A filter can be used
An 18A filter can be used which is visibly opaque. "Transmits only ultraviolet radiation between about 300 and 400 nm )e.g. 365 nm line of mercury spectrum) and infrared radiation. Isolates UV for ultraviolet reflection photography."
To block IR, I use a glass IR cutoff filte No. 301 which is 75x75 mm which absorbs something like 99 percent of IR. It's also available in 50x50 mm.
Call Kodak at (800) 242-2424 to see if the publications are still available and if the emulsions have been replaced. My documents ar 20 years old. Kodak is quite helpful for technical data.
Remove the '-glop-' for sending email to me.
Gene eapallat@orion-glop-data.com
Orion Data Systems

From Medium Format Digest
From: Mark Hubbard mhubbard@internews.org
Subject: Response to Films available in 220
Date: 1998-04-07
It's economics. I've learned recently (through this forum) that discontinued films in 120 now include Fuji Reala, Kodak Ektar 25, and Kodachrome 25. 220, as you noted, is even more limited. Some films may arguably have too thick a base to roll double-length; but if the sales were there, something tells me they would figure out how to do it!

From: Mark Hubbard mhubbard@internews.org
Subject: Response to Films available in 220
Date: 1998-04-07
It's economics. I've learned recently (through this forum) that discontinued films in 120 now include Fuji Reala, Kodak Ektar 25, and Kodachrome 25. 220, as you noted, is even more limited. Some films may arguably have too thick a base to roll double-length; but if the sales were there, something tells me they would figure out how to do it!

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; Film for Large Prints

My favorite when I want absolutely minimal grain is Ilford XP-2. Kodak's T-400CN would probably be as good, but I don't think the 120 version is for sale just yet. Overexposing both by rating at EI 200 will reduce grain even more.
If you wanted a traditional film rather than chromogenic, I'd suggest Agfapan 25.
Bob

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998
From: "Noel H. Charchuk" nhcharch@calcna.ab.ca
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; Film for Large Prints
Bob TMax CN is available in 120 format in Canada, and has been since before Christmas, I expect it will be available in the States as well. Noel Charchuk

From: pcoen@forest.drew.edu (Paul Coen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: 126 & 620 film
Date: 25 Mar 98 13:23:54 EST
You can still get color 126 -- they stopped making the black & white. There's a note on their web site saying to call Kodak to find a dealer or a place to order the film.

From: "David Foy" nomail@this_address.please
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: 126 & 620 film
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:44:00 GMT
This is a misconception. 126 is widely available. Try Wal-Mart.

From: "W.N.(Bill)McCaw" wnmccaw@bmi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Where to buy films
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998
Porter's has some good prices on 35mm films in quantity. www.porters.com
Mitsubishi's new film is especially well priced at this time.
Scotch 25 roll commercial packs 400 ISO are listed for $61.39 36 exposure rolls, $54.19 24 exposure.
York Photo www.yorkphoto.com, also sells film, mostly Agfa HDC under their label, very reasonably in ten packs.
--
Cheers! "When in doubt, act like a Pro!"
W.N.(Bill)McCaw

ec.photo.misc
Date: Thu Apr 16 10:18:11 CDT 1998
From: "KingSeven (James)" kingseven@earthling.net
To: "David L. Hanon" dhanon@ix.netcom.com
[1] Re: 620 BW film

Hi, David...
The difference between 120 and 620 film is the size of the holes in the end of the spool... there are three solutions:
1: Buy 620 from B and H for about $8 a roll.
2: buy rolls of 120 and respool in (tail end first) onto the 620 spool before loading in in your camera and be sure to get you 620 spools back from the lab...
and
3:Drill out the 120 spools to the 620 sized hole in the end of the spool...
I hope this helps...
Jim in Oregon
[Ed. note: another poster questioned #3 statement, so check before buying! You can also pay to have a camera converted, but the price is high (circa $250 from Bald Mountain for a Kodak Medalist conversion)]

From: "Harry George, Jr." CaptainH@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Medium Format Films - Some Comments
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998
I recently posted a list of medium format films as a reference. Missed a few, but very few. The list was compiled as a prelude to a test survey of many of the films for outdoor use (marine photography if you're interested) in bright sunlight (rather harsh lighting). What follows are some comments on the results based upon 8x10's made by a custom lab from some of the listed films. What I want is excellent detail and grain, moderate contrast (preserving shadow detail is a must) , accurate but somewhat saturated colors - especially blue skies.
Winners (for my purposes):
Fuji NPH and NPS. Both have very good grain and colors - especially blues and greens - and excellent detail. NPS has moderate contrast and good shadow detail, NPH a bit more contrast but still acceptable. NPS has a tendency to wash out on very bright objects (white boats), but this can be compensated for with better (spot) metering. There is a tendency for too much blue, i.e. a cyan cast. The lab will re-do to eliminate. There appears to be little difference between NPH and NPS as far as detail and grain are concerned. NPH will likely become the standard given the faster speed and no apparent tendency to wash-out on bright objects.
Very Good 'Uns.
Kodak VPS (my long-time standard) and Agfa XPS. Color accuracy and detail are superb. Colors are not as saturated as I would like, but they are dead-on accurate: what you see is what you get. A polarizing filter helps a bit with color depth but not enough. I have to rate the Agfa slightly better than Kodak VPS, but availability is an issue.
Kodak Pro 100 is also superbly accurate for color. Detail is excellent. Contrast is a bit too much for my purposes, but this is a very, very good film.
Agfa Optima 100. Great details (perhaps the best of the print films), very saturated colors, good grain. Rather high in contrast. A dramatic film.
Slide Films:
Fuji Provia (100) and Velvia, Agfa RSX100, Kodak E100SW. All are superb. Velvia (50) is too slow for my use, but otherwise quite good. Provia and Agfa RSX100 were rather similar - great color and detail. A bit more contrast with the Agfa. E100SW was also very good. Of the group, I would have to rate Provia the best.
The problem I have is in getting prints made from slides without the use of an interneg. None printed well through internegs (the Agfa did the best); in general, the interneg process increased contrast too much with some loss of fine colors. Will have some done through a lab that prints directly.
One Loser.
Agfa Ultra 50 was surprisingly grainy on enlargement. With such a slow film, I expected almost grainless. Didn't get it. Colors were OK and contrast moderate. Too slow for my purpose, but I expected a lot more.
Black and White: didn't test any.

From: "Michael Hall" mhall004@sprintmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: 620 BW film
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998
The flanges on the spools are different also. If the camera will comfortably close with 120 in it, 70/30 chance against, the older the camera the better the odds, the pressure plate will solve any, or most, transport jams. They won't occur and film will not wander around. You need a 620 takeup tho - the camera generally will not wind a 120 spool because of the size difference in the holes.
--
73's es cul
de WB3FUP (a Salty Bear)

Date: 7 May 98
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@skylink.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Tri-X vs Tri-X Pro?

On Thu, 7 May 1998 08:24:13 -0700, Andy Peters wrote:
> After years of shooting T-Max 400 in both 35mm and 120, I've decided to give > ol' Tri-X a shot. I was looking at stuff I shot ten years ago and wondered > why they looked different from newer stuff and I realized that all the old > stuff was Tri-X in HC-110 dilution B, soooo.... > > I shlepped down to the local photo store and bought a Pro-Pack of Tri-X > Professional (6049) and a bottle of HC-110. Now, I know that Tri-X Pro is > rated by Old Yeller at 320 and Tri-X is 400. My question is: > > What are the other differences in the films?

Primarily, TX Pro has a retouching tooth of the back of the film base, and is designed primarily for portraiture. Also, when developed as directed, it produces a higher contrast negative and is more suited to enlargement with a diffusion head enlarger. It is also designed to work better with "soft" developers like D-23. Even D-76 1:1 may be too harsh. HC-110B definitely is.
I've used this film before and no matter what development or paper grade adjustments I made could not get a negative that printed well on with a condensor head enlarger. Also, the condensor made the retouching tooth on the filmbase apparent on the print in large enlargements.
I abandoned it as being totally unsuitable for general photography. Stick with plain old Tri-X and HC-110B or D-76 1:1.
--
Patrick Bartek (NoLife Polymath Group)
bartek@skylink.net
http://www.skylink.net/~bartek

ec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Patrick Bartek" bartek@skylink.net
[1] Re: Reciprocity characteristics
Date: Sun May 10 00:18:58 CDT 1998
Regarding Reciprocity characteristics, AMG223 wrote:

> Does anyone have some reciprocity characteristics of the following films--Kodak > PRN-100, T-Max-100, Tri-x, and Fuji Astia-100 all large format. My exposures > will probably be in the one to three min. range. Thanks.

With this long of an exposure, I would suggest that you go to Tungsten balanced film for color and use appropriate correction filtration. You'll get much better results.
For the b&w;, go to Kodak's web page: www.kodak.com That info should be online. Personally, I would take it as a starting point for my own tests. Make you reciprocity corrections using f-stops and not time. Using time, you merely compound the problem.
FYI: Fuji Astia 100, a daylight slide film, can make exposures up to 30 seconds long with NO reciprocity problems. NO color shifts. NO speed loss. Quite a feat.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@skylink.net

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
[1] Re: Reciprocity characteristics
Date: Sun May 10 05:39:44 CDT 1998
AMG223 wrote:
> Does anyone have some reciprocity characteristics of the following films--Kodak > PRN-100, T-Max-100, Tri-x, and Fuji Astia-100 all large format. My exposures > will probably be in the one to three min. range. Thanks.

For TMX, TMY, and TMZ, they are given in Kodak's publication F-32. The reciproci ty failure is less than with other b&w; films. For Tri-x, and most other Kodak B&W; films, the data are in Kodak publication F-5, page 27. I have only out-of-date information on Kodak color film and none on Fuji.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey

rec.photo.film+labs
From: smorgan@aloha.net (Morgan Farms)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[1] new films and Kodak Pro PhotoGuide (r-28)
Date: Sun May 10 23:00:35 CDT 1998
A while back I read a post that the film info of the Kodak Pro Photo Guide (R-28) was pretty much obsolete because it didn't include later film types.
Well, I just bought a copy in NYC at Adorama and it appears to have been updated (sixth edition, 1998) to include Royal Gold 1000, Gold Max, PJ100, 400,800 and newer Ektachromes (EPN, EPP, E200, etc.)

rec.photo.film+labs
From: Rob lilindn@prodigy.net
[1] Re: Film for Old Cameras
Date: Mon May 11 21:38:20 CDT 1998

Jeffrey N Rago wrote: > > Is it possible to get film for 'old' cameras? > > A friend has some (really) old cameras that take "Kodak 620" or > A28 film.

620 is the basically the same as 120 but on a different spool (120 is actually an insignificantly longer roll and may or may not have the same placing of numbers for 8 or 16 exposures - but I know it works for 12)

I have successfully respooled 120 film onto a 620 spool and used same in a 620 camera, but my method requires a 120 camera and there is the risk of loss of film if you're not careful: 1) load a roll of your choice 120 film into a 120 camera and run the film all the way through without making any exposures. 2) take the 120 roll (labeled "exposed", but not really exposed) and a 620 spool into a TOTALLY DARK room, and start winding (by hand) the end of the 120 roll onto the 620 spool, always providing tension to wrap the backing tight. 3) the tricky part - feel carefully for the end of the actual film (it is not taped to the backing at this end) and tuck it tightly into the winding of backing (obviously, the film MUST be INSIDE the backing in relation to the spool core. 4) finish winding the film and backing paper onto the 620 spool, continuing to provide tension, when you are finished, you will have a roll of film at its beginning which will work in any 12-exposure 620 camera. 5) load into a square 620 camera and enjoy.

optional) reverse the procedure with the (truly) exposed roll of 620 to respool the film back onto the 120 spool. A lab that does 120 would likely have no problem doing 620, but do you really want to waste your precious 620 spool in the lab's garbage.
question for readers) can anyone tell me (us) of this roll would also work for 8 or 16 exposure 620 cameras?
Other option:
If you don't want to risk film or work in the dark, Film for Classics will sell 620-compatible film by mail order, they have a website http://www.frontiernet.net/~joankay

rec.photo.film+labs
From: "OptoPrism" OptoPrism@machon.com
[1] Re: Slide Film Comparisons
Date: Tue May 12 02:08:07 CDT 1998

Ektachrome E100S is a saturated, neutral film with good skin tones. It is a high accutance film with great resolution, but comparing E100S to Velvia is, IMO, apples and oranges. Velvia is probably the most saturated color reversal film in the market; certainly more than E100S. Velvia is very contrasty, and you must be careful in exposing this film. E100S has better shadow detail when you have properly exposed highlights. Velvia is probably the finest grain E-6 film in the market. However seeing granularity differences between Velvia and E100S with an 8X loupe is quite a challenge. Velvia has extreme resolving power, but it's difficult to see clear superiority over E100S. Because of the greater contrast of Velvia, sometimes Velvia appears sharper than E100S.
***

Date: Thu, 7 May 1998
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Death of 126 film

>I wonder if Film for Classics will start spooling 126 film. I have >purchased 616 from them before. It's a good service for all those old >cameras sitting around. > >Bob, the Kodak release mentions APS. I wonder if it too will eventually >go the way of 126, and 110, and the disc? I just don't see smaller >negative size being an advantage. I like 35mm, and in the past couple >months since I've been fooling around with TLRs I like 120 a lot >better. I just cannot see going the other way in size, and the APS >negative is significantly smaller. So, what's your evaluation of the >acceptance of APS? Will this Christmas season and all those "open me >first" packages be the "make or break" for that format? Will it >strictly be an amateur medium, or will be eventually see an F5 APS >version? > >Wasn't 126 really doomed from the start for lack of a good pressure >plate to hold the film flat? I always thought it was a waste to see a >good camera like the Instamatic Reflex (a Retina in disguise) with >Schneider optics made to be loaded with that crap.

Kodak is obviously (a bit too obviously, I think) trying to help APS by killing 126. Hell, this news even got on Dan Rather's broadcast last night, but in very confusing form. Much as I like some of the APS cameras, I think the system is a dead duck. Consumer demand just is not there and most dealers are switch selling to compact 35 point and shoot because they can run the film in their one-hour labs. APS was the typical solution for which there was no problem.
126 may have been doomed, but it sure held on a long time!!! I doubt APS will have similar longevity.
Bob

rec.photo.film+labs
From: dbingham@bcm.tmc.edu (Howard Bingham)
[1] Re: Keeping film cool in SW
Date: Tue May 19 13:21:15 CDT 1998
The easy and cheap way to keep film.. Is to put 3-4 rolls in a zip-lock bag and keep in your ice chest/cooler.. Blue ice is ok too, Kodak uses it to ship control strips with and based upon dated and timed shipping tickets, two blue ice packs keep film cool for two days in an insulated container..
Just be sure to warm up the film at least an hour before use, or condensation will result.. Easy way to do this, is to take whatever quantity of film you need out of the cooler and place in your pocket, that way the film will be ready, when needed..
From Houston, Tx., where the current temp. is 93 degrees & not a rain cloud in sight..
Howard Bingham
--

Date: Fri, 29 May 1998
From: SPYDERS@aol.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Film Speed Testing
Some reasons this hasn't generated much response must be that:1 It has been a while since many have done their tests and have forgotten the details of it; 2 It can be difficult/confusing/ambiguous to teach someone to test film via e- mail; 3 the original post was vague in its requirement...
Someone recommended Henry Horenstein's book *Beyond Basic Photography* (or something close to that) to me for a film speed test, and it even has the densitometer values to compare your negatives with. It was extremely useful, and helpful in determining a "system" to stick with. I'm not sure whether the newspaper test will accurately determine whether the film speed needs adjusting, the development or both; but that's because I've not done the newspaper test. I'll try it next week.
I don't know if I'm correct in my conviction that determining the speed of the film through testing is only half of the problem solved. I've always believed that speed and development are linked, and changing one changes the other, right? So, I did the test from that book several times, once with each lens (each shutter and aperture system) and in 35mm, once per camera type (modern and ancient). I was surprised at the results in 35 mm, but the Hasselblad numbers were dead close.
Oh well, I guess I just meant to say, if one wants a good test to determine a system, borrow a copy of that book*. (and, don't rely on a mini-lab to process your film, they are about as consistent and reliable as TWA)
--pat.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Keith Wiebe" keithw@southwind.net
[1] Re: good mailorder for orering 120 film?
Date: Mon Jun 01 19:07:06 CDT 1998
I've had good luck with B\H also but have ordered film from Adorama instead lately. They have fairly fresh film (experation date late next yr) and can get Fuji HGv400 for $2.19 a roll at least 8 months ago you could and I couldn't tell any difference between it and the NPH but lately have just shot the NPH to be on the safe side with clients. I've seen Agfa Portrait 160 really low priced at some places but don't use much but do use the Ultra 50 for landscape work. I'm going to try and use Kodak PRN 100 for studio shots and forget about VPS as it seems to be dated as far as grain and such.
Keith Wiebe
P.S. Adorama doesn't make you buy large quantities like some special film places do!

[Ed. note: although 35mm oriented, this may be useful to some visitors..]
rec.photo.misc
From: m4bz.eatSPAM@garlic.com (Mark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
[1] Re: recommend bulk film pls.
Date: Fri Jun 05 00:01:18 CDT 1998
If you're paying $10/roll for processing you are getting ripped off!
Kodak prepaid processing mailers from B&H; Photo are $6.49 for 24 exp and $8.39 for 36 exposure.
I use Price Club/Costco membership 1 hr. service: $4.24 for 24 exp and $5.89 for 36 exp. The next best price I've found is Wal Mart.
You can also get Fujicolor NPS 160 in 100ft. bulk.
Mark
-----

rec.photo.misc
From: vicl@htan.org (Victor LaBolle)
[1] Re: recommend bulk film pls.
Date: Fri Jun 05 13:14:50 CDT 1998
I do not have a bulk color film to recommend. Howeve you may want to look into some the bargains by Kodak, Fuji and Kirkland. If you have a Costco store nearby and you are a member (or have a friend who is), you can purchase a six roll ( 4 24exp rolls and 2 36 exp rolls) of Kodak Gold for about $22 and then get a $10 rebate. You can get up to five of these rebates in one year. Costco also has their own brand, Kirkland (a film that I believe is manufactured by Agfa) - 7 24 exposure rolls for about $9.00 ASA 200 - for about $1.50 more you can get ASA 400. Fuji has some good bargains at Longs Drugs. Also check out prices at B&H; mail order.
*****************************

rec.photo.misc
From: Jeffrey Karp jeffkarp@erols.com
[1] Re: recommend bulk film pls.
Date: Fri Jun 05 13:44:24 CDT 1998
I can get 5 rolls of Reala at B&H; for $15-, and have 180 shots vs. the 168 shots from your 4+2 packs for $22(I rarely actually get a rebate check after mailing in the forms),save money on processing(it is less expensive for me to process 5 rolls of 36, than 4 rolls of 24, and 2 rolls of 36), and get better results(the images from Reala are so much nicer than Kodak Gold(100) Many people prefer them to Royal Gold(100)).

[Ed. note: this post may seem off-topic - but it explains why 35mm film is rectangular, being derived from movie film, vs. square 120/220 film ;-)]
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998
From: Russ Rosener rrosener@stlnet.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Out Shooting
At 10:12 01.06.1998 -0700, Andy Peters wrote:
The first thing I tried to do was to take a few shots of the vast landscape. I quickly discovered the following: The square format is NOT, how you engineers say, "optimal." In fact, I think it works against you.
I agree it's much more challenging to make a good landscape with the square frame. That could be extropolated to any image and the square. As I tell my students, with a square it's what's in the frame that's important, not the frame itself. You can't do any of those compositional tricks like standing the camera on it's side in 35mm. You have to focus on where lines lead into the frame. The rule of thirds becomes paramount with the square.Try paying more attention to what you place on the edges of the frame. A colleague calls this "working the edges". We have the ancient Greeks to thank for the "Golden Format" of a frame longer than it is tall. If "Uncle Victor" had been there, we may have had a different "Golden Frame"!
By the way, the first motion pictures were projected in a circular, and then a square format, but audiences were used to the theatrical proscenium arch, which is another example of the Greeks' "golden frame". Filmakers soon after adopted the format to fill the theatres.
Russ Rosener
[n.b. Uncle Victor is Victor Hasselblad, developer of the Hasselblad cameras]

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998
From: Peter.Kotsinadelis@exchange.Octel.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] shooting color print film with no meter
You're dreaming in technicolor. Color Print film has a total latitude of about 7 stops, while slide film about 5. This is total black to total white. The best print films can be processed and still give good results 3 stops over exposed and about 2 1/2 under. This is a best case.
Peter K

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] shooting color print film with no meter
At 08:47 AM 6/3/98 -0600, you wrote:
>"...the lattitude of (most) color print films... (is) easily in excess of 12 >f/stops ..." > Eric Goldstein
The latitude for modern B and W film can be as large as 12 stops. Dr. Richard Henry, in his book _Controls in Black and White Photography_ shows measurements of some films showing this.
Color negative may be a different matter. For one thing, the method of measuring film speed is different. The ISO method for B and W reports the maximum speed which will result in adequate shadow detail, ISO methods for other types of films generally are different and report lower speed.
Secondly, color film has to operate so that the contrast and densities of the three emulsions match, otherwise there will be color shifts or cross-overs. There may also be an effect on the internal masking, which is a sort of reversal image produced by the dyes. I have not seen figures on the latitude of color negative film but suspect it is less than the above.
Having said that, it is clear that modern B&W; emulsions do not shoulder off the way emulsions of fifty years ago did and do not reverse, at least at any exposure they could reasonably expect to get in a camera. Since color processes are all based on B&W; silver images the performance of color films is also much better than it was in the past, so the margin for error is also larger.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: Dave Jenkins ljenkins@vol.com
Subject: Response to portrait film selection.
Date: 1998-03-25
Hugh, I am a corporate/commercial/advertising photographer and I made just such a test a few weeks ago in my studio.
Using my assistant as a model, I set up a White Lightening 1800 strobe in a 40-inch umbrella and took readings with a Minolta Flashmeter III. I used a Canon EOS 85mm f1.8 lens on a Canon EOS A2 body and adjusted light intensity so that all exposures were made at f8.5 regardless of the speed of the film.
With the camera mounted on a tripod, I framed my model so that, when the film was enlarged to 20x30, her face would fill an 8x10 area. I then made five identical exposures on each strip of film, had the film processed, and used a 10X Peake loupe to select the sharpest negative from each set. The negatives then went to a custom lab, where the enlarger was set for a 20x30 print, but only the central area was printed on a sheet of 8x10 paper. By doing this, I was able to compare results at 20X magnification without paying for 20x30 prints.
The films tested were Fuji's Superia Reala, NPS-160, NPH-400, Superia 400 (an amateur film), and NHG-II-800, as well as Kodak's VPS-160 and PMC-400. The 160-speed films were rated at 125 for this test. Reala was clearly Superia (excuse me, superior), while in a tie for second place were VPS and NPH-400. Their sharpness was about equal, with the grain a little finer in VPS while NPH had better color. Both Kodak films showed the grayness in skin tone that I have come to consider characteristic of that company. Superia 400 will make a sparkling 16x20 with ease, and a surprisingly good 20x30. Not surprisingly, NHG-II had the most grain. It is nonetheless an amazingly good film, better than most 400s, and I expect to use a lot of it.
The big losers were NPS and PMC. PMC, at 400-speed, is less sharp than NHG-II at 800. As for NPS, I can see no reason whatever to use it because NPH is sharper, equal in grain, and more than twice as fast. One experienced color printer could not discern between the NPH and the Reala at 20x magnification. Why is Fuji forcing an inferior film such as NPS down our throats when they could easily provide U.S. photographers with Reala in 120 & 220 formats as they do in other countries? Forcing photographers to buy the film the manufacturer wants to sell instead of the film they really prefer is the same mistake Kodak has made a number of times over the years, IMO, and I'm surprised Fuji is following in their footsteps.
In summary, if you want ultimate quality, use Reala.
If you want ultimate speed, use NHG-II.
If you want the best of both worlds, use NPH-400.

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998
From: Chun In Martinez bajito@geocities.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Time for Pulling Tri-X
Ross:
Thanks for your interest! The general rule for pulling Tri-X is very simple. You must decrease development time by 10% for each stop that you pull. In my case, I pull Tri-X 400 to 50 and thus it's a 3 stop pull. In accordance with the 10% reduction in time for each stop, I would have to reduce development time by 30%. I advise developing Tri-X at 68F in D76 dilution 1:1. In this case, Tri-X 400 at ISO 400 is 10 min in D76 1:1 at 68F, so the time for Tri-X at ISO 50 in D76 1:1 at 68F would be 7 min. From my own experience, I do recommend taking off 30 seconds to all the times obtained with the 10% for each stop rule. In this particular case, use 6 min 30 secs instead of the 7 min. It works better. With this rule and correction in mind, you can pull Tri-X 400 to any speed, 200, 100, 50, etc. And anything in between. For general use you might want to use it at 100 in order to be able to handhold it better. But I personally always use it at 50. Try it and you might like the results. You will get details in the shadows and highlights where you used to get black and white with other films. But if you are after contrast, then this might not apply to you. But try it anyway. It's wonderful to be able to reproduce most of the tones in the scene.
Sincerely,
Chun In Martinez

From: Nolan Woodbury rworthy@goodnet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: good mailorder for orering 120 film?
Date: 1 Jun 1998
Agreed. I find I'm using B&H; almost every time. Reliable, best prices, and always the film I want. The guy there suggested I try some cheapo Fujicolor 100 print film (it was on sale for under $2.00 bucks a roll) and I did. 50 rolls later and I'm still happy with it! Always fresh dates. Good prices on slide film and 35mm too-
NDW

From: "Richard Davis" DrDagor@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: recommend bulk film pls.
Date: 7 Jun 1998

> If you're paying $10/roll for processing you are getting ripped off! > .... > I use Price Club/Costco membership 1 hr. service: $4.24 for 24 exp and > $5.89 for 36 exp. The next best price I've found is Wal Mart. >

I completely agree with Mark's comments about processing. Costco has always done a good job for me. Note that their 1 hour services and Kodak services are higher priced. But in a two year old Consumer Reports story on processing, Price/Costco was rated very high.
As far as bulk loading is concerned, I think that is a false economy with color film. The likelihood of damage or quality loss from dust, heat--whatever--is high enough that it typically isn't worth the risk.
A less risky approach is to use outdated film (try Midwest Photo Exchange) or most big city photo houses. Most of that film has been refridgerated, and is probably as good as stuff you buy off the shelf in most stores.
Another approach is to buy private label film. Costco sells their own "Kirkland" brand, which is really Agfa in a plain brown wrapper. It isn't bad film (it isn't Royal Gold either), and is much less expensive that stuff from the great yellow father or the jolly green giant.
Hope this helps.

From: Chip Kozy chipkozy@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: STORING USED FILM
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998
Exposed film doesn't last long in heat...the same for unexposed film. Heat kills. Cool is your friend (back damned sweater, back I say!). I keep film (PKR, VPS, VPL and one or two others) in my freezer (never opened!) where I've found it keeps very well. I've not noticed any deterioration on the VPS (probably the most critical stuff) and some os the stuff is well past the expiration date (like years!). I'll pull out what I figure I need the night before and put in in the refridgerator until two to three hours before I need it and then allow it to warm up slowly. Once it's at ambient I'll open it for the first time. Once it's opened I use it and get it in for developing quickly...two to three days at most. The film doesn't go back into the cold for fear of condensation within the cassette or on the rool.
That's my .02. Good luck!
Sssssssssssssssee ya,
Chip

From: tut@ishi (Bill Tuthill)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: how do YOU test film?
Date: 16 Jun 1998

Chicknpiza (chicknpiza@aol.com) wrote: > > I've been shooting for about a year as a serious amateur and now I'm > interested in testing films... Any tips, ideas, or methods would help.

Other postings have offered excellent ideas, but I can add a few things.
It's important to test (or experiment) with the situations that you want to photograph. For example, I needed a better film for whitewater action photography (an ultra high contrast environment), so I went kayaking! I tested only ISO 400 films because that is the sweet spot of today's technology (800 films are much worse, 100 films aren't that much better).
For color accuracy, I photographed a variety of colored lifejackets in sun and shade. Only Kodak PPF, and to a lesser extent PJ 400, reproduced purple correctly; Gold did well in the shade but not in the sun.
For low-exposure grain, I turned flash off and photographed the inside of a building. It was obvious which films handled underexposure best. Many Kodak films are much less grainy when fully exposed.
For flash photography, I photographed my family with our cats at night. Most films left backgrounds dark, some (PJM) turned them speckled gray.
For shadow detail and highlight burnout resistance, I photographed a kayak in sunny whitewater with a background of dark green forest. This demonstrated that low contrast films (such as NPH) do not necessarily have better exposure latitude than normal contrast films (like PJ 400).
For skin tones, I photographed people outdoors in the sun and shade, and indoors using flash. Some otherwise excellent films (like PJM 640) fell down in this area. Superia 400 was excellent, although it wasn't good for outdoor landscapes, because of green underperformance.
Some wildflowers, especially ones with colors gradually fading to white, are very challenging, and a good test of film resolution.
To avoid inaccuracies induced by printing, it would be good to scan the negatives without doing any color correction. I wasn't able to do this, so I had comparison rolls processed on 5x7 prints in the same batch.

From: "David A Moreno" DINNERDOG@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Store Brands
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998

>> Regarding a message from Mike on 6/8/98 about Kodak or Fuji making private >> label films.... >> >> >> Fuji makes film for Polaroid, labeled as Polaroid High Definition. I have >> only been able to find it at Wal-Mart. >> >> Polaroid One Film is an older generation of Agfa film. > >I think one film is really Scotch/3M, as the negative edge codes are >identical to 3M > >

That's possible, I seem to have forgotten about that one. Looks like we are both correct. If the package says "Made in Germany" then it is Agfa. All the One Film I have handled at work rencently has had Agfa markings (green squares) and registers as such on our Fuji SFA series printers
Dave

From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: IR film recomendations....?
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 98
"Christian" deesul@mci2000.com wrote:
>I love IR photography and have experimented with black and white but what >would be a good color IR print film choice.....kodak echtachrome color IR or >what...? Also if any IR photographers have a favorite filter for color IR >film I would appreciate hearing what you use..Thanks! > >Christian

Officially there is no such thing as a IR color *print* film....it only comes as EIR, Ektachrome IR color *slide* film....
However, the previous emulsion, 'IE', could be developed as print film (I think I have some data on my homepage, check below URL)....never heard anyone try it with the new emulsion though.
A medium yellow Wratten #12 gives the best color separation IMO....I have used it high up in the cold Alpine mountains during Chrismas/Newyear, and even under these 'blueish' conditions I wouldn't want a warmer yellow/orange.
For more about IR films and filters check my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

From: wkh636o@tninet.se (Hekan Gunnarsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 70mm Film
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998

Dan Baldocchi wrote... > I have a Hasselblad SWC and have the opportunity to get a 70mm back > for it. According to Hasselblad, double perf. 70mm X 15ft rolls will > provide 70 exposures. This is very appealing to me for the type of > shooting I do, but I cannot seem to find anyone who sells 70mm film. > Does anyone here know where I can get some. I'd hate to buy this back > and not be able to use it. I shoot mainly Black and white, and color > reversal. I'm not realy interested in color print film. Thanks for the > help. > > Dan B.

Dan,
I'm using 70mm film from time to time, and then only B&W.; You should know that most of the emulsions available in 70mm are special order, meaning that you, your dealer or national distributor (outside US) have to order some 30-100 100feet rolls at one and the same time. Plus-x pan 100 feet, for instance, is not special order, neither is Tri-x 15feet. I doubt that anything else than 70mm *B&W;* bulk loading from 100feet rolls actually pays compared to 120/220. Color reversal 70mm is - at least in Europe - very expensive.
--
Hekan Gunnarsson
Gvteborg, Sweden
B&W; Photos: http://www.student.gu.se/~hagu0009/photopag.html

From: evphoto@insync.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: how do YOU test film?
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998
chicknpiza@aol.com (Chicknpiza) wrote:
> > > I've been shooting for about a year as a serious amature and now i'm > interested in testing films. I have no idea how to reasonably get > started on a low budget. Any Tips, ideas, or methods would help. >

Adam,
How to test film:
get a Kodak gray card and also a Macbeth color chart. mount these both on a large neutral toned poster board leaving about 4 t o 6 inches of room at the bottom.
To test a film: set up a strobe in either an umbrella or a softbox. Mount the posterboard on a the wall or on a lightstand. Position the light so that it falls evenly across the board. This is not as easy as it sounds! Turn the flash power up or down so that it reads either f/8 or f/11 when the the meter is set for the nominal iso of the film being tested (for example Fuji rates rates RDPII at iso 100.)
Make sure you are not getting flare in the camera lens. ( do this by looking at the lens from different angles. If you can see a reflection of the lightsource you are getting flare)
Take three strips of white 1/2 inch tape. On the first one write the film type, emulsion # and speed rating (example: Fuji RAP Emul#XXX-XXX ISO=100) in large letters. Attach that to the board. On the second piece of tape write your basic exposure info and date (example f/8, 1/125 (6.14.98)) Attach that below the first piece of tape. On the third piece of tape write your equipment, lighting, and lab info (example: N90s+85mm f/1.8, Dynalite+ medium chimera, (A&I; lab)).
Make sure you use no filter on your lens during the film test!
Now to make some exposures!
have a volunteer stand next to the Posterboard. Your first exposure will be at 1 stop under. To signifiy this have them hold their hand closest to the poster board with two fingers pointing directly down. The next exposure with be a 1/2 stop under exposure so have the volunteer do the same thing except they will only point one finger down. The third shot is at the nominal "normal" rating. For this one the assistant will make the "okay sign." The fourth exposure will be at 1/2 stop over exposed, so the assistant will now hold one finger pointing up. The fifth and final exposure will have the assistant holding two fingers up (like the "V for Victory" or the "Give Peace a Chance" salute.)
In case I haven't made it clear, the only setting you should change will be your f/stop. In our example, you would be shooting at these apertures in this order: f/11, f8+1/2, f/8, f/5.6+1/2, and f/5.6.)
Take the film to the lab that normally runs your film and have them run it. If it is slide film, ask them not to cut it. When you pick it up ask to speak with the lab manager if you have any questions about which is the "correct" density and if the color is biased one way or another and how to correct.
If a film is way off, try the same type of film but from another emulsion #. You can keep a log book of these test strips if you want so you can compare how different brands or types of film compare to each other, or even how one type of film changes over time.
Happy shooting, Ellis Vener, evphoto@insync.net

From: jtc@enteract.com (Jerry C)
[1] Re: STORING USED FILM
Date: Sun Jun 21 15:42:30 CDT 1998
Color or B/W?
Color should not sit around longer than a year, but it should ideally be processed immediately! If you shoot with old film you will notice a predominence of magenta. Generally it is a good idea to keep all film cold or frozen--this prolongs it's life.
It has been known to happen that rolls of old black and white have been salvaged from cameras in attics and successfully processed/printed. The durability (archival-ness) of B/W is part of it's popularity.

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998
From: johnguntner@juno.com
To: koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] stupid light meter question
I have found if you set the ASA of any meter on 25 for Kodak Inferred then meter through the red filter you'll get a pretty good neg. The listed ASA is 100 but you are supposed to open up 2 stops for the red filter plus expose through it which explains why this works. (I only shoot 4x5 inferred since Kodak doesn't make 120 film I don't think) I have also found it works best to shoot inferred only when the sun is bright enough to throw black shadows on the ground. Otherwise you don't get the effect.

From: Werner Boeckelen boeckelen@aol.com
Subject: Response to B&W; Slide Film; Scala, TMAX Reversal or other?
Date: 1998-06-19
Hi Stefan,
for nearly 3 years now, I use the Agfa Scala 120 and I love the results very much. The special advantage of this film is, that the material on which the film is produced is absolutely clear. The material on with standard B&W; Films are produced is generally a little "cloudy" (I hope you understand, sorry I'm not a native english writer). The purpose of this "cloud" is, to give you very good results of enlargements. So my tip is, just use that film, that is specially built for B&W; transparencies - and for the moment you don't have a choice.
The Standard Scala film is now replaced by a Scala x. The improvement is, that you get better results, if you push the film up to 3200 ASA.
Hope that helps you
Werner

From: pcoen@forest.drew.edu (Paul Coen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Mail-order Film
Date: 22 Jun 98
"Tim Evans" tjevans@datasync.com writes:
> I am an amateur wondering about the quality of "house" film from mail-order > labs such as York, Mystic, and SFW. > > How do these compare to the non-professional grades of Kodak or Fuji film?

Mystic is either Agfa HDC or Agfa HDC plus, I'm not sure which. Nice film. I don't think they sell ISO 100 (at least, it's not in their sale pamphlets), which is a shame. I wouldn't hesitate to use the ISO 400 film from Mystic. I'm not a big fan of most ISO 200 print films (not as sharp as 100, not as fast but not much (if any) sharper than many ISO 400 films), so I'd buy ISO 100 stuff somewhere else.

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998
From: Russ & Kathy Thornton radarguy@gdi.net
Subject: Thick film
Does anyone have any experience with Agfa Pan ASA 25 film? I just shot my first roll and had it loaded in my A12 back. I felt like I was cranking laundry through the rollers. Has anyone else had this experience? When I developed it I found it to be very thick and stiff.
It just felt like I was stressing the winding mechanaism. Any comments? Russ

rec.photo.film+labs
From: cbsivlp@ibm.net
[1] Re: Store Brands
Date: Mon Jun 29 16:55:26 CDT 1998
"David A Moreno" DINNERDOG@prodigy.net writes:

>Regarding a message from Mike on 6/8/98 about Kodak or Fuji making private >label films.... > > >Fuji makes film for Polaroid, labeled as Polaroid High Definition. I have >only been able to find it at Wal-Mart. > >Polaroid One Film is an older generation of Agfa film. > >My wife and I are working on a film page, answering basic FAQs about (color) >film and (standard) processing. It's at >http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/3259 We are still working on it, so >please be patient! > >Dave

[Ed. note: update, sorry to say that the above film page at Museum/3259 has now been dropped as of 3/16/99...]
First, Kodak never sold its film under any store brand. This is in part because the name is well known for photographic products for more than 100 years!
Therefore, that company has no reason to distribute its film under any other name than its own.
Fuji at one time sold its film (back in the 1970s and early 1980s) under the Walgreen's name. The company, since the mid 1980s has ceased the practice.
The Polaroid High Definition film is actually manufactured by Konica.
Konica also sells its film under its own name, and under the CVS/Revco store brand name.
Polaroid's One Film is currently manufactured by Agfa. One Film was at one time manufactured by 3M (pre-Imation).
The reason Wal-Mart is the sole distributor is that Wal-Mart has the purchasing power that very few drug store, discount retail store, and one-hour processing retailers have.
As for store brands, K-Mart (Focal), Smitty's, Jewel/Osco, Target and many other store brands are manufactured by Imation (http://www.imation.com), a former division of 3M.
Agfa distributes its film under the Ritz Photo, Moto Photo, and Walgreen's Studio 35 brands.
The Walgreen's brand is repackaged Agfacolor HPC film.
Patrick G Horneker
os2junction@zdnetmail.com

From: Jeffrey Karp jeffkarp@erols.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Fuji Pro Film - where to buy cheaply in NYC?
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998
Try B&H; or Adorama.For 36 exposures, the prices are approx. 100ASA $5-, 400ASA $7-,1600ASA $8-. I can't believe that they could charge 33 pounds for one roll of film??? Perhaps your friend should get you 30 or 40 rolls instead, if the price difference is really so great(have him transport it in the carry on bag, as checked luggage is exposed to very high x ray levels).?B&H; does foreign mail order, however I don't know how safe the film would be from X rays, and excessive heat?

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
From: Scwywabbit@aol.com
Subject: [KOML] Infrared&Alt; Processes
Here's a website which may be of interest to those of you who are using infrared film: http://www2.ari.net/glsmyth/ Mr. Geo. L. Smyth has a good collection of articles on infrared and other photographic subjects at this site. Enjoy!

rec.photo.film+labs
From: "Michael K. Davis" zilch0@primenet.com
[1] Re: Shelf life of Pro Print Film
Date: Tue Jun 30 10:28:01 CDT 1998
Dugphoto dugphoto@aol.com wrote: : Hi group, : I'm thinking about switching from consumer print film to pro print film : (kodak VPS or Fuji NPS), but I'm not a consistently constant shooter. : Sometimes, I might go one or two months without shooting. I can store the film : in the refrigerator, but even if I do that what's the "shelf life" of these : films and what happens to the films after that. : Any information would be greatly appreciated. : Doug

I am not entirely confident my response will be correct, especially for all refrigerated films, but I encourage someone who knows better to swoop down and gobble up any false statements for the benefit of us all.
I think I read somewhere that the refrigerated pro films are not really all that different from normal consumer films, intrinsically. They will both shift their color balance over time. They both do so more slowly when refrigerated than when not. Knowing that consumer films will sit, unrefrigerated, on retailer's shelves, awaiting their expiration date, these films are purposely shipped in an unripened state. In other words, they achieve their best color balance sometime between their date of manufacture and the expiration date. They ripen on the shelves.
Pro films are allowed to ripen (I hope this metaphor isn't taken too literally) in controlled conditions, with tests conducted on each lot until optimum balance is nearly achieved -- they are vine-ripened. When they have just about peaked, they are shipped with the expectation that they will be kept refrigerated to deter further ripening and will be sold, exposed and processed in the near future.
If you have some old pro film in your refrigerator, go ahead and shoot it. You just can't count on it for extremely critical work where color balance must be precise. I don't have any actual specs on shelf life, but in desperation, I once pulled out some three-year old Fujichrome Velvia 120 and found no displeasure in using it for landscape work.
Mike
--
Michael K. Davis

rec.photo.film+labs
From: steveb@netvigator.com (Steve Bougerolle)
[1] Re: Slides, paper, and humidity in Asia
Date: Tue Jun 30 11:24:13 CDT 1998
> - films: slides or paper? Which kind of film (ASA ???) would be appropriate > for this region?

If you want to publish in magazines, aren't slides about the only choice?
Since you posted to the technical groups, I'm sure all kinds of people can give you much better advice than I can on what kind of film is best, but I'll tell you my favourite anyway. I use Fuji Velvia, and for outdoors shots around here you can get away with low speed. Somewhere here I have a roll of 50 ASA slides I just shot and was very happy with (I'm not sure it was Fuji Velvia 50, or that there is such a thing - just giving you parameters).
While you're considering the lighting, look into UV and polarising filters. I didn't find the UV(0) to be much use except as a lens protector, but there's a more advanced UV filter which might be better. I had a PL-blue filter which was very very nice for some shots, too (so I really missed it when it got stolen).

> - developping: I will come across Bangkok at one time or another. Is this a > place to save money for developping? Are they reliable? Will it be better > for me to developp there in the middle of the trip and then DHL it home than > keeping all the films undevelopped until the end?

In short, no. There are some very good developing places in Bangkok and I've had some prints done there very well, but there are lots of crap places, too, and so I still don't trust them. The ONLY place I trust in this part of the world is right here at home: Hong Kong. (Even in Singapore I've had crap processing).
Save your film till the end. Don't worry about the heat. A few simple precautions will keep it in quite good shape. I carried dozens of rolls around the tropics for several months and they still came out OK (the ones I carried for a year were perhaps a bit degraded, but not the stuff I only carried for four months).

> - How to keep the films when it's 35 degree centigrade and 90% humidity and > all the fridges give you is condensing water on the films?

32 degrees and 98% humidity would be a bit more accurate (sorry to be depressing).
If you're really worried about it, bring along a small airtight box and a pile of (sealed) silica gel packets. If you're moderately worried bring a nylon bag and a few packets of fungicide. The latter did just fine for me. Don't take your film out of the canisters till the absolute last minute. When you finish, if you're staying in some place with air-con leave the canisters open overnight, then put the film back. That might not make a huge difference to the humidity but it's not hard to do significantly better than 98%.
--
Steve Bougerolle
http://home.netvigator.com/~steveb
Mong Kok PO Box 79146, HONG KONG

rec.photo.film+labs
From: tut@ishi (Bill Tuthill)
[1] Re: Film recommendations
Date: Tue Jun 30 11:51:00 CDT 1998
bgarcia@talx.com wrote: > From my research on Kodak films it appears my best choices would be: > Royal Gold 400 (Most situations) > Royal Gold 1000 (Low light / no flash)

RG 1000 is good for its speed, but there are better choices than RG 400, which has poor color accuracy and responds badly to lighting changes.
Ektapress PJ400 (Most situations)
Ektapress PJ800 (Low light / no flash)
These are great films. Given that you said "art" and flash photography might not be allowed, you should also put Ektapress 1600 in your bag. If you carry a tripod, PJ 100 would be good for outdoor pictures.
I don't have any ideas if there are Fuji products that would be better.
Fuji Reala 100 is an excellent film if you can get it developed correctly. In the speeds you gave, Superia 400 and 800 are excellent films. They are somewhat finer grained (especially blue areas) than PJ 400 and 800, but have less resolution and sharpness. Fuji NPH 400 and NHG 800 are similar to Superia but with less contrast. Fuji SuperHG 1600 is relatively bad; most pro photographers prefer to push Superia 800 one stop.
For high-speed film comparisons, see
http://www.mpgn.com/~rwm/portfolio/iso800films/index.html

Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Color film contrast
From: jalbert@nyx.nyx.net (Joseph Albert)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998

Minnesota delphi@gte.net wrote: >I'm new to photography and have been reading the newsgroups for info on >different color films, slide vs. negs etc. The one topic that comes up >a lot is contrast, and I'm not quite sure what is meant by that. Some >complain of film being too contrasty or a certain film is low contrast >and subtle. Can someone please explain this to me in as much detail as >you want or can. This would help me follow the discussions better. >Thank you in advance.

for a negative material, if you expose very low, nothing will register on the film. As you increase exposure, at some point, the negative starts to register some of the image. How much registers refers to its "density". Density is a measure of how much light is absorbed when passed through the negative.
Thus, we can plot a curve with exposure on the X-axis and density on the Y-axis. This is the characteristic curve for the film and tells how how the film will respond to different situations. For a color film there generally are 3 separate color layers (4 layers for some unique films namely Reala and NPS) and each layer has its own response. The film is designed so each layer responds as similarly as possible, but they won't necessarily exactly in sync.
Contrast is the rate of gain of density as exposure is increased. At a given point along the exposure axis, there is a particular constrast and it is the slope of the tangent line to the curve. It is fundamental to photography that this "curve" be a straight line for reciprocity of shutter speeds and f-stops to work properly. If you expose to half as much light for twice as long, you should get the same result. (It also requires the rate at which density is accumulated at fixed light level is a linear function of time). Most films are non-linear at the low exposure levels, giving rise to reciprocity failures at long exposures (at these low light levels), since less density is being gained per unit time at these low light levels, necessitating longer exposures than would be dictated by reciprocity rules. In some cases, color shifts are seen, eg Velvia needs magenta filtering at long exposures. this is because the green layer is gaining density at a faster rate than the red and blue at these low exposure levels, necessitating a magenta color correction to remove the green cast that would result.
If a film is high in contrast, it will have trouble distinguishing between subtle variations in tone. This is because two different, but very close tonalities are gaining so much density that they both reach the limit of the film, and thus both are rendered the same. If you take a picture of a flower, there may be very subtle variations of tone at different areas of the 3-dimensional structure and if a high contrast film is used, the colors might block up into a single, 2-dimensional image without much detail, whereas a low contrast film might be able to render the subtle details in close, but different tones. Neither is necessarily better, just they are different, and part of the creative process of photography is understanding how a film will render a subject and choosing a film that will give the desired effect.
A related concept is tonal range of a film. This is the range of brightness of a scene that can be distinguished by the film. A high contrast film gains density at a fast rate as brightness increases, and so hits the limits of the film quickly, hwereas a low contrast film gains density at a slow rate and can capture a wider scale of brightness before hitting the upper density limit of the film. Thus, high contrast films have a narrower tonal range, and low contrast films have a wider tonal range. Thus, while low contrast films might not have the same bright "in your face" colors, they have a delicacy and level of realism that is difficult to capture with a high contrast film. The film manufacturers have put alot of effort into getting good color saturation out of films of moderate, and even low contrast. This has the benefit of not having to sacrifice bright, saturated colors when wanting to capture a wide tonal scale. Although color saturation is usually thought of as a property of film, with today's high color saturation films, poor technique is the most common limiting factor of color saturation of an image.
For slides, the same discussion applies, except slides lose density as exposure increases, eventually turning into clear base if enough exposure is given.
High contrast films help maintain good color saturation in low-contrast lighting, such as on an overcast day. Low contrast films help maintain good detail in the image in high contrast lighting, such as a bright, sunny day with harsh shadows.
Hope that helps.
Joseph Albert
Copyright Joseph Albert 1998. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce the above either on paper or in other electronic as long as such reproduction is not done for any commercial advantage, and this copyright notice is included with any copy.

rec.photo.film+labs
From: jmorley@grafton.demon.co.uk (John Morley)
[1] Re: Buying film online
Date: Tue Jul 07 12:05:36 CDT 1998

IK (klewe@usa.net) wrote: : Does anybody know of a online shop which ships films to the european : market (should be located in europe because of the delivery time)

Try Wilkinson Cameras' Web site at http://www.wilkinson.co.uk/ They're based in Preston in the UK and sell most popular 35mm and 120 films in ten packs.
--
John Morley (jmorley@grafton.demon.co.uk)

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: Tim Forcer tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
[1] Re: Misconceptions: APS vs 35mm (longish)
Date: Thu Jul 09 03:52:52 CDT 1998
Jan-Eric Nystrom wrote a useful and thougthful summary of the 35mm versus APS debate/controversy.
I am a happy user of both 35mm and APS, and have no quibble with what Jan-Eric wrote, EXCEPT:
>... >What I AM saying is this: >If you never make big enlargements (which VERY few people do, you >have to admit!), then there is PRACTICALLY NO DIFFERENCE in the >picture quality between the two formats. ... >...

For APS, a standard panoramic print *IS* a "big enlargement". When processed by a standard high-throughput lab, the result is not wonderful IMO. Send in the film for a panoramic REPRINT or an equivalent (LINEAR) enlargement using one of the other formats, and the result is significantly better, in my experience. I've taken panoramics on both 35mm and APS, and have to say the 35mm are noticeably better (that's even though the 35mm ones are a few years old, so don't have the advantage of latest APS emulsions). That doesn't mean I think APS is awful, or that panoramics shouldn't be taken, just that it's a factor to bear in mind before changing your format setting!
Final point re mid-roll panoramics on 35mm. This *IS* available from some UK processors, but at a hefty price hike - hardly surprising as it means taking the negs through the print system twice - once on auto which shows the operator which are panoramic, then again manually to find them and print them. I used a separate camera for 35mm panoramics, permanently set that way, and the price penalty compared to standard 35mm D and P was then modest.
--
Tim Forcer tmf@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK

From: dbingham@bcm.tmc.edu (Howard Bingham)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Mail-order Film
Date: 8 Jul 1998
When someone ask's me about these cheap labs & cheap films, I just refer them to: http://www.dejanews.com, and suggest that they enter either the name of the product, and/or manufacturer in the search field, and depending upon the number of post's in newsgroups relating to that product/service, there will be from 20 to a couple of hundred responses, regarding how user's rate the product/service..
For a long time, SFW, Dale, Skrudland, York, Clark, etc.., used to give away surplus movie film, purchased at salvage value from motion picture production companies.. These films, according to "Kodak" specification sheets, are designed to be shot at motion picture speeds which roughly approximate 1/48th. of a second, when shot as if it were still films.. When motion pictures are being made, it is the "fixed" shutter speed, that the cinematographer has to work around & if he needs more light, he does not have the option of adjusting shutter speed's, or in push processing that amateur photographers are used too, he has to adjust either the lens aperature, or add more light (Usually carbon arc. high intensity floods.), to get to where he needs it..
If someone would like further details, just send me an SASE, #10 (Legal sized.) envelope to the address in my signature line & I will send literature from Kodak, which supports this.. Or go to Kodak web page, under Motion Picture films..
Howard Bingham, Houston, Tx.
BTW: As one Houston television station consumer affairs reporter say's: "You get what you pay for.", and "If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is."

From: "LAWRENCE AKUTAGAWA" Laku@sprintmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cameras in Trunk...Heat?
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998
Put your camera gear in one of those styrofoam ice chests. Then cover the ice chest with jackets, blankets, etc. You'll be pleasantly surprised to find out how much cooler the under side of a couple layers of an old blanket is compared to the top side. Of course, don't forget the floor of the trunk itself - a fair amount of heat can come up through it as well.
On a long car camping trip, the last thing to be placed in the trunk is the tent (folded flat in a 32 gal plastic garbage bag) and the tarp which serves as a ground cloth (also flat in a similar bag). Logistically, they are the first to be taken out and set up, the last to be taken down and placed back in the trunk. Moreover, they conform very nicely to the odd topographically ups and downs of what already is in the trunk. And they do an excellent job of insulating from heat everything beneath them.
PhotoKing wrote

>I'd be interested in information about how safe it is to leave cameras and >lenses in the trunk of a car on a hot day (over 100 degrees type day). >Does it affect the lubricants, the plastic, etc.? I know that it is not a >great idea for the film, so I'm not really asking for information about how >it affects film --- just the camera equipment. Thanks.

From: lauring@internetMCI.com (Daniel H Lauring)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cameras in Trunk...Heat?
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998
The trunk will stay remarkably cool in most cars...much cooler than the car's interior because it doesn't have windows. The more thermal mass (stuff) you have in the trunk...the cooler.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: dansapper@aol.com (DANSAPPER)
[1] Re: heat damaging to cameras or film?
Date: Mon Jul 20 04:49:25 CDT 1998
Regarding effect of heat on film:
Heat above 100 degrees will cause color shifts in film and depending on length of time (weeks, not days), can also ruin the minimum or maximum density of the processed image (d-min for neg, d-max for slide).
For critical applications, you should always try to keep the film cool until ready to use. Most boxes of professional film indicate *storage* below 55 degrees fahrenheit.
The film's effective speed should not change much with exposure temperature. It should work fine at 100 degrees. If the temperature is higher, the film will get ruined *much* faster (above 120 degrees).
Thus, never leave film in a hot car for any period of time. Carry it with you, or bring an insulated cooler to protect it. Always leave the film in the original packaging until ready to use, because the humidity at which it is packaged is the best condition for the film.
Humidity also can cause problems, so again, keep the film in the sealed can or foil bag until ready to use. Avoid condensation on refrigerated film by allowing the package to equilibrate to ambient temperature before removing the cassette from the can (about 1 hour).
--Dan Sapper, Color Reversal Film Product Engineer, Eastman Kodak Company.

rec.photo.misc
From: webmaster@spectrumphoto.com (SPECTRUM)
[1] Re: Wet film
Date: Mon Jul 20 13:48:08 CDT 1998
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 13:48:39 -0400, Dan dpnewt@sssnet.com wrote:

>Will getting an exposed film canister wet in any way hurt the film? I >dropped a finished roll into a tide pool in Monterey, CA while >reloading. I think the photos are good, and I'm just kind of worried >about them getting destroyed. For the record, it was only submerged >about 1/4" and I don't think much water got in the canister. > >dan > >p.s. please respond with an email. It will be appreciated.

Any moisture, and sea water is the worst, in the film canister can cause the emulsion to swell and stick to the adjacent film. This can form a "lock" where the layers are essentially bound. The only way that I've found of avoiding any damage to the film is to submerge the entire roll into a sink or large pot full of water with PhotoFlo and gently unroll the film as it all swells and load it onto a reel, all done in the dark and under the PhotoFlo. Even then some damage can be expected but it is minimal and can usually be retouched out.
Regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc. - http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Website: Portraiture, Wedding Photography, Darkroom Tech.,
World Field Photographers Association, FAQ's & More!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

rec.photo.misc
From: two23@aol.com (Two23)
[1] Re: Wet film
Date: Mon Jul 20 21:01:11 CDT 1998
DAN--
I used to work at a Fuji regional lab and would receive several rolls per week of wet film, usually from one of those cheaper "waterproof" cameras. Usually the film came out OK. BE SURE to take it to a local place though and tell them it may be wet. At this time of year the high volume places like I worked at may not catch the note on the envelope that it was wet and try to run it through the splicer!
Kent in SD

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: rocknl@aol.com (RocknL)
[1] Re: 120 film protection
Date: Tue Jul 21 19:36:35 CDT 1998
After I unload and tape a roll of 120 I wrap it in a strip of aluminum foil. This blocks any light and provides a small amount of protection from heat. I do a lot of travel photography and may shoot 50 to 100 rolls of film before I can get back to my lab to process it. I have had no frame losses from light leakage using this method.

From: jsabo@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 film protection
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:37:22 GMT
Kam@mcmail.com wrote:
> and what kind of precautions do > I need to take when handling film in the field??

I purchased some black plastic tubes from the mail order company, Porters. They are designed for 120/220 roll film and give me extra piece of mind while lugging exposed film around in my backpack. They cost about a dollar apiece when bought by the dozen.
Jim

From: dbingham@bcm.tmc.edu (Howard Bingham)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: USA or gray market film?
Date: 30 Jul 1998
If you ask for USA film from B&H;, that's what you'll get.
--
Not always.. Much of the film referred to as Grey Market film, while intended for export, is "Made in the USA", but may contain foreign language instructions.. As per Kodak, and Henry Posner of B & H..
Howard Bingham

From: hbingham@[204.253.208.10] (Howard Bingham)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Store Brands
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998
On 29 Jun 1998 21:55:26 GMT, cbsivlp@ibm.net wrote:
--
(previous post's clipped)
>First, Kodak never sold its film under any store brand. This is in part because >the name is well known for photographic products for more than 100 years! >

--
Partly wrong.. Kodak now has a series of negative, and slide films (Including Elitechrome, and Kodachrome).. With Fuji giving Kodk a run for the photographic dollar, the "SELECT" brands of films, sell for slightly less than when sold under the old names..
On the flip side, the Professional Kodak films, seem to have gone up a little in the past several months.. (Based upon price corrections, on my employer's purchase orders from our Kodak supplier.)
--

>Therefore, that company has no reason to distribute its film under any other >name than its own. > >Fuji at one time sold its film (back in the 1970s and early 1980s) under the >Walgreen's name. The company, since the mid 1980s has ceased the practice.

--
Most of the film sold today under the Walgreen's label, is Agfacolor, dead giveaway, is the "Made in Germany" label, plus the term: "Made for Walgreen's, by Agfa", on the package.. --

> >The Polaroid High Definition film is actually manufactured by Konica. > >Konica also sells its film under its own name, and under the >CVS/Revco store brand name. > >Polaroid's One Film is currently manufactured by Agfa. One Film was at one >time manufactured by 3M (pre-Imation).

--
Polaroid's One Film, (E-6 slide film), that I process for the medical profession, the code numbers on the cassettes, still match Scotch/Imation code numbers, unless there has been a very recent change..

> >The reason Wal-Mart is the sole distributor is that Wal-Mart has the purchasing >power that very few drug store, discount retail store, and one-hour processing >retailers have. > >As for store brands, K-Mart (Focal), Smitty's, Jewel/Osco, Target and many >other store brands are manufactured by Imation (http://www.imation.com), a >former division of 3M. > >Agfa distributes its film under the Ritz Photo, Moto Photo, and Walgreen's >Studio 35 brands.

--
Agfa film is also sold under the Agfa label at most professional camera stores..
--

> >The Walgreen's brand is repackaged Agfacolor HPC film. > >Patrick G Horneker >os2junction@zdnetmail.com >
--

For those not familiar with Agfa, it is the worlds oldest manufacturer of photographic films and papers, pre-dating Kodak by many years.. Agfa made a somewhat primitative color film, at the same time that Geoge Eastman, was still tinkering with his first Brownie Camera's.. Some of the early Kodak box camera's, while simple in design, can still be found at many camera shows around the country.. I have a Kodak Brownie, No.2-A, which still works & uses 116 film (116 & 616 films are slightly wider in size than 120 roll film.)..
(The above, are personal opinions, and in no way are they expected to express the opinions of my employer..)
Howard Bingham, Color Lab Manager, Medical Illustration & Audiovisual
Education, Bayl;or College of Medicine, Houston, Tx. USA..
E-mail: dbingham@bcm.tmc.edu, Or: hbingham@insync.net

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Keith Wiebe" keithw@southwind.net
[1] Cheap source for 120 film
Date: Wed Sep 02 20:11:43 CDT 1998

I was just searching through Freestyle sales and they had Konica VX 100 in 120 format for 1.29 a roll. If you order 50 or more rolls it drops to .99 cents! They claimed it was fresh (I'm assuming they have more). They also had cold stored Fuji HG-V 400 for 3.09 in 120 format. They can be found at http://www.freestylesalesco.com . I'd order some of the Konica if I wasn't overstocked allready! Tell me if you bought any.
Keith Wiebe

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
From: Indranath Neogy indy@the-tech.mit.edu
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: slide film w/ latitude
maybe you could try
(from the fuji site)
FUJICHROME MS 100/1000 PROFESSIONAL
A new multispeed daylight-type color reversal film. Offers superb image quality embodied in Fujifilm's line of Fujichrome Professional EI 100 films, but also provides exceptional capabilities for pushability from speeds of EI 200 all the way to EI 1000. Ultra fine grain, sharpness, accurate color balance and full saturation are all incorporated into this professional film product. Suitable for sports, fashion or any other photography in variable or low light, Fujichrome MS 100/1000 Professional breaks the speed limit of conventional color reversal films. Process E-6 compatible.
(end of hype)
i haven't used it, and despite the fact that it can't live up to it's own hype (see above) but i've seen others get decent results with it
might be worth a try
Indy.
--
Indranath Neogy
indy@the-tech.mit.edu

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998
From: Robert Claeson robert@acme.tm
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: SV: slide film
Dan Cardish dcardish@microtec.net wrote:

>The one time only that I tried using Provia 400 in 120 format was >disasterous. The definition was terrible. I couldn't believe it was a 120 >sized film.

True. It's quite contrasty and has muted colors and a strange, mostly purple color cast. It's still better than the corresponding ISO 400 film from Kodak, but E200 pushed is even better than the true ISO 400 films.
A CR1.5 or CR3 warming filter helps to hide the rough spots some, though.

From: "Keith Wiebe" keithw@southwind.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Where to buy film through mail order?
Date: 14 Aug 1998
I have bought at B/H Photo, Adorama, Freestyle out of California. My local lab charges about $25 for a pro pack of PPF 400 and I was able to order it for $17.45. I ordered about $120 worth and shipping was $9.25. It doesn't take much film to make this pay but if you are ordering 35mm film (all mine was 120 format) I would check out Freestyle as they have a good selection of cheap 35 film.
Keith Wiebe

From: dave@nws.fsu.edu (David Faciane)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Where to buy film through mail order?
Date: 15 Aug 1998
I've had good success with The Film Shop-- http://www.filmshop.com A little more pricey than B&H; on the film, but mailers are about the same, and shipping is free on orders over $100 (which is hard to stay under anyway).
--
David Faciane |web: http://www.nws.fsu.edu/

From: "Christopher J. Christian" cjc2@bellatlantic.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: US v. Grey market Film ??
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998
I can't really speak for Ilford or Agfa, but I do know the deal with FUJI which I would expect to be the same for the other two. When you buy USA FUJI, the UPC code begins with 74101. This means that FUJI USA imported the film directly from FUJI JAPAN for sale in the USA. This film was properly protected during shipment. For this you pay about a buck extra per roll for 135. Yes, you are paying so that FUJI USA can advertise to sell you their products, etc.
Grey market film is imported by someone other than FUJI USA. Its the same film, made in the same factory, but it was destined for sale in some other country. It was sold to a distributor in another country and subsequently sold to someone who brought it into the US. How was it treated in shipment? Anyone's guess? Poorly? Possibly, but unlikely.
My rule...Always use the USA when I'm being paid or the shots really matter. For testing, playing, the neighbors, the imported stuff is just fine. Why take chances for a dollar, when the client is paying it anyway?
By the way...I've never had any problems with the imported stuff. But then I buy only from reputible local shops or by mail from B&H;!
Hope this helps!

From: mr645@aol.com (Mr 645)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Purple tint in slides
Date: 2 Sep 1998

> I was wondering if there was anything that could happen during the > processing of E6 slides that would cause a color shift from blue to > purple. I recently had a roll of Kodak E200 processed. A slide of a > blue flower came back with a distinct purple cast. I bracketed + - 2/3 > stop and all have the cast. Could this be caused by chemicals that > were no fresh?

Hi Scott,
some flowers, specially blue ones and also some dyes from clothes have a distinct remission in the near infrared. Only visible with color- films, not with the eye.
There is no possibility to overcome this problem.
Peter

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Andy Shaw" andyshaw@erols.com
[1] Re: Storing film?
Date: Sun Sep 06 13:57:02 CDT 1998
ZaaX wrote

>I buy consumer grade film (Kodak Gold whatever) and usually store the film in >the fridge. Is this a good idea? Any problems with doing this? How long could I >expect film stored there to last? BTW I let the film warm up a bit before I >load it in the camera. Any info on this would be greatly appreciated.

According to the Kodak Professional Photoguide (sixth edition) p15
"Kodak professional color .. will retain optimum color balance and contrast when it is stored at 55F (13C) or lower, until the expiration date printed on the film carton"
"Kodak color films for general use and most Kodak B+W films are recommended for storate at room temperature 75F (25C) or lower before using them. When these filems are subjected to higher temperatures for extended periods, you should store these films under refrigeration until the ambient temperature returns to normal. Then remove general-use color films and black-and-white filems from refrigerationed storage so they can age normally"
Do not open the original "vapour tight" container until you are redy to use the film.
When you want to return exposed film to refrigeration, first protect the film by sealing in a plastic bag - if you are in HIGH humidity conditions then add active silica gel FOR SHORT TERM STORAGE ONLY (my capitals - I also assume that the 35mm "pots" will work just as well)
Warm-up times (given on page 16)
From fridge (25F / 14C temp rise)
Roll film 1/2 hour
35mm 1 hour
Hope that helps.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "donald haarmann" donald-haarmann@worldnet.att.net
[1] Re: Storing film?
Date: Sun Sep 06 15:58:26 CDT 1998
"Storage and Care of KODAK Photographic Materials Before and After Processing" KODAK Publication E-30
www.kodak.com
Search for it by name or use "E-30"
donald j haarmann

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Greg Lawhon glawhon@unicom.net
Subject: Response to New print film, Leica News and other
Date: 1998-09-04
Here's the result of some earlier research on this subject from a few months ago. I think this information is somewhere else on this site, but here goes again.
While Reala is still readily available today in 120 in the USA, it may not be readily available everywhere for long. It's off the list of films at the Fujifilm USA web site (35mm is the only size specified in the US market), and the color film review in the July/August issue of Photo Techniques magazine says that Fuji has pulled 120 and 220 Reala from the US (replaced by NPS 160, which now incorporates Reala's four-layer technology). Reala is still marketed in 120 and 220 overseas, which means that the mail order houses probably will still be able to get gray market Reala for you, but your local camera store may not. Of course, your local store may be able to get remaining US stocks for a while (my local store expected to be able to continue to get it for a little while). I hope that helps clear up the seeming contradictory information, and I hope that Fuji changes its mind.

From: host name@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: cheap source for 120 film
Date: 9 Sep 1998
Hi there;
I was looking closer to the Freestyle catalog and noticed that the Konica 120 rolls were only 6 exposures long. Beware... that's 2.40 a roll.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Jim Gajos" jgajos@concentric.net
[1] Re: Pro film refrigeration
Date: Sun Sep 20 22:21:30 CDT 1998
Check out the Kodak technical data reference document "Storage and Care of Kodak Photographic Materials" at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e30/e30Contents.shtml

From: see.signature@bottom.com (gary gaugler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Buying Film through the Mail
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:45:17 GMT

>I don't get it. They tell you that you have to refrigerate pro films >but then are willing to send them to you and guaranteeing quality. >During transits, it's not uncommon to films to sit in the hot sun >and/or hot warehouses for a bit. Wouldn't this affect the quality of >these pro films by "maturing" their emulsion? I would be willing to >buy mail order if someone could give me a good explanation. > >thanks, > >Tiep

If you accept the hypothesis that pro film must always be refrigerated, then you will never be able to take a picture with it since it will always be sitting in the refrigerator. The issue is long term storage conditions prior to use.
I don't think you know what "pro film" actually means vs. consumer grade film. Consumer film is meant to wander around the countryside and encounter all sorts of temperature extremes and still get an image that will be good for Uncle Bill or Brother Bob. The tradeoff is that the color balance and tonal range may change from roll to roll and even from frame to frame.
Pro film is designed to have a greatly lesser degree of variation in the detrimental effects as long as it is properly stored via temperature stabilization prior to use. Furthermore, each emulsion batch number is guaranteed to be the same for all rolls with that batch number when stored under identical conditions.
If you are worried about a shipping delay across country, I'd suggest using FedX 2nd day or UPS blue. Failing that, get some Kodak Gold at your local Costco.
Gary Gaugler

From: bandhphoto@aol.com (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Buying Film through the Mail
Date: 17 Sep 1998 13:37:29 GMT
During transits, it's not uncommon to films to sit in the hot sun and/or hot warehouses for a bit. Wouldn't this affect the quality of these pro films by "maturing" their emulsion? I would be willing to buy mail order if someone could give me a good explanation.
During the 20+ years I shot full time (before I came to B&H;) I shot probably thousands of miles of film. Much was shipped to me and then shipped to procecssing labs after exposure During that whole time I made plenty of errors, and saw plenty of crap come back :-) but none could be blamed on the relatively brief time the film might have sat in slightly warmer climes.
===============================
regards,
Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
henryp@bhphotovideo.com

From: Dave Williams davidrw@swbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Film Processing!
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998
Ron,
I manage a Wal-Mart photolab, and perhaps I can shed some light on this. If I've missed something, forgive me, I'm just joining the conversation with this message.
All Fuji SFA printers currently in use in Wal-Mart labs, to my knowledge, automatically adjust for density and color as they print. They adjust whatever film type and speed they are printing to match a master channel, Fuji Super G 100.
Even if the lab tech makes no changes, the machine is still adjusting. The "N" numbers on the back of each print only indicate any adjustments over and above what the machine does on its own.
As a result, for example, even if someone brackets their shots, our machines will adjust all the shots to print the same. You can only read bracketed film in the negs.
The ACCS system in these printers also seek to average out each neg, much like your camera meter aims for an 18% grey reading. So bright areas or dark areas will throw off the printing some.
Our older 1040 type Fuji printers could be set to print without this feature, but you're still faced with the fact that all printers are balanced to a subjective standard.
Unfortunately, no printer that I know of gives one the control one has with slides.

From: qquickqoneq@idt.net (Q. O.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Chinese Print Film
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998
Hi,
While at the local 99 Cent store, I picked up a roll of short-dated "Film -- High Definition For Clear Sharp Pictures". It's 100 ASA, made in China and imported by Phenix Pacific Venture.
Anyone have any background on this?
-QO

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Keith Wiebe keithw@southwind.net
Subject: Response to Short Roll 120 Film
Date: 1998-10-01
I submitted a post to rec. medium format and mentioned that Freestyle sales in Calif. had Konica VX 100 real cheap and someone wrote back to me and said it was 6 exposure rolls. I didn't investigate it for sure but thought it was interesting. I think my Mamiy C330f manual mentions it.
Keith Wiebe

From: richey@epix.net (Jim Richey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: source for inexpensive MF film?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998
I purchased Agfa Ultra 50 from Filmart http://www.filmart.com. Not quite as cheap as B&H;, but reasonable shipping options and good turn around. They have online ordering as well. Perhaps a good choice for low volume purchases.

From: "Thomas J Balfe" tbalfe@flnet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Film for 620?
Date: 20 Oct 1998
B&H; in NYC has 620 film and so does Film for Classics in Rochester.
http://www.bhphoto.com/
http://www.frontiernet.net/~joankay/
They both have color and black and white print film as well as color reversal.
Have fun, I know my Kodak Vigilant Six20 takes 620.
--
Thomas J Balfe
tbalfe@flnet.com

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "JediBen" tingsh@pc.jaring.my
[1] Re: Reciprocity failure tables?
Date: Thu Oct 29 06:04:04 CST 1998
Ask for the Fujifilm 'Data Guide Book' which contains TONS of useful info.

Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] grey film

>> I'm thinking going to EPP for the good fleshtones. >> >> Fredric > >Hello, > > What's EPP? > > I'm looking for a color film in 120 for the Rollei. Ironicly, a bought >the Rollei planning to use Kodachrome 64, only to find in discontinued >in 120 size. > > What's a good choice for transparency film for outdoors daylight. >The Kodachrome gave great results in the sun. I guess the choices >are between Fuji, Ektachrome or Agfa. I want to be able to project >them, and occassionally make Ilfochrome prints with a Dichro head. > > Yours, > > Rich Lahrson > tripspud@hooked.net

For good flesh tones I use Fuji Astia and Agfa RSX 100. Both are relatively neutral in color rendition, but both give excellent flesh tones, with the Agfa just a little cooler in overall tonality.
I haven't really cared for the recent Ektachromes for skin tones.
If it was available in the USA I might shoot some Konica slide film. I shot it when I was in Japan and liked it a lot. But they do not import it into the USA.
Bob

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: nickeytheone@hotmail.com
[1] Re: What are the advantages of using slide film?
Date: Sat Nov 07 21:37:01 CST 1998
hybwolf@aol.com (Hybwolf) wrote:
> What are the advantages of using slide film compared to print film?

A matter of personal choice really, and a very controversial one at reccomending it. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Advantages
Slide film, due to it being manufatured for being projected on a large screen, has finer grain, almost 2x to a compatible consumer grade same ISO print film equivalent, therefore is extremely sharp. Some swear by the pin sharpness of a well exposed projected slide. Perhaps the biggest advantage to slide film is that it is a first generation image, Wysiwyg. You dont have the nice operator at your lab inputing 50% of their talent into the final photogrpah you may achive as a print. More professional based emulsions are avaialble in slide film as normally slide film is used 90% by professionals and for publishing, print film is available in consumer, portrait and wedding specialist film.
Disadvantages
You need to invest more for slide film viewing, like a slide projector, or at least a loupe and litebox. Slide film cannot be passed around like prints to be shown to people. Slide film is very unforgiving in exposure errors, and your exposure technique has to be spot on (1/2 exposure error either way, and you have instant heartbreak!) Slide film is very contrasty, therefore doesnt print very well. On the digital fromt, slide film doesnt 'scan' as well or easily into computer as Print film does. Speeds over ISO 400 are not very good and you should stick to print film if using those speeds or higher!
Personally, I use slide film all the time. Its easier to store and these days with the advent of modern techniques, prints can be made from slides and slides can be made from prints!. In fact I personally am of the opinion that Digital Prints or Ilfo chrome Prints made from slides lend themselves much sharper with beautiful colors then straight off negative prints.
Here are my choices for slide film according to use:
1. Landscape - Fuji VELVIA ISO 50, used with a polarisor, gives extemely puchy 'hero' results. Heard K'Chrome gives great results but is difficult to have processed.
2. Portraiture - FUJI ASTIA ISO 100, gives neutral results, low contrast and faithful skin tones. Also good for 'Scanning' in gerneral purpose photography. Heard that AGFA CT Precisia is also very good for portraiture and is available in ISO 200 speeds.
3. Genreral purpose - Kodak Elite Chrome ISO 100,200. Excellent all round results. Good tone range and average contrast. Good for scanning as well.
Hope this helps!
Contact me personally for more help
NICKSTER

Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998
From: Ferdi Stutterheim stutterh@noord.bart.nl
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrome in 120?
Richard,
Somewhere on the net I have read the Kodak processing lab in Wimbledon, Londen, England is (was) processing 120 size Kodachrome film.
P.O.Box 2, Deer Park Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 3UG, U.K.
Ferdi.

Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrome in 120?
...
Thom Bell, of Kodak customer service, has a list of labs offering K-14 (Kodachrome) processing on his web site. The URL for the list is: http://members.aol.com/thombx19/k14.html
The mail URL is: http://members.aol.com/thombx19/home.html#3
According to the list above the the lab mentioned above and other European labs still process 120 size film. The US labs do only 35mm. Too bad.
I suspect Kodak has wanted to kill off Kodachrome in all sizes for a long time.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrome in 120?
Actually, there have been two camps within Kodak for some time, those who wanted to kill Kodachrome because it was a hassle and didn't make much money, and those who perceived it as Kodak's possible ace in the hole.
An old friend of mine, Bob Shanebrook, was in charge of Kodachrome for some time, and it was under his watch that Kodachrome 200 was developed. Then he was transferred, and the impetus sort of went away. Today Bob is in charge of pro films in 120 and 220 sizes, and is working on improvements to make the films easier to use. Even though no longer running the Kodachrome program, he has a soft spot for the film. We had a long meeting at photokina, and one thing I asked was about Kodachrome 120. Unfortunately, he says it is dead for good.
You will note that the new K-Lab which Kodak made such a fuss about not long ago as the "Kodachrome minilab" will ONLY process 35 mm film, so labs equipped with this machine could not do 120 even if they wanted to.
Bob

Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrome in 120?
Thom Bell, of Kodak customer service, has a list of labs offering K-14 (Kodachrome) processing on his web site. The URL for the list is:
http://members.aol.com/thombx19/k14.html
The mail URL is: http://members.aol.com/thombx19/home.html#3
According to the list above the the lab mentioned above and other European labs still process 120 size film. The US labs do only 35mm. Too bad.
I suspect Kodak has wanted to kill off Kodachrome in all sizes for a long time.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@lucent.com
Reply to: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Off Topic: Slide films for 120
Velvia is sharp but truly an ISO 40 film, not ISO 50 as claimed. WAY TOOO contrasty unless you are doing scenics. For people use Fuji Astia. If you want the most neutral skin tones then AGFA RSX100 is for you.
Peter K

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998
From: Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: film 5248
Actually, if any of you are interested in fooling with respooled movie stock, Eastman offers a number of amazing new stocks under their Vision trademark. It is supposed to be fantastic according to the current information and literature. Still, processing is an issue as is suitability for still work.
RM

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@DLR.DE
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off Topic: Slide films for 120
That is right: I refer to the E 100S. I still think that it is a bit warmer than the EPR, and I don't find more colour saturation in the E 100S. Kodak claims the E1100S to be sharper than the EPR. The AGFA RSX 100 seems to be too warm for me especially for scenics. I heard it should be great for artificial and fluorescent light. However, the Agfa is not very sharp! There was shown also a new E 100?? on the Photokina. Does anybody now about that?
But these are all my subjective findings. So I am interested in the opinions of other film users.
Greetings
Dirk

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Jeff Montgomery jmontgomery@harding.edu
Subject: Response to New 120\220 film cans
Date: 1998-11-23
Try www.Porters.com they have three different film holders for Medium format film for very reasonable prices.

From: frankvw@euronet.nl (Frank van Wensveen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Unofficial Fuji Film Guide, preliminary version II
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998
Well... the first version of my Unofficial Fuji Film Guide (UFFG) has generated a lot of feedback and email discussions... Thank you all. Here is preliminary version II, later than I'd hoped but with more additions and corrections than I'd expected.
I'm taking a big risk here. :-) Film performance as experienced by the photographer is not dependent on emulsion only... the lab plays a *big* role, and so do the circumstances in which a film is used. There is no 'better' or 'worse' when comparing two different types of film... it's just that one type of film gives better results when you're using it to shoot a certain subject in certain conditions and have the film developed by a certain lab... So individual experiences tend to contradict each other. As a result, I've either improved this or really scr*wed up. :-)
If you find any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in this, please let me know.
----------[ cut ]----------
*** PRELIMINARY VERSION ***
Unofficial guide to Fuji 35mm film
==================================
1. Consumer film (Fujicolor)
1.1 Color negative film (daylight balanced)
1.1.1 Super G Plus 100/200/400/800
This film has been discontinued and replaced by Superia. It's the 'old' Fuji standard film. Fine grain, medium contrast, good color saturation, but a little unsaturated in the blues.
1.1.2 Superia 100/200/400
Standard color film. Pleasing skin tones, good sharpness, good color saturation, medium contrast. Grain may be finer or coarser than Super G Plus, depending on speed. Slightly better color saturation than Super G Plus, but not remarkably so.
1.1.3 Superia X-tra
Advertised as "universal" color film. High exposure latitude (comparable to Kodak Max), but both graininess and color saturation are marginally better than Kodak Max. Medium contrast. Formerly sold as Superia 800.
(This is an example of Fuji confusion at its best. At one time or another, Fuji imported (chronologically) Super G+ 800, Superia 800, and Superia X-tra 800. There are also packages that say 'Superia X-tra' without giving 800 as the speed!)
1.1.4 Superia Reala 100
Excellent color negative film. Good sharpness, excellent color saturation, very fine grain. Low to middle contrast, a little less contrasty than Superia. May have some difficulties with reds, browns and flesh tones, which makes it a little hard to develop. It would be a great film for portraiture if it handled flesh tones better. Fuji sais to be working on this with planned new emulsions.
1.1.5 Super HG 1600
High-speed color negative film. Graininess and color saturation are not spectacular. Medium to high contrast. Superia X-tra 800 pushed one stop performs better than HG 1600.
1.2 Color reversal film (Fujichrome)
1.2.1 Fujichrome Sensia (RD)
This film has been discontinued and replaced by Sensia II.
1.2.2 Fujichrome Sensia II 100/200/400 (RA)
Good sharpness, good color saturation. No bluish cast in shade areas (as with Kodak Ektachrome), good saturated greens. Graininess varies from good (100 ISO) to accepatable (400 ISO). Better than most consumer slide films at the same speeds.
2. Professional film
2.1 Color negative film (Fujicolor)
2.1.1 Super G Plus 100/200/400/800
For some reason, Fuji still advertises Super G Plus in 20 roll pro packs (135/36) after having discontinued selling the same film as consumer film. See 1.1.1 for details.
2.1.2 HG 1600 a.k.a. Super HG 1600
Fuji can't make up its mind about whether this is a pro film or a consumer film. They advertise it both as consumer and professional film. See 1.1.5 for details.
2.1.3 NHG II 800
An 800 ISO film with excellent sharpness, color saturation and fine grain (comparable to Kodak RG 400 or Gold 200). Medium contrast.
3.1.4 NPS 160 Professional
Daylight balanced low contrast, low saturation film excellently suited for portrait and wedding photography. Soft flesh tones, good skin tones. Has difficulty with blue tones. Portrait labs seem to get better results with this film than allround pro labs, although your mileage may vary. NPS seems to be loosing popularity as a portrait film to Provia, which is easier to develop.
3.1.5 NPL 160 Professional
As NPS, but Tungsten balanced.
3.1.6 NPH 400 Professional
Daylight balanced 400 ISO film for portrait and wedding photography. Reduced contrast, neutral skin reproduction. High exposure latitude. Noticably coarser grain than NPS (as can be expected when comparing 400 and 160 speed film).
3.1.7 NHG 400 a.k.a. 400 Professional NHG
This film has been discontinued and replaced by NPH.
3.2 Color reversal film (Fujichrome)
3.2.1 MS 100/1000
A 100 ISO "multispeed" slide film that can be pushed up to 1000 ISO, at the price of increased graininess.
3.2.2 Velvia (RVP)
A 50 ISO film with ultra-fine grain and excellent color reproduction. Incredible color, saturated but still capable of subtelty. Hailed by many. Middle to high contrast. Its punchy color rendition make it an excellent film for product and landscape photography. Does a great job on shadow areas, performs brilliantly in soft or flat light. Its high color saturation may sometimes result in too much contrast in bright light. (E.g. skies, when not a deep blue, may appear burned-out and whitish. For pale blue skies a lower contrast film might be better.) Its outstanding acutance (edge sharpness) gives great detail to images. (It's said to show every single needle on a pine tree.) An excellent film for scenery. Has severe touble with flesh tones (red or even purlplish casts). Photographers can't seem to agree on whether to shot it at EI40 or 50. Some labs seem to have difficulties making good prints from Velvia (Astia gives better results in such cases).
3.2.3 Provia 100 Professional (RDP II)
Much like Velvia, but at twice the speed. Similar sharpness, grain and resolution, but slightly less color saturation and contrast. Noticably better at showing browns, golds and flesh tones than Velvia, and does a better all-round job. Its softer contrast and more subtle colors make it an excellent portait film. (Provia is slightly more contrasty than NPS, but not dramatically so.) Provia is the professional version of the original Sensia consumer film (which has been discontinued).
3.2.4 Astia 100 Professional (RAP II)
The professional version of Sensia II. A good all-round film. Nice for the warmer colors as well as soft blues. A little warmer than Velvia, a little less color saturation than Provia. Good for "conventional" portrait work, but for high-quality "glamour" work Provia might be a better choice. Astia is the professional version of Sensia II.
----------[ cut ]----------
Regards,
Frank
Homepage: http://www.euronet.nl/~frankvw
ICQ #: 13800170

From: Gary Frost gfrost@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Unofficial Fuji Film Guide, preliminary version II
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998
Also of note on Astia is it's wonderful reciprocity for low light work. Allowing exposure to 2 minutes with only +1/2 stop, NO color correction. It helps to control contrast for long exposures and color stays natural. Velvia is +2/3 stop at 16 seconds +10M, not recomended for 64 sec. Velvia can get ugly in these situations.
Astia RMS 10 135/55 lp/mm
Velvia RMS 9 160/80 lp/mm
I have not tried the new MS 100/1000 but the data guide indicates at ASA400 the RMS is 13 135/55 lp/mm.
Provia 400 RMS is 15 125/40 lp/mm.
If it holds up well to 400 push...?

From: delfstrom@usa.net (David Elfstrom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Unofficial Fuji Film Guide, preliminary version II
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998
(Frank van Wensveen) wrote:

>If you find any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in this, please >let me know.

I noticed that you were using subjective descriptions of color saturation. "Good" or "Excellent" color saturation would depend on the application and desired result wouldn't it? To illustrate my point, Astia is excellent for skin tones, the saturation is "excellent" for that application, but the overall saturation of the colors is moderate. Perhaps you should consider using 'low', 'moderately', 'highly','extremely' saturate.

>3.1.4 NPS 160 Professional >mileage may vary. NPS seems to be loosing popularity as a portrait >film to Provia, which is easier to develop.

You're comparing negative and reversal film here... did you really mean that? Perhaps you meant that it's easier to *print* Reala than NPS 160. Also, is "develop" the correct word? Maybe it should be "print".
Have you read the FAQ on Fuji's website for their films? You should. It describes the reasons for photographers using a different EI for Velvia.
You should also phone Fuji and ask for some of their product literature. You can then make qualitive comparisons based on their own published sensitivity graphs and other charts. That's how I learned about the details of their films and which films to use for which applications.
David

From: Frank Neef fofx@accessone.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Costco's "Kirkland" Brand film
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998
Terry wrote:

> Has anybody else had Kirkland brand film come back from the processor with a > greenish tint to it? I have had mixed luck, mostly the green tint affects > the Kirkland ASA 200 film. > > What have your experiences been? Is just the lot I bought from lousy, or is > it the Kirkland film in general. > > Thanks for sharing your experiences.

I tried it once I did not like it it was made by agfa at the time.
--
Thanks,
Frank.

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Seattle Film Works
----------

>From: "Les Alvis" >To: >Subject: [Rollei] Off topic: Seattle Film Works >Date: Thu, Jan 14, 1999, 4:20 AM > >Today I received a direct mail marketing package from the lab Seattle Film >Works which included two rolls of 20-exposure 35mm color print film, one ISO >200 and the other 400. The film is labeled simply "Seattle Film Works" and >contains the ominous message "Process SFW-XL only at Seattle Film Works". > >I have no interest in using this lab, but I might shoot the film if I can >find out what it is. Anyone out there know? Who makes it? Is it a C-41 >film? > >Les Alvis

SOME of the film sold by Seattle Film Works and other similar operations is Agfa C-41 color neg film. Unfortunately, some isn't and will muck up the machine and ruin film if run in C-41. For this reason most labs won't touch the stuff. Too risky.
Seattle Film Works refuses to divulge how they tell which is which. I've tried to find out because readers are constantly asking me this question.
My advice, shoot the film and have Seattle Film Works process it, or just throw it away.
Bob

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
From: "Paul Bradforth" paul@paulbrad.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: outdated film [v04.n197/7]
Javier wrote:

> Last month I purchased a half price films because they are going to be out > of date in Febrary. These are Kodad Royal Gold 200 and 400. I have already > developed 3 and they are Ok, but I've got come more, and maybe I will have > to develop them in March. > Is there anybody who Knows what happend if they become prints one or two > months after expired?

Javier, if you're worried about it, keep the film in the fridge. I quite often buy large batches (100 rolls or so) of Ektachrome 100 which is a year out of date. I use it to do professional jobs; it's perfectly fine, and *very* cheap!
The only thing you have to watch out for is how it's been stored before you bought it...as long as it's been fridged, it'll be OK for ages.
Best Wishes,
Paul
http://www.paulbrad.demon.co.uk

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999
From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" gstewart@inficad.com
Subject: Re: Film out of date/Royal Gold vs. Reala [v04.n195/13]
Javier,
The best thing you can do with your nearly outdated film is to put it in a plastic bag and put the bag in your freezer. Once frozen, the film's aging process will slow nearly to a stop. If you plan to shoot all the film in the next 2-6 months, there is no need to freeze it. It ages slowly.
Before using the frozen film it must be thoroughly thawed (unfrozen) before you remove the cassette from the plastic canister. If you remove the film from the canister before it thaws, it will attract moisture, in the same manner as a glass holding a cold drink in the summer. This can ruin the film and deposit film emulsion all over the inside of your camera.
To thaw the film, either leave it sit at room temperature for 3-6 hours (depending on the room temperature), or, as I do, put the plastic canister in your trouser pocket for a half hour or so.
Your choice of film from the four you mentioned is not something anyone else can tell you. You must go shoot some of each, under your normal shooting conditions, then decide for yourself.
Best regards,
Stew
- --
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999
From: Januar Rahadi jrahadi@ibm.net
Subject: Re: Film out of date/Royal Gold vs. Reala [v04.n195/13]
Film expiration tolerance depends on many handling factors:
1. How the film was handled from manufacturing to distributor to the shop to you. If the film was handled with refrigeration facility, it's actual expiration date will far longer than the printed date.
2. How YOU handle the film until you use/expose it. If you keep it refrigerated, then it will extend actual expiration date too. After you loaded it in the camera, it is best if you can use the entire film immediately. If not, try not to put your camera in hot place (such as beneath your car's window), because it may damage your film as well your camera computers.
3. How you handle the film AFTER you expose it. Process the film immediately. If this is not possible, keep the unprocessed film refrigerated.
4. Exception 1: high speed film (such as ISO 800 or 1600) will deteriorate although you keep it refrigerated, because it is affected by atmospheric radiation.
5. Exception 2: Pro grade films (such as Velvia or Kodachrome), has a more limited expiration tolerance, because film manufacturer keeps it in the warehouse, waiting until it 'ripe', before the film is shipped to the distributor / camera shop.
One last note: Use film's plastic cap before you put it in the refrigerator, and allow the film to thaw for about 1 hour before you use it.
Warmest Regards,
Januar Rahadi.
Bandung, Indonesia.

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off Topic: Seattle Film Works
At 09:58 AM 1/18/99 +0900, you wrote:

>> Today I received a direct mail marketing package from the lab Seattle Film >> Works which included two rolls of 20-exposure 35mm color print film, one ISO >> 200 and the other 400. The film is labeled simply "Seattle Film Works" and >> contains the ominous message "Process SFW-XL only at Seattle Film Works". >> >> I have no interest in using this lab, but I might shoot the film if I can >> find out what it is. Anyone out there know? Who makes it? Is it a C-41 >> film? > >According to Phil Greenspun's photo.net webpage, Seattle Film Works uses >movie film, which is of much lower quality than photographic film and is >NOT C-41. You have to store the negs in the freezer (permanently) like >motion pictures, or else they fade fast. It's strictly junk and a >marketing ploy to sucker people into developing at Seatlle Filmworks. > >--Jim

There seems to be a lot of conflicting information about Seattle Film Works. AFAIK from those who post to the rec.photo.darkroom group and have used this film the current SFW stock is Agfa C-41 material not motion picture stock.
It is easy to tell still negative from motion picture negative film. Motion picture stock has Bell & Howell perforations, film for still cameras has Kodak Standard perforations, which are otherwise used on motion picture release postive stock. B&H; perfs have rounded sides like this: ( ) KS perfs have flat sides. If SFW film is any kind of motion picture camera film it will have B&H; perfs. Check the leader to see what kind it has.
The slides will have regular KS perfs since it will be print film.
Motion picture negative and positive are _not_ low quality. If the prints fade quickly it is because they were not processed correctly. Have a look at the budgets for theatrical motion pictures (even cheap ones) and ask yourself if any kind of junk film will be made for that market.
Surplus MP film often gets on the market because of the common practice of "banking" film. Producers want to eliminate as many variables so try to buy film of all one lot number for principle photography. If any is left over it is often soled to jobbers who re-sell it for students or very low budget productions. These jobbers also sometimes handle "short-ends" or partial rolls left in the camera.
Another outfit which used to use this film was RGB Labs in Los Angeles. I used this stuff many years ago. It was ECN and the slides looked pretty good. I haven't looked at them in years so don't know how well it has held up. Perhaps not very well judging from the condition of release prints of the same age.
Having said all this I will appear now to contradict myself by saying that I agree with the above that I would not use SFW stuff for anything at all important, or maybe, for anything at all.:-)
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Paul Roark proark@silcom.com
Subject: Response to Ektar 25 120 relacement
Date: 1999-01-19
At the risk of beating the issue to death, hear is a little more information regarding possible replacements for RG 25 -- again, no real replacement though.
I must admit, as one who does not do portraiture, the new Kodak Portra films were off my radar screen. They are so new they are also not on Kodaks Web pages that summarize film grain information. However, Kodak has a special section for the films , and they offer some real advantages for the typical pro shooter. With respect to grain, the 160 NC (natural color) has a Print Grain Index (PGI) of 30 for a 35 mm enlarged to 4x6. For comparison, Royal Gold 25 was "less than 25" and new Royal Gold 100 is 28. For an enlargement from 35 to 16 by 20, Portra 160 NC has a PGI of 81, RG 25 was 76 and RG 100 is 79. (These last two numbers are from Popular Photography.) Given the speed of the film the Portra 160 NC does very well. However, for the ultimate in sharpness and grain, its, again, not the equal of RG 25.
This new family of films also has some other interesting characteristics. One that could impact image quality is that they have a new surface that is optimized for scanning. Apparently the film manufacturers put a pattern on the film surface to avoid the film sticking to itself. Although diffuse light sources are suppose to make this pattern invisible, apparently some scanners do see it.
I was also interested that Fuji Reala is available from B&H; in 120. As I understand that film, it is great on color accuracy, very good on grain, and a bit behind the leaders on sharpness. Although I dont have perfect comparison shots, I believe it is not close to old RG 25 in the grain and sharpness departments.
I must admit, my interest in a super sharp color negative film is a bit different than most. I actually do primarily medium format black and white landscapes. However, at the Golden Trout Wilderness workshop that Im involved with many are interested in color. Additionally, if the film were good enough (and as medium format scanners become more affordable) a color negative might actually be the ultimate original film medium for black and white work. The idea of having the entire spectrum available for variable or multiple filtering and other possible uses in Photoshop has great appeal.

rec.photo.film+labs
From: Javier Henderson javier@mate.kjsl.com
[1] Re: Where to develop 4x5 slide film
Date: Sat Jan 23 19:26:50 CST 1999
Nikko Odiseos nikko@ugraf.com writes:

> What is a good and inexpensive lab for processing 4x5 slide > film (Velvia) and/or making prints from the transparencies > (Ilfochrome?)

4x5 is usually mutually exclusive with inexpensive, particularly when it comes to enlargements and particularly when it comes to Ilfochromes. That said, I've used Calypso Lab in Santa Clara, CA, several times and have been entirely pleased with the results. They're competitive with everything else I've seen, price-wise.
They have a website, http://www.calypsoinc.com/
-jav

From: Boon-Li Ong esquire@clear.net.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Low budget film and processing.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998
There is absolutely no reason why you cannot use consumer grade film in your Elan IIE. heck, i use consumer grade film ALL the time EXCEPT for special occasions. consumer grade film these days are pretty good. the Agfa HDC Plus has an exposure latitude of 5 stops. i believe Fuji Superia is the same. in any event, you certainly can't go wrong.
as for processing, again i don't see why anyway should exclusively use a pro lab. i use a pro lab only when i'm using pro grade film or when i want specialised developing (e.g. push processing or E6 stuff). i am thankful that the standard and quality of the commercial lab i use is close to that of a pro lab.
if you don't have a regular lab, my advice is to go to a few labs and get reprints of the same print. see which lab gives the best result. then on different days at different times of the day, get reprints of the same print to check for consistency.
as for film developing, ideally you want a good lab. from experience, labs that does good printing also does good film developing. of course, my experience is limited to New Zealand. remember: the negatives is the "blueprint" to all photos. stuff up the negative, and all the prints are stuffed. some labs are cheap because the dilute the chemicals or use the chemicals beyond exhaustion. i don't know whether that is the case in the States. but in Malaysia, it's common except for pro labs. Thankfully, that is not the case in New Zealand, at least in the main.
anyway, don't feel that you have to use pro grade film and pro labs. there's a time for everything. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose..."
bl

From: "Anders Svensson" anders.-.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se
Subject: Re: Low budget film and processing.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998
Well, it *could* be said that if you always stick to this kind of film and print, you may have balanced your camera budget and your film/print budget a little too much towards the camera side...
To save and/or get your moneys worth out of film and developing costs, there are some strategys you could develope (ha ha!).
One is to consider slides.
Slides cost (where I live) about the same as a print. Then you will have the added expense and trouble of getting a projector to view them with, *or* pay extra for printing from slides. You win quality and you will learn quickly what correct exposure will do for the quality of your pictures. Prints will not tell you much there.
Cost for a few prints from slides will be expensive per piece, but perhaps not totally, as you will choose the better frames only - and we all usually have better and worse pictures on a 36 frame roll... (I usually am happy if I have 6 or 8 decent ones and one or two really good...)
A second way is to shoot some of your pictures without film.
This might sound strange, but in reality, it isn't. It is a psychological thing, and can be described that the subconcious picture-taking part of the brain needs "warming up" and training. Looking thru' the viewfinder and shooting is a way to do just that. The idea is that you put film in after you have been "warming up" and evaluated the best angles, positions and views of whatever object you are shooting by "shooting" a number of "dud" frames.
--
Anders Svensson

From: Bill Tuthill tut@altavista.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Costco's "Kirkland" Brand film
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998
Goodby Kodak! wrote:
> I've seen the film out of the developer alongside the latest AGFA > and I mean tandem processing, going through the tanks side by side. > They look different to me.

This could be explained by something as simple as the Kirkland 200 being HDC and the Agfa being HDC+ 200. It would be helpful if you'd give the emulsion number printed on edges of the negatives. HDC+ 200 is radically improved over old HDC 200, a rather lousy film (about as grainy as Fuji Superia 800). HDC+ 200 is as good as HDC or HDC+ 400. See http://www.ds.net/tut/films.htm for technical data.
This is why I tell people to buy Kirkland 400 not 200 - HDC+ 400 is only slightly improved, if at all, over HDC 400.
I recently scanned Optima 400-2 on an HP Photosmart, and thought it looked about the same as my Kirkland 400-2 scans: good sharpness, OK grain, and excellent color saturation, especially greens. This is a great film for outdoor photography! It provides the green saturation of Kodak Gold 200 without as much grain.
But then, when I bought a brick of Kirkland 400, I made sure to take it from the pallet with longer expiration dates, bought it before the heat of summer, and refrigerated it immediately.
Has Optima 400-3 been released? I heard there was a new Optima 100.

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: andipantz@aol.com (AndiPantz)
[1] Re: Desert Photography help
Date: Sat Jan 30 11:54:14 CST 1999
What speed, 100, 200 or 400? And which film (Kodak, Fuji, Konica, ...) renders desert colours the best.
I just moved to the Mojave Desert in August. I've been experimenting with film brands and speeds. And I didn't have a tripod until two days ago.
Without a tripod, I have found that Polaroid High Definition, 200 speed works best. I've tried Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Polaroid, and even Seattle Filmworks and Mystic. I've found that Kodak film doesn't bring out the colors as much as I would like. And since you are travelling in March, this is also the start of the wildflower season, which you'll definitely want to capture!
Some people may discourage the use of Polaroid, but I LOVE it. It's my primary film for shooting in the desert. And lucky for me, it's also the cheapest of most brands!

rec.photo.film+labs
From: "john.rh" john.rh_TheGreat@bigfoot.com
[1] Re: EMULSIONS
Date: Fri Feb 05 22:47:19 CST 1999
Hi Peter,
The chemistry is quite complex and I don't fully understand it myself, but having processed film for 25 years you start to get the idea. Any respectable reference library should have something to help you, alternatively visit Kodak's site (www.kodak.com). They have reference lists and papers available if you dig deeply enough. A brief outline to start you off:-
Yes, the Gel is fundamentally gelatin. The film has basically 3 gel layers for registering red, green blue exposure. The layers are interspersed with filter masks to ensure each layer is exposed only by light of the required frequency. Gelatin is uses as the supsension because of it's porosity and optical properties.
As far as the dyes are concerned, the gel layers have silver halide grains and dye-couplers. In development, reactions occur that render visible the dye from the couplers where they are in contact with _exposed_ silver halide grains. No dye transformation takes place with unexposed grain/coupler pairings. The silver halides, unused dye-couplers and filtration layers are chemically removed from the film in the bleach and fixing stages following development.
Black and white film differs from colour in that there are no dye couplers - just silver halide grains. The _exposed_ silver halide turns to black metallic silver in the developer. Unexposed silver halides are then fixed out completely leaving an image composed of black silver grains.
The colour print process is very similar to the film, as is the material. I.e. The print is basically 3 layers of emulsion gel on a paper base.

rec.photo.film+labs
From: rmonagha@news.smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
[1] Re: EMULSIONS
Date: Sun Feb 07 05:02:57 CST 1999
see illustrations in the Film Book by Roger Hicks and Frances Schulte (Sp?)
there can be up to 15 layers of dyes, filters, multiple emulsions and a surface protection layer in the top 1% of the film (most of which is support) (e.g., 25 micrometers if memory serves). Pretty complicated, alright ;-)!
most of the real nuts and bolts is pretty proprietary. Kodak Tech Bits had some articles on emulsions over time,esp. new T-max.
You may find some online literature at Kodak etc. e.g., on the makeup of their T-Max films, and other film sources online
see links at my film page at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/film.html
regards bobm

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: "B. Buckles" buckles@home.com
[1] Re: Slide duplication
Date: Sat Feb 06 17:21:24 CST 1999
I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I use a slide zoom duplicator and expose the film to sunlight. Several of us in the camera club use Fuji Astia because it is balanced daylight and is a low contrast film. I remove the diffusion screen from the front of the duplicator for brighter viewing, especially when sandwiching slides. I then use a white poster board outside and just point the duplicator at the white board. It works great for me.
Good Luck,
Bob

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Dirk J. Bakker" dbakker@mindspring.com
[1] Re: Slides in Medium Format!
Date: Thu Feb 11 00:48:11 CST 1999
Zeljko Kardum wrote:

> AL52818 wrote: > > Hey, Zeljko: > > > > Would you educate me for a moment. > > If I understand you correctly, there is a > > difference between Ilfochrome and regular > > old slide films like Fuji's Velvia or Kodak's > > Kodachrome. Please tell me what the difference is. > > > > Thanks, > No. Ilfochrome is a paper on which you directly print your slides > instead of making an internegative and than print it on regular negative > paper. > Ilfochrome is not slide film. > > Zeljko

Ilfochrome (formerly known as Cibachrome) in its more familiar form does indeed come as a paper for direct printing from slides.
However, there are three other forms of Ilfochrome, which are intended for backlit applications, these are:
Ilfochrome Classic Translucent Display Film on a semi-opaque base. Ilfochrome Classic Clear Display Film for producing overhead transparencies. And, Ilfochrome Classic OHP film. These are not for exposing in a camera, as is slide film but in a darkroon and are designed to be processed in paper chemistry.
For further details check out:
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/ilfoclassic/Iclassic.html
HTH,
Dirk Bakker

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak 3A, Film Size 122 Question
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999
Steve camera@alloymail.com wrote:

>My nephew has an old Kodak 3A, Film Size 122. This thing makes a >negative that is about 3.5"X 5.25" . > >I'm sure film size 122 is no longer available, but my question is, why >not? Here we have a large format camera with the convinience of a roll >film camera. As a matter of fact, this camera folds down and will fit in >a large pocket. It even has some limited front tilts and swing. > >I wonder why something like this never caught on? Problems with film >flatness? > >Anybody out here ever actually use one of these? > >Steve

I suspect the main reason was simply lack of sales. Thom Bell, of Kodak's customer service department, has a list of discontinued Kodak roll film sizes with dates of introduction and discontinuance on his web site at:
http://members.aol.com/thombx19/home.html
This shows 122 being made as late as 1971. I doubt if many cameras were made for this size after perhaps 1940 so the size was supported for a long time. You will be surprized at the number of different roll sizes that were made. I can understand a manufacturer not wanting to have to make and stock sizes which are sold in very small quantity, especially since film is perishable.
The two sizes I think it was a mistake to discontinue are 620 and 127. There are a lot of very good cameras in both sizes.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
From: Robert Erickson bob@panoramic.net
Subject: Re: Cirkut film
I recomend buying from Cecil Simpson from Texas. Go to my Cirkut info page for his phone number http://www.panoramic.net/wwworld/cirkut.htm
Yes, there are many who spool their own film. You need to build a rig to hold the film while you tape the leader paper to it. I haven't built mine yet, someday I will. Kodak has a good selection in 9.5 inch wide films. You can find them on the Kodak web site.
Robert Erickson, bob@panoramic.net

rec.photo.film+labs
From: F5phd@prodigy.net
[1] Re: Wolf vs The Other Guys
Date: Sat Mar 13 10:22:55 CST 1999
Heres the deal with Wolf camera....Buy the Wolfpack card..12 bucks a year....then visit their website(www.wolfcamera.com) They have this neat little 33% off coupon on their site. you can combine the savings from the card with the coupon...for 58% off..(about 8 bucks for 36 exp). All you need to do is print out as many coupons as you need....be it 5 or 25. This is what I do, As local processing sucks bad here, or is at a pro lab that wont take amatuer work.
Hope this helps.....
Jeffrey Allen
Sarasota Florida.

From: colyn.goodson@airmail.net (Colyn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Need place to buy film in north Dallas
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999
On 13 Jan 1999 04:51:00 GMT, greggalvan@aol.com (Greggalvan) wrote:
Does anyone no a place to buy film in north dallas?

Film Depot Forrest Ln. at 75 Central.......

From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" gstewart@inficad.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: NEW web page - compares films & developers
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999
Group,
Please take a few minutes and visit my new web page that allows a side-by-side comparison of various films and developers.
It's not a truly scientific study, I don't have the laboratory controls for that, but it does give the viewer a GENERAL idea of what to expect from various film/developer combinations with respect to grain/sharpness and shadow detail.
Enjoy it for the entertainment value, if nothing else. It was quite a programming chore.
Best regards,
Stew
--

From: frankvw@euronet.nl (Frank van Wensveen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Unofficial Guide To Fuji Color Film online
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999
That's ok, feel free to correct me if you detect another mistake, omission or inaccuracy. However, I am currently not able to subscribe to and read this NG, so comments in this group won't reach me. Please send any reactions to me via direct email.
The URL for the UGTFCF is
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/fujiguide.html
and the URL to the entire photography section (still rather modest) of that site is http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/photography.html
Regards,
Frank
============================================
Email: frankvw@euronet.nl
Homepage: http://www.euronet.nl/~frankvw

From: dgrabows@capeSPcod.net (D.Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: films best suited for wedding/potraiture
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999
"Zainul Firdaus" zfirdaus@tm.net.my wrote:

>i do a lot of potraiture n wedding photography. just wondering if anyone >out there has any preference over films for these subjects?? thanks >zain : zfirdaus@tm.net.my

Zain,
Most people seriously into the wedding or portrait field are either using wedding and portrait labs or working up their own images. The labs are geared to run pro emulsions. Most of the labs supply a list of suggested densities that they advise you the photographer should come close to exposing for to give the lab optimum negs. to deal with.The films listed are generally :

NPS- 160 speed NPH-400 speed NHGII-800speed VPS-now Portra 160 NC PRN-now Portra160 VC PMC-now Portra 400 NC PPF-now Portra 400 VC PMZ-1000 speed

Some labs in the US may give suggestions for some Agfa films as well.
These are all Pro emuIsions designed to work well for skin tones and to have reasonable contrast ranges for balancing from the typical black to white ranges found in wedding photos, they are known to produce clean whites and they exibit the capability to render detail in shadowed areas or dark colored areas of the shot better than some consumer higher contrast, more saturated choices would.This is a serious plus for working up dark vignetted formal shots as well as high key vignetted shots and to render detail in both the whites of the wedding dress and the black of a tux at the same time and then producing good skin tone reproduction as well.
I have used NPS in 35mm, other than that I have been a diehard VPS , PMC as well as PPFuser in both 35 mm and 6x6 and PMZ user in 6x6. This weekend will be my first run of Portra 400 NC after several years of shooting VPS and a few years of PMC as my main films.In so shooting these films I have found them to be consistant and buying in pro packs or bricks with the same coded dates one is assured of like for like results as you move from roll to roll throughout the pack , throughout any given event.
Others have mentioned various consumer grade films they like using for this purpose and if they have found labs that do justice to these choices, or if they have found processing and printing techniques that they produce themselves and if they and the customers are satisfied , then more power to them. Generally speaking though, when dealing with wedding labs and when custom work may be desired or required , these labs will expect to see and are used to working with the above mentioned films.
Best regards,
David Grabowski

From: mooseblunt@aol.com (Mooseblunt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: WTB: Fujichrome 100D / RDP
Date: 8 May 1999
Anyone have some old rolls of this hibernating in the freezer? This film cross-processes with results preferable to Provia......doesn't matter if it's out of date, just properly stored.
Thanks.

From: "John Madill" madill@cybersol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.help
Subject: Re: Imported or USA film
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
Simon,
I buy about $15,000 worth of film a year, mostly from Unique Photo in New Jersey. It's always Fuji, always foreign. Sometimes the cartons are printed in Korean, German, Japanese, etc. I've honestly never gotten a bad roll. I would'nt be so trusting on Kodak Vericolor films though since they are more sensitive to hot temps.
John

From: marsalone@earthlink.net (Daniel D. Marsalone)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Bulk loading of 35mm film - is it worth it?
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999

> Hi Daniel, > What a great idea from only 1 Parish over! > I never made the connection that minilabs don't break open the "staked" > (solidly sealed) 35mm factory-load cartridges but cut off the film at the tail > end, > leaving that last scrap of film taped to the spool trapped inside the cartridge. > So you're saying you simply tape the end of your bulk film roll to this scrap of > film in the OEM cartridge, drop the cart into the bulk loader, close the > loader up and simply crank in the required number of frames. > Please correct me if I am wrong on this procedure.

Hi Wayne,
The minilabs simply pull the film out of the cassette with a film extractor leaving the cassette intact then the cut off the film at the end of the roll. What you end up getting from the minilabs is a 35mm cassette with about a half of an inch of film sticking out.
To reload it, just butt the bulk film up against what is sticking out of the cassette and tape on both sides (extending about 1/2" on either side of the butt joint). You need to use a thin tape, I use the clear packaging tape (the 2" or so wide tape everyone uses for shipping) which I have into roughly 1" x 1" squares. If you use the thicker masking tape the cassette tries to strip the tape off when you wind in the film.
I use the minilab stuff mostly for my p&s; camera since it needs the DX coding.
Ciao,
Daniel

From: graphic@delphi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Bulk loading of 35mm film - is it worth it?
Date: Sat, 15 May 99
Daniel D. Marsalone marsalone@earthlink.net writes:

>extractor leaving the cassette intact then the cut off the film at the end >of the roll. What you end up getting from the minilabs is a 35mm cassette >with about a half of an inch of film sticking out. > >To reload it, just butt the bulk film up against what is sticking out of >the cassette and tape on both sides (extending about 1/2" on either side >of the butt joint). You need to use a thin tape, I use the clear packaging >tape (the 2" or so wide tape everyone uses for shipping) which I have into >roughly 1" x 1" squares. If you use the thicker masking tape the cassette >tries to strip the tape off when you wind in the film.

Again, great idea .... and especially good info about the type of tape that the cartidges rewind best with.... ....looks like I may start bulk loading again (especially since Kodak's B&W;+ seems to be pushing there own TCN400 off of the shelves ... which I loved even tho it only came in 24 exposure loads at my favorite retailers) after paying a visit to Eckerd and Winn-Dixie 1-hour mimin`labs for those discarded cassettes.
Wayne

[ed. note: see Bob Shell's post and related posts below]
From: "Michael Weinstein, M.D." drmike99@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Update on Seattle Film Works: too good to be true?
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999
It hasn't been movie film for a number of years now. It's regular C-41 though they put a proprietary process number on the cartridge to try to convince you and other labs that it isn't.
--
Michael Weinstein MD |"Those who cannot remember
Nashua, NH | the past are condemned to
| repeat it." - Santayana

From: "Mark P. Nelson" mpn@alleleb.biol.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: not all free film is c41 - warning... Re: Seattle Film Works
Date: 2 Jun 1999 21:49:53 GMT
...
I am afraid I cannot remember where I picked this up, but I have been told that SFW's films (which I have tried and despise) are coded as follows:

Process: SFW-XL
which is C41 Agfa, and
Process: ECN-2
which is their old cine film.
All the film of theirs that I have seen has been labelled SFW-XL.
--
Mark P. Nelson, Programmer/Analyst
Department of Integrative Biology, Thomson Laboratory

From: Klaus Schroiff kschroiff@BauNetz.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Slide Film Performance Survey
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999
Hi,
I've just activated a survey about the performance of slide films at http://www.cmpsolv.com/photozone/slidesurvey.htm
You're welcome to enter your own experience here.
Thanks
Klaus

From: www.AerialsInc.com (rc)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Pop Photo says VPS to be discontinued late 99
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999
Lemonade,
On Tuesday, I received my "Kodak News" from Kodak. It it titled "Discontinuance of KODAK VERICOLOR III Professional Film, Type S / VPS"
It states roughly that...
the overwelming majority of pro wedding, portrait, commercial photogs have judged the family of Porta to be superior to VPS at meeting their needs.
Accordingly... Kodak announces today discontinuance of VPS worldwide. Orders will be filled while supplies last, and is estimated to be August to October 99 for 135, 120, 220, and long roll, sheet sizes to be phased out later in 1999.
They even go so far as to suggest that users of Fuji NPS 160 and Reala should use Porta.
and then the usual 800 242-2424 x 19 phone number to complain to...
Hope this helps a little. If you want a fax of this, email your fax to the address you'll find at http://www.AerialsInc.com
RC
On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:06:14 -0400, lemon@lime.org (lemonade) wrote:

>According to this month's Pop Photo, VPS is slated to be discontinued >"sometime in late 1999" > >According to Kodak's web site, they will determine the fate of VPS after >they see what the acceptance of Portra 160 is like. So who is right? And >what's happening with the sales of VPS versus Portra: are people switching? > > >I haven't used Portra and I don't intend to, since Kodak refuses to give >out any information on its archival storage characteristics, and Wilhelm >doesn't have any test results out on it. Besides, I really like VPS, so why >switch? >By the way those of you who visit Kodak's web site every now and then will >note that all references to VPS's extended image stability characteristics >have been carefully removed. It's as if Cigarette Smoking Man works the >night shift at Kodak. > >This stinks. Until there is information otherwise, it sounds like Portra is >in this way a decidedly inferior product, at a higher price. Either VPS is >difficult or expensive to manufacture, so Kodak wants to phase it out; or >else, they figure with something "new", it is easier to hype it and create >market share; or their is some internal politics going on. > >Does anybody from Kodak passing through here have any information on the >image permanence characteristics of Portra versus VPS? In the past I've >telephoned and emailed Kodak, Agfa and Konica asking about this, and have >gotten no reply. Sounds like some people have some big secrets they want to >cover up.

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999
From: Willem-Jan Markerink w.j.markerink@a1.nl
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Hello and a question on oddball film sizes
On 31 May 99 at 11:35, Lyndon Fletcher wrote:

> Finally, I am told that you guys are the experts on "Make your own" oddball > film sizes. I have a 616 camera and a number of out of date films. I'm > looking at rerolling them with fresh 70mm stock. I was wondering if anyone > knew of a cheap 70mm film source (preferably unperferated) and anyones > experiences with making up obsolete roll film sizes.

You might want to contact the guy mentioned below, to see whether the can cut you other sizes from 70mm than the 120/220 & HIE he is doing right now:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Single 220 roll of Kodak HIE black & white infrared film. Finally a way to shoot IR film in a medium format camera! Film is fresh, expires 12/99
One side of the film has 35mm sproket holes. This is because the film was made by cutting down 70mm film down to 61.5mm film. This is not a problem though because the sproket holes are on the edge of the film and not the image area. Depending on your MF camera the very bottom 1mm of your negative image may protrude into the sproket holes, but this is easily cropped out in the darkroom. Infact most negative carriers are slighly smaller than the actual format size and will automatically crop out the edges of the film
Price is $20 dollars a roll. Minimum order is 3 rolls. Shipping is $3 any where in the USA.
I also have 220 rolls of Kodak Color Infrared film process E-6 or AR-5 cut down to Medium Format size. These were also cut down from 70mm stock and has sprocket holes along one edge. Price is $25 dollars a roll. Minium order 3 rolls.
Both the color & black and white IR 220 film has paper leaders and trailers and come in a light tight resealable plastic container. Unlike the 35mm versions of these films the 220 rolls can be loaded in subdued light. Allow a 3 to 4 weeks for delivery. All film is fresh.
Email me if you have questions. I cut this film down myself and my cutting method is very accurate and produces a smooth cut. rolland_elliott@yahoo.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From: Lawrence Wilson dukat84@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999
Subject: Re: Walgreens film?

Actually, that's not entirely true.
Fuji supplies film for Ritz Camera. If I'm not mistaken, they're using what they call Super HQ as the base, and to Super G+ or Superia.
Kodak attempted to do the private-label thing with a film called ColorBurst, but it didn't fly. Popular Photography did a comparison between it, Walgreen's Agfa-based film and Kodak Gold. It turns out that ColorBurst was based on emulsion technology that was at least three generations inferior to what's out now.
In short, it was Kodak putting out garbage and hoping people would buy it anyway because it's Kodak.
I think that while Walgreens has switched over its film to the HDC+ emulsion, the stores may still be trying to get rid of the remaining previous generation stock, so it may be hard to find.

From: lemon@lime.org (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Pop Photo says VPS to be discontinued late 99
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999
(D.Grabowski) wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:06:14 -0400, lemon@lime.org (lemonade) wrote: > > something that may work well for you. I think you need to start > looking towards new emulsions, don't get me wrong I like VPS too, > considering it no1 for children portraits. Honestly the handwriting > is on the wall, I've been shooting various new emulsions attempting to > get a grip on performance and lab results. One day you may find > yourself with no VPS and no clue as to how any of these new films work

Quite correct for part II, although for part I, so far Fuji seems to give no indication of discontinuing NPS, for which it does claim extended archival stability. Perhaps if they replace it, unlike Kodak they will also ensure that the replacement maintains this property.
There are plenty of films, well, a couple, that give good image results, but the problem is their archival stability.
Not too long ago I was reading, where I can't recall at the moment, about some photographers' fine art large sized colour prints printed on Kodak paper, from about 10-15 years ago. These were sold at high prices to fancy Manhattan collectors. Guess what? They are disappearing into nothingness. The fancy Manhattan socialites, who paid large sums of money for these fine art prints, are not too happy.
These are of course just the prints; what about the negatives? If they were not VPS or NPS, they could easily be fading away too. And even if they are not, the cost to replace the prints will be enormous: these were something like 40x50's or similar, custom printed. If there was fancy dodging and burning, it may even be impossible to make an exact replacement- even more difficult now since the printing papers have changed in the interim, and the negatives must have faded some too.

> proofing offers as well as CD proofing offers , it's easy to figure > the new films are just about based on improved scanning abilities. If > you read literature from Kodak they indicate the new emulsions have > improved scanning capability . The world is moving towards digital and

Are the Portra films really easier to scan than VPS? How or why? The real benefit seems to be to the labs, who can use one channel for all the films. As for the switch to digital, Photo CD from 120 is just way too expensive, and likely will remain that way for at least a few years I would say. Even PhotoCD from 35 is a significant extra expense if you shoot a lot of film. For a long time to come, if not indefinitely, archival storage will still be on the negative.
I agree though that the printing phase will go all or mostly digital. That makes archival permanence of the negatives even more crucial, as the permanence of most e.g. inkjet prints is on the order of weeks, or even hours if in the sun. As for the permanence of digital storage, see below.

> this archival problem you are having? Is this really such a pickle for > you? In my own personal practice I offer the negatives up in about > three years , the client can have them or I toss them out, I want the > space. If I keep the negatives, certain ones I do keep, how long > before this reaches catastrophic perportions anyway. Let's face it , I > don't know about you, I'm pushing on towards 50 myself, if the negs

Well, what about your responsibilities to your customers: you sell them the negatives, which they may want to make prints for their grandchildren from; yet they will disappear in 20 years? This is very disturbing.
My own interest is my own images, of e.g. my family; it would be nice if your children are able to look at their own baby pictures when they grow up, an experience that could become very problematic: the prints fade away in 10-15 years, and the negatives in 20-25. If they are stored on CD, will anyone be able to read a CD-ROM in 20 years? I lost access to some important scientific data made less than 10 years ago because there is no longer any device available on the planet to read the backup tapes. In theory, one can always transfer the data to the new format in the transition period between technologies, but in practice it doesn't happen: the vast majority just disappears. Of course most of it isn't worth keeping anyway, but a lot of important stuff gets lost too, because their is just too much volume to sort through in time.

> Archival qualities in E6 is of more concern to me than C41 in all

You may be in a better position: the modern emulsions from Kodak and Fuji at least, seem to be much more stable than typical C-41 films. Duration about 60-100 years if I recall, vs. 20-50 or less for consumer C-41.

> been hearing about PMZ? You know this is a turn us all upside down

Unfortunately zero. It is extraordinarily difficult to get any information on this topic at all. Just try asking any of Kodak, Agfa, Konica or Fuji: the Cigarette Smoking Man and Krychek might be sent after you.
--

From: two23@aol.comSPAMnot (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Seattle Film Works
Date: 6 Jun 1999
my film batch processed with SFW film in the last 6 months and destroyed (black gook flecks on film). When this happens to your prize shots, Kent, you will finally become a believer and run around like the rest of us saying its a bad deal and not worth it - even ignoring the limited life of the movie film negatives etc.
I worked 7 months for a large regional Fuji TruColor volume lab, where we did up to 22,000 rolls per NIGHT. I worked as a custom printer on Fuji SFA minilabs, and also as a splicer on Agfa equipment. I would personally splice nearly 300 rolls (35mm) per hour. When we came across a roll not marked C-41, we checked it against a list taped on our 8 splicing machines. The Seattle film cannisters all have a little code just under the lip--this what we matche to our list of known Seattle codes. We would run across maybe 150 or so rolls of Seattle film per night. Only 3 would not be C-41 compatible. Both the plant manager and the night operations manager told me that the EPA had banned the old movie film with the anti-halonation coating as the by-products were considered too toxic. They said all the new film from them is C-41 but they don't want to mark their cannisters for obvious reasons. The occasional non C-41 roll we received (mostly from small town Walmarts) was likely just old rolls finally making it in.
I hated the Seattle film. It was very very brittle, and very often it jammed up my splicing machine, causing me to have to reach in the dark to feel around with my hands and pull it out, and resplice the started reel by touch. I would lose about 5 minutes doing this! In the Winter, when the rolls came in very cold, the Seattle film would actually sometimes shatter when it hit the splicing machine. I think the current Seattle film is the same very cheap Agfa film found in imported, recycled disposable cameras. Same color, same feel, same problems on our high volume automated equipment. I hated all of them. It is basically the early 1980's film formulation. And it is C-41. Again, so you don't misunderstand, I hate Seattle film.

[Ed. note: 70mm film site...]
From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 70mm back for Mamiya 6x7?
Date: Mon, 24 May 99
jdm34721@aol.com (Jdm34721) wrote:

>Hello ng, > >Lately I have been reading some posts on Kodak making HEI in 70mm size - long >bulk rolls. Well, I was wondering, is there a 70mm back available for the >mamiya RZ/RB 6x7? Is this Mamiya's Quadra Back? or is that something totally >different? And any ideas on how to make/load useable rolls out of the 70mm >bulk roll? >well, thanks in advance > >jim

There is a 6x7 format back for *perforated* 70mm, designed for the RB-Pro-S (has all the features a 120/220 Pro-S back has), but can be adapted to the RZ, like all other RB-backs (with the comment that you loose the protection against double-exposure and idle-transport (blanks)).
Alden makes a 70mm daylight loader, and Kindermann & Linhof make a darkroom loader (but beware of prices of the later, they are offensive as few things else in the photographic industry....a simple Linhof 70mm cartridge + spool + cannister is US$120....8-))
More about 70mm stuff on my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
(originally inspired by the fact that Kodak infrared (both b&w; HIE and color EIR) only exist in 70mm, not in 120/220)
(posted & mailed)
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink

From: John Stewart radiojohn@delphi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: FS: 35mm film cheap
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 99
"Jerry Orabona" jorabona@jerryo.com writes:

>Have you ever wished for fast B&W film in 120 size? Well this week at >http://kmcamera/com. Ilford has the answer; Delta 3200 is available in 120 >and is on sale for $3.49 per roll. Visit out homepage to order.

Just got some from www.freestylesalesco.com for $1.85 roll. If you're gonna bust up the charter with a blatent commercial ad, at least have better prices

From: crs01@mindspring.com (Chris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: How to keep films in freezer?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999
"Routh" routh4@earthlink.net wrote:

>Do one have to take the films out of cardboard boxes before one freezes the >films? Where Can I get proper information? With thanks.

Take 'em out of the cardboard boxes, if you want, but leave them in the can/plastic container. Be sure to mark on the outside with a permanent marker what the speed is and the # of exposures. Then freeze away. If you use different types, mark that also, so you can instantly know what you're taking out without opening the container (see below).
When you take them out, DO NOT open the canister right away. Let it sit out at room temperature plenty long enough for the tightly wound inside to warm to room temperature, so moisture doesn't condense throughout the film case and on the film. I've been freezing film for years with no visible difference whatever.
Chris

From: Eugene Burroughs infocus@us.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: How to keep films in freezer?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999
No all you have to do is place the film in the freezer in the pro packs. Be sure to alllow warm-up time when you remove it for use. I generally transfer what I need to the refrigerator a day before I need it and then take it out of there several hours before using.
Routh wrote:

> Do one have to take the films out of cardboard boxes before one freezes the > films? Where Can I get proper information? With thanks.

[Ed. note: 616 film is circa 2"x4" exposure in older cameras such as Kodak 616 for panoramic photography. This handy trick lets you use 120 film with the older cheaper cameras for nifty panoramic work!]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999
From: claudia smith cbs@ns.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: using 120 in Kodak Six=16
Hi
I use a 616 spool for take=up and then pop 120 film in the loader with a nickel on each side for spacers. Can get 5 exposures by advancing to 3 for the first exposure and going to 6, 9 etc. Nickels are a lot easier than trying to make extenders. Your site is very helpful, thanks.
cioa!
Claudia

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei (Off-topic: 126 film)
I think Kodachrome in 126 is a lost cause.
Processing 126 color neg or black and white film is no problem since the film is the same width as 35 mm and fits on 35 mm film reels just fine or runs through 35 mm continuous feed processors equally fine.
Bob
....

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
[1] Re: Cut Sheet Film
Date: Wed Aug 11 07:59:49 CDT 1999

>David McKeand urchin@ozemail.com.au >Does anyone know whether 6x7 or 6x9 cm cut sheet film is still available?

Try Calumet, 1-888-888-9083. I just bought some 2 1/4x3 1/4 HP5. They also list Tri-X in that size. Then again you may mean 6x9 cm which I believe is slightly different from 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 in. Not sure where this is available.
Chuck

From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: 110 and 126 film?
Date: 14 Jul 1999
Hi
That true except that some Instamatic 110 cameras require the sprocket hole in the film in order to operate the camera.
I reload my instamatic with 16mm Techpan. The Kodak 300 Instamatic camera doesn't need the sprocket holes to operate and the 25mm Ektar lens produces really high quality images.
Larry

From: howardh638@aol.com (HowardH638)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Seattle Filmworks Film
Date: 17 Jul 1999
I work in a lab where we process 5-10 rolls of Seattle Filmworks film a day. About 98% of it is C-41.

From: greyw@hotmail.com (Grey Wolf)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Seattle Filmworks Film
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999
emo99@aol.com inexplicably felt compelled to blather

::seattle film works film is a film that was developed for the motion pictures in ::hollywood by kodak, the film makers did not like it so seattle film works ::bought the rights to it from kodak. the make it & process it.

You haven't been paying attention. SFW distributes 2 kids of film these days. One is AGFA C-41. The other is film bought from movie studios when the studios have "ends" of rolls which are too short to bother using. SFW packages them so that they look the same. Most labs won't process SFW because they have to work to figure out whether or not it's C-41.

[Ed.note: got some 120 kodachrome you need developed? Not in the USA? Try U.K.!]
From Rollei List:
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999
From: FSilberman@aol.com
Subject: FS kr64 filmRe: [Rollei] FS kr64 film
Jack wrote:
I have several rolls of exposed 120 K I would appreciate it if you would tell me where I cn process them and if you know the price. Thank you.
Jack mla1@flash.net

Kodak Processing PO Box 2 Deer Park Road Wimbledon SW19 3UG Cost: �5.30 Cheers, Frederic

[Ed. note: counterpoint re: SFW Film]
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999
From: Ufuk Tureli ufukt@rhine.ee.washington.edu
Subject: SFW film and a couple of misconceptions
Although I concur that Fuji films at $4/ 4 pack are excellent value for 100 ASA film but they are too contrasty and lose detail when printed on contrasty paper found in mass processing. It really bothers me. I think SFW film is a low contrast C-41 film actally. It may not be the current Agfa film but I think it is decent. I will get prints from it locally so the SFW is a fantastic deal (screaming deal indeed) for low cost prints and slides at the same time.
I just wrote to a friend of mine, a Velvia fanatic, how good this service is especially for portraits under harsh lighting. The negative film can take some overexposure which puts more definition to shadow areas without burning the highlights. The resolution and sharpness are very good but the tone is a litte too warm.
SFW film is 200 or 400 ASA and the prices of Fuji film is more than $4/4 pack for 400 film at least in the Seattle area. Besides, can you get good slide performance from 400 (E200 pushed a stop or Scotch 640?) speed film?
Thanks
uf
....

From: steelydan@bigfoot.com (Donald Fagen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: The most economical resolution
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999
....[re: economical processing sources question]
Try Sam's or Wal-Mart. As I understand it, all of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club processing is done by one of seven Fuji regional labs. I know this is the case in KC. P/P 135 24 exp, 1 copy = $2.59 for 4" prints. Two prints each for under $4.00. I know "Wal-Mart" and "Sam's" leaves a cheap feeling in the mouth when spoken, but the service is provided under contract by FUJI. I am generally very satisfied. I cannot tell any difference between Wolfe and Sam's, except for turnaround time. Sam's is three days. To be honest, I think that I am probably happier with Sam's than Wolfe, but this may be in part to saving over $10/roll. It could also be that I mostly shoot Fuji film. The prices above are Sam's, Wal-Mart is usually a few cents more.
There are also several mail order processor/printers that are very economical. For 120 I have used Shooters Lab USA and I was very pleased. They charge $5.98 for 120 12 exp p/p (5x5 proofs). The quality was not as good as one would expect from a custom pro lab, but was every bit as good as I get from Wolf or Wal-Mart (Yes, some WMarts do accept 120 - they send it to a specialty lab and charge the normal 12 exp price, $1.60!!! Not sure what size proofs though, still waiting). By the way, as far as 120 is concerned, Wolf takes as long or longer (8 days), cost more ($10.02) and gives smaller prints (3.5 x 3.5).
Do a web search, there are a lot of mail order companies.
I also might suggest that it is perhaps more economical to purchase 24 exp rolls in some instances. Because this is the most commonly sold size, it is easier to find multi-packs at substantial savings. Sam's has been selling 100ASA 6 roll pks (4 24 exp, 2 36 exp.) for under $6.00 after rebate. Other fuji and kodak films similarly priced, accounting for speed. Of course, your big savings in shooting 36 exp. might be in processing. I don't know as I don't shoot it often enough to pay attention.

[Ed. note: in response to a 12/99 query seeking 126 film, fyi...]
rec.photo.film+labs
From: mr645@aol.com (Mr 645)
Date: Thu Dec 23 16:47:59 CST 1999
I can supply you with 126 size Kodak Gold 200 film. This is outdated film, 12/98. Still in the Kodak boxes. I can ship you 1000 rolls for $275. Better prices on larger qty
Jon
film@jonlayephotography.com

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999
From: "Nicholas S. Rubenstein" nrubenstein@bayside.net
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Question about Kirkland film
It's AGFA.
The quality is okay, from wha I remember. I haven't used color print film in 4 years. You might try looking for reviews of low-end AGFA film.
Nick

From: Zeljko Kardum zeljko.kardum1@zg.DELETE_THIStel.hr
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Who owns Ilford, Agfa, Efke and Konica?
KHOwen wrote:

> Efke is a small, independent film maker in what was Yugoslavia. > > Ken

Not quite.
Efke was the name of the film. Company that produces Efke was Adox and than Fotokemika (one you mentioned as Efke)
And last but not least this "independent film maker" Fotokemika is in Croatia.
Zeljko

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000
From: "Marc L. Rubin" busyfamily@owc.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Film Info club in Yahoo
If you are looking for information regarding various emulsions, try posting your questions at Yahoo Clubs, under
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/filminfoexchange

From: khowen@aol.com (KHOwen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Who owns Ilford, Agfa, Efke and Konica?
Date: 23 Jan 2000

>Who owns Ilford, Agfa, Efke and Konica? Are they subsidiaries of Kodak, >Fuji, and 3M?

None of these film companies are owned by Kodak. Konica is actually an older company than Kodak, formed in Japan over 100 years ago as Konishiroku.
Until recently, Agfa was a division of Bayer Pharmaceuticals. It was just spun off to run itself as an independent company.
Ilford was an independent U.K. company. About 10 years ago it was bought up by International Paper. They sold it about 2 years ago. I don't remember the name of the company that bought it, but I believe it is from the U.K. again.
Efke is a small, independent film maker in what was Yugoslavia.
Ken

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Rollei] Blast from the past
Any of you old enough to remember Ferrania film from Italy?
You may not know it but the Ferrania works was bought years ago by 3M company and was the source of their Scotch branded films as well as house brand film for many discount stores and drug store chains in the USA and abroad.
When Imation split off from 3M they took the photo film business with them.
Now a group of investors has bought the facilities at Ferrania, Italy, and started a new company called -- guess what -- Ferrania!!
It's great to see the grand old name back again. They will be making house brand film as before but also selling under the Ferrania name and marketing a new line of inkjet papers under that name as well.
The new company will be exhibiting their wares at the PMA show next month and I plan to make a call on them. I visited the factories several years ago and found the location, in the middle of a gigantic national park, one of the most photogenic and relaxing locations possible for a business.
Bob

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
From: "JP" Spam@no.sir.dont.like.it
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Current worldwide film manufacturers
Just to satisfy my curiosity, I am trying to find a comprehensive list of film manufacturers worldwide, with web addresses if available. I am interested in finding the small manufacturers that still manage to survive in a Kodak-Fuji world. I'll start:

Kodak: www.kodak.com Fuji: www.fujifilm.com Agfa: www.agfa.com Polaroid: www.polaroid.com Konica: www.konica.com Ilford: www.ilford.com Imation/Ferrania USA, Inc: www.imation.com (film unit seems to have been sold to something called Schroder Ventures) Foma: http://www.foma.cz Efke: http://www.fotoimpex.de/ (is this their page or a distributor?)

Others?
Jim

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
From: "Mr. Wratten" mr_wratten@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Current worldwide film manufacturers
How about Mitsubishi? They make color film and printing papers.
http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/mpm/eng/kanzai/k-top-e.html
....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000
From: calciua@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] rollei display models
Craig, you should have gone to the Kodak web site. They still sell roll film up to 9.5 inches wide and as long as 500 feet. That should have yielded about 200 or so full frame images of 9.5" x 24"
Craig Roberts

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Favorite films...
I used to use a LOT of Verichrome Pan, which has the distinction of being the only Kodak film with "chrome" in the name that is not a color film.
Peter Gowland turned me on to the virtues of VP for flesh tones many years ago. I used it for almost all of my black and white glamour and nude work for a good ten years. Only recently did a film come along that I liked better for my type of work, Ilford Delta 100.
I used to run all my VP in Diafine, and still get good prints from those old negatives today. The other film I found that really looked good in Diafine was the old Orwo NP18 .
Bob
....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Ilford film
Actually, I watched some 120 film being produced with no name on it. They said they take out of tolerance batches and put them up this way and sell them in 3rd world countries, but even then only if they are just slightly out. Anything that was too far out of tolerances would be recycled.
I don't think they sell out of tolerances film to Freestyle.
Bob

>From: lclark@carroll.com >To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Ilford film >Date: Fri, Nov 19, 1999, 2:53 PM > > Despite claims to the contrary, there are many readers of this > paragraph who will conclude that at least some of those minor-fault > production runs are those that are sold by sources like Freestyle. > Comment?

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Ilford film
you wrote:

>Your comment about Freestyle implying they would be an outlet for Ilford >lesser quality film brings to mind the following questions: >1. Would still leave their lable on the problem film? >2. Freestyle markets film and paper under the brand name Arrista which >seems to be suspiciously like Ilford. Is Arrista an Ilford product? If >so, is it not first quality? > >Roland Smith >roland@dnai.com > >----------

Arista and Ilford don't seem so much alike to me.
However, Arista film, at least some of it, is pretty definitely Ilford.
But, Freestyle uses Arista as a general house brand, so all Arista products are not made by Ilford or by any particular company. Arista paper is pretty definitely NOT Ilford.
Freestyle seems to use Arista for its best quality house brand products. Some other stuff, like cut down Agfa paper is sold as what it is or without a brand name.
Freestyle probably sells enough "Arista" film for Ilford to make it for them at a substantial saving over their own brand. Since Ilford gets back probably the identical amount for the film as it would get by retailing its own brand without some of the expenses its all the same to them except they sell more film.
AFAIK Kodak does not do this, insisting that all Kodak film be sold under the Kodak brand name.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: 21 Mar 2000
From: pburian@aol.com (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Kodachrome 64 or new E-6 Slide Films?

>Serious question, if you don't mind. Why do you use anything other than >consumer films? What do the 'professional' films bring to the photo >that require their use in the other 30% of your work?

I have written 2200 word articles on this topic but here are the main advantages of pro films in a few words:
* Some film types like Velvia and certain portrait films are only available in Pro.
* Some pro films like Provia 100F and E100S prodcue better results when pushed.
* Provia 100F has the finest grain of any film in the world.
* Pro films are not released until they reach their aim point - perfect color and speed. For certain critical applications, this can be important.
OK, I could write another 2000 words but someone would have to pay me. (G)
Peter Burian

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Ilford film

> AFAIK Kodak does not do this, insisting that all Kodak film be sold under > the Kodak brand name.

I'm pretty sure that is the case. Konica, Agfa, and Imation make most of the house branded color film. I don't think Fuji sells film under other than their own name, either.
Bob

[Ed.note: from our Old Film FOrmats pages]
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999
From: edromney romney@edromney.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 cut film availability
It is easily made out of 120 rollfilm. Cut it on your trimming board by using thumbtacks or a cardboard as a guide. Cut a tiny bit off the top right corner off each film with the emulsion facing you so it wont get it loaded emulsion backwards. Your notch substitutes for the maker's notches in actual cut film. Small Linhofs, Speed Graphics, Busch, the Galvin view and many other fine cameras use cut film of this format. Some holders for German plate cameras are 2/14 x 3 1/4. Most of them are for 6.5x9cm or 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 cut film. If you worry that the roll film is thinner than cut film , you can put tape in the back of your holders. The Graflok conversion and 120 rollback for a 23 camera will usually cost more than the camera itself. So this is what you can do. You can also buy 23 cut film from Porters, Bx H, Freestyle and other sources. And it can be cut down from 4x5 or 5x7 cut film
I'll sell you some nice 23 holders suitable for Speed Graphic and similar cameras for $7 ea. Best wishes and Merry CHRISTmas...
Ed Romney
http://www.edromney.com

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999
From: "Moreno Polloni" mp@lightstream.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Camera for lighting tests?

>There is nothing that even comes close to polaroid if the final result >is going to be on paper. And you only really know for sure if you take >the pola with the lens that will take the final picture. That's why I >not only have a pola-back on the Hassy, but also on the 35mm gear. > >I've tried various ways, but everything else just sucks.

Have you tried the Fuji instant film? It's much better than Polaroid, in fact it makes the Polaroid stuff look like someone puked on it.

From Bronica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999
From: Marios and Ching Siew Pittas marios@singnet.com.sg
Subject: RE: [BRONICA] Wanted: Sharp Focus- Sharp Film
The most recent issue of British magazine "Practical Photography" - Oct 1999, compares a whole number of B&W; films. They took the same picture with different films (20 in fact) with the lens set at f/8 and magnified part of the center 36x.
Between the 25 ISO films tested (Kodak, Illford, and Agfa) sharpest with finest grain was Kodak's Technical Pan. Between the 100 ISO films tested sharpest was Agfa's Agfapan but the finest grain was Illford's Delta 100.
Sad to say I have stocked up 40 odd T-Max only recently - I guess that should give me enough film to learn how to process films ;-)
Marios

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei filter on tessars
I don't use color filtration except on VERY rare occasions when I want a surrealistic effect. If I want warm, I use a warm film. If I want neutral, I use a neutral film.
If I am using Zeiss and Schneider lenses I do not want to degrade their sharpness with any filters.
Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
No. APS is a group effort by Kodak, Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Fuji.
We call them " the gang of five."
Bob
----------

>From: "Neil Carpenter" primate@mindspring.com >To: >Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back >Date: Fri, Mar 31, 2000, 5:39 PM > > Didn't Kodak introduce APS?

Date: 6 Apr 2000
From: =David:M= dmcs@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The real reason Kodak created 620
David Foy wrote:

> Kodak adapted 120 and 116 to 620 and 616 so they (and the rest of the > industry) could start making thinner cameras without reducing the frame size

Rubbish! Kodak invented 620 to ensure that camera owners bought their film and not a competitors!
If you examine a 620 camera like (for instance) the Argoflex or Kodak Tourist, you will see that were dimensioned for a 120 size reel. The film compartments contain inserts (either hinged or moulded) to reduce the acceptable film size to 620. The actual dimensions of the film compartment are perfectly adequate for a 120 reel.
This makes nonsense of your claim that the reason was to make cameras thinner. Even a Kodak Duaflex can easily be modified to take a 120 reel by removing the metal 'inserts' Kodak added to force the use of 620.

Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000
From: Pookywinkel pookywinkel@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The real reason Kodak created 620

> Rubbish! Kodak invented 620 to ensure that camera owners bought their > film and not a competitors!

Several manufacturers offered 620 film besides Kodak: Ansco/GAF, Agfa, Ilford, Orwo, and Efke come to mind. And a number of non-Kodak 620 cameras were made as well, but Kodak was the primary producer of both 620 film and 620 cameras.
--
==Cuspid Pookywinkel==

Date: 16 Sep 1999
From: pburian@aol.com (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Velvia for landscapes?

>Kodachrome gives you that ``National Geographic'' >look.

Well, maybe the old National Geographic look.
During my interview with ten NG photographers, I found the following films to be most popular today:
1.Provia 100 is top by far
2. Various ISO 100 Ektachromes
3. Ektachrome E200 for low light (a few still like Kodachrome 200, pushed to 500)
4. Velvia. (apparently, this film also gives great skin tones with black skin so is often used for that, aside from landscapes, etc.)
5. Least often used now (among those I interviewed), Kodachrome 64. Compared to any recent ISO 100 slide films, Kodachorome 64 colors are flat. K25 is better in this regard, but very slow and hard to find in stores.
Peter Burian
Co-Author
National Geographic Photography Field Guide (just published)

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999
From: Brad Mitchell frbradjmnospam@gte.net
Subject: Re: Nikon School: Underexpose slides on purpose?

I see this exposure tweeking stuff discussed in discussion groups all the time (i.e. shoot Velvia at ISO 40 or 50?). Unfortunately, "rules" like this are not practical when camera meters are not consistent, even within the same camera make and model.
As suggested in most basic instructional photography books, you should calibrate each of your camera's meters to each type of film you shoot. Check out one of the John Shaw photo books at the library and follow the simple instructions (usually in the first or second chapter). Take careful notes and put a peice of tape on the back of your camera cross referencing the film type to the desired ISO. You may have to do this for each film type you shoot for each camera you have.
I know of photographers that shoot Velvia anywhere from ISO 32 to ISO 100 depending on which of the 4 cameras they own is in use.
Hope this helps,
Brad Mitchell
bradjm@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/Photo.html
zuuum wrote:

> I have always wondered why many photographers seem to like the results of > NOT shooting at the manufacturers rated ISO. Is it possible that TTL > metering systems just don't give the same results as dedicated handheld > meters? > > I'm all for increased shadow detail but don't like oversaturated color. 1/3 > stop adjustment is popular, but my and held measures/reads tenths of a stop. > If the camera TTL systems were as accurate I wonder if offsetting ISO would > be as common a practice. > > In other words, is it the films rating or the camera TTL metering and stop > stepping that is off?

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
From: "Jim" Firewagon1@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: where can I buy film online?
These guys are online; however, their 1-888-811-3456 number is probably faster:) They have the best prices, I've seen, on Fuji Reala (36@ $2.79 and NPS (36@ $2.49), which I use. They sent my order quickly and without any hassle. I intend to order from them again. They also advertise in Popular Photography magazine. Web site is: WWW.focuscamera.com. They ship "free;" however, there is a handling fee - check what that will be before ordering:) My average cost per roll ended up a little more than the selling price - much depends on the amount you order.
Jim

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
From: Zeljko Kardum zeljko.kardum@zse.hr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Adox production to end...
John I'm so sorry to dissapoint you, but...
Fotokemika (Efke-Adox licence producer in Croatia) stopped film-production recently and move its premises to a new address (I'll post new addresss when I find it).
Practicaly speaking Fotokemika is in (or near) bankrupcy. But still you can find EFKE films in a store (while the stock last).
Zeljko
"John F. Opie" wrote:

> Hi there - > Well, I did some more research and it turns out that Adox was only > making graphic arts and technical films, and that the classic Adox > films have been made by Efke for the last 20 years or so. So the Adox > I was using back in my 35mm days was actually from Efke in any case... > > Efke's adress and fax numbers in Croatia > > Fotokemika > Hondlova 2 > HR-1000 Zagreb (Kroatien) > Fax: 00385/1/2395868 > > And for our readers in Germany: > > Fotoimpex > Reinkardstra�e 3 > 10117 Berlin > Telephon: 030/2859901 > Telefax: 030/28599082 > > So there is still hope...

Date: 15 Jun 1999
From: pburian@aol.com (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: B&W; Slide Film?
Agfa Scala is the only one and only five labs in the US can process it.
See the Agfa web site at ???
Hopefully, someone knows the URL.
Peter Burian
PHOTO LIFE magazine
(See also www.photolife.com)

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999
From: jalbino@jwalbino.com (John Albino)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: do magnets affect film?
I think the problem here is that you are both too organized, and not organized enough
Too organized, because you don't really need to put the film back into a canister -- it is much quicker if you just drop the exposed film cassette into a side pocket -- that's one of the reasons many photogs use photo vests.
And not organized enough because your technique is making it hard on yourself.
Here's what I used to do when I used to shoot sports professionally. First, estimate how many rolls of film you'll need for the entire event plus a small reserve. Unbox the film and remove it from the canister. Put it in an easily reachable pocket on your equipment bag. Take out several rolls of film and put them in one pocket of your shooting vest -- estimate how much you'll need until a major break when you can get back into the bag for replenishment.
As someone else suggested, use number labels to stick on the film cassette -- they will stick quite well on the metal. I carried a small notebook, actually a Reporter's Notebook, and I kept a running list of what I shot. Something would look like this: 1-1-5 Montana-Rice TD; 2-11-12 Montana/Rice cele; 4-12-15 KO fumble. When a roll finished, I'd stick the corresponding sticker on the can and put the can in my pocket. Other photogs use small tape cassette recorders and speak the same info into them.
The meaning of my shorthand is: 1-1-5 means Camera 1, frames 1-5; 2-1-2 - Camera 2, frames 11 & 12; 4-12-15 - Camera 4, frames 12-15. I (and others) used to shoot with four or more camera, yet kept track of things. The reason to list the camera the film came out of is to be able to isolate any equipment-related problems to a specific camera/lens.
riesian@zoocrewphoto.com (Meghan Noecker) wrote:

>I am looking for a way to keep a set of numbered film canister lids >together so that I can have them ready when shooting several roles of >film that must be kept in order.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] advent of plastic spools in 120 film
Phil Stiles wrote:

>On two occassions, I've purchased vintage Rollei TLRs and found a metal >take up spool in the camera. Assuming the spool was left by the last >user, does this date the camera's last use? Or in other words, what >dates were "BP," (before plastic).

Well, 120 spools were a wooden shaft with metal end-plates until the Second World War and were then all-metal until around 1970, when plastic spools began to appear. (I should remember, as I recall being surprised to find such in some film I had bought, but don't recall the exact year.)
620 spools were all-metal and, later, plastic from a much earlier date: 120 film on a cheaper spool.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net

Date: 8 Aug 1999
From: ad607@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Question: Seattle FilmWorks Process?
chris petrauskas (cpetrauskas@usa.net) writes:

> Hello all, > > > Does anyone know what standard film developing process is equivilent to > the Seattle FilmWorks process SFW-XL? > > I have a bunch of this film and was wondering if it's worth messing with. > > Has anyone any experience with this film? If so, comments and > comparisons to pro films would be appreciated?

The current SFW stock is AGFA (same as Costco) and can be processed in standard C-41. The trouble is getting a lab to do it. Previous SFW film was Eastman Color 5247 Cine film (motion picture stock) and required ECN-2 processing. If movie film is processed in a C-41 line the black Rem-Jet backing dissolves and deposits a black "tar like" gunk all over the other films in the line, all over the machine, and it's rollers and cross-overs, and clogs the pumps and filters. This will pretty much take the C-41 line down for minimum of a day, assuming the lab has replacement parts in stock! (most labs don't!). The machine has to be stipped down to it's chassis, and all parts have to be scrubbed by hand (with Lye) to get the machine fit for use. So is it any wonder most labs refuse any SFW film. BTW- SFW knows this so they DO NOT LABLE any of their films, so they can maintain an monopoly on processing of SFW film.
Darrell Larose
Photo technician (25+ years)

Date: 10 Aug 1999
From: pburian@aol.com (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Full Test - new Provia 100F film
OK, I got the slides back today and yes, this film is virtually grainless. I'll be checking the slides under a microscope to try to find some grain. With a 10x loupe, I cannot see any even when the film is pushed two stops to 400.
Color balance, sharpness, contrast etc. are very similar to the current Provia 100. Advantages are finest grain in the world and pushability to two stops. I find setting the ISO dial to 320 and specifying a Two Stop Push just right. As with the Ektachrome films.
Provia 100F is not at all like Velvia in terms of color or extreme sharpness. It is an all purpose film, so more neutral. Gorgeous pastels and blues and reds, however.
Peter Burian
(Test report runs in PHOTO LIFE magazine, 11/99)

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: laggard A12
Dan Arsenault wrote:

>I have kind of a newbie question. I bought a used A12 that is a little >problematical. If I line up the arrow on the film and insert, the first >frame is on the tape. It seems pretty consistent, so I could just wind on a >little bit when I load. I'm wondering if this is common?

Some films (Fuji for instance) has two sets of alignment arrows. One appearing reasonably close to the beginning of the film. If you use this arrow, your first frame will be on or before the tape. You must follow the horizontal arrows down to the second start arrow for proper alignment in a Hasselblad back.
Jim

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: Hank Auderer hank@rivercitysilver.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 Infrared
Craig:
Konica makes the 120 Infrared film. However, they only make one batch a year, as I've been told, so it isn't available all the time. We have just gotten a number of rolls from Konica, which we sell for $6.35 a roll, plus shipping. We also stock the 35mm/24exp size as well. I personally don't shoot infrared, but several of my regular clients do, and they say that the infrared response and resultant negatives are different from the Kodak product, but very pleasing. All infrared films require some experimenting, especially with different filters and developement times.
Regards,

>Quick question, some limited Rolleiflex content. Who makes 120 format B/W >infrared film? Or does the format (roll and paper backing) not lend itself >to infrared film.

Hank Auderer
President
River City Silver
A Traditional and Digital Photographic Lab
www.rivercitysilver.com

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: [CONTAX] For the record on 220 film
I just got off the phone with Bob Shanebrook at Kodak. He is the Pro Films Product Manager. He was surprised that there was a rumor about Kodak discontinuing 220 film. His first comment was, "We're not that stupid!" He says that among portrait and wedding shooters, one of their major markets, they sell about a 50/50 mix on 120 and 220, and invited anyone who doubted this to talk to some of the pro labs specializing in portrait and wedding and ask what their processing mix is of 120/220.
I've known Bob for a lot of years and know he is a straight shooter, so I'm confident that this is accurate information. BTW, he said they are delighted at how well Portra 800 is doing. Apparently it is selling faster than projections. Every manufacturer wishes for this sort of success with a new product.
Bob

Date: 12 Apr 2000
From: sog@amaterasu.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 220 Dis-continued??? NOT!!!
Doofus Alert noidiots@getreal.com wrote:

>It is a complete and utter fabrication. I know someone in a managment >position that emphatically says it will not happen. Makes you wonder

That would be reassuring had not Kodak management been equally emphatic in quashing the rumors about the discontinuance of materials for the dye-transfer printing process...right up until the very day Kodak dropped them.
Steve

[Ed.note: for your info only; not an endorsement...]
From: "Jerry Orabona" jorabona@jerryo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS: 35mm film
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999
This week at http://kmcamera/com we have Fuji Super G Plus ISO 400 135-36 on sale for $3.99 per roll. Super G 400 Plus is sharp, exhibits vibrant colors and has wide exposure latitude which makes it the favorite film of NY Post photographers. Visit out homepage to order.
Every week as we rotate the stock in our refrigerators we find film that was left on the back shelf too long and has since become outdated. New to our clearance section is Ilford Delta 100 135-36 expiration date 7/98 on sale for $1.59 per roll. Supplies are limited. Click the sale icon from our home page
The new Oriental New Seagull B&W; enlarging paper is in stock but not yet listed on the website. Call the store for details 800 343 9826.
http://kmcamera.com
800.343.9826

From: "Joaquim" nop42488rem@iname.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Walgreens film?
Date: 28 May 1999
Jerry Gitomer jgitomer@erols.com wrote

> Hi, > > Got a stupid question. Why is everyone convinced that Walgreen's film is > made by Agfa? The only reported evidence is that the film is marked made in > Germany. Doesn't that mean it could be Oswo (sp?) which was made in what > used to be East Germany?

No, because ORWO was closed, some years ago. But it can be made by the "other" German film maker TURA.
http://www.tura-film.com/
Regards

From: rcole@usit.net (Roger Cole)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Found Some Info on Freestyle/Ilford Films
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
I was talking to a friend who runs a pro lab a couple of days ago. He has recently discussed with his Ilford rep the question of whether Freestyle's BW films are really Ilford as they seem to be any everyone seems to believe. After a bit if hemming and hawing, the rep admited off the record that they were, but further explained the Ilford only sells film that fails to fully meet Ilford specs for this repackaging. He mostly admited that the differences were slight and the Freestyle would be "pretty good stuff" but that it didn't quite make the Ilford cut.
Good enough for me. I have always had fine results with it, so I will continue using it.
As for the identity of the lab, rep etc. - ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies! I don't intend to get anyone in trouble, especially when he was really just helping us all out.
Roger Cole

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Found Some Info on Freestyle/Ilford Films
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999
rcole@usit.net (Roger Cole) wrote:

>I originally posted this only to rec.photo.film+labs, then realized >that I probably should have cross posted it elsewhere. Since I've >seen this discussed a fair amount on r.p.darkroom, and there was >recently an article in View Camera dealing with the subject and >comparing the Arista films with FP4+ and HP5+ when used in PMK, I >thought the easiest thing to do was cross post a reply, which gets the >original quote into the other groups as well. > >Roger Cole > >On Fri, 28 May 1999 16:44:03 GMT, rcole@usit.net (Roger Cole) wrote: >>I was talking to a friend who runs a pro lab a couple of days ago. He >>has recently discussed with his Ilford rep the question of whether >>Freestyle's BW films are really Ilford as they seem to be any everyone >>seems to believe. After a bit if hemming and hawing, the rep admited >>off the record that they were, but further explained the Ilford only >>sells film that fails to fully meet Ilford specs for this repackaging. >>He mostly admited that the differences were slight and the Freestyle >>would be "pretty good stuff" but that it didn't quite make the Ilford >>cut. >> >>Good enough for me. I have always had fine results with it, so I will >>continue using it. >> >>As for the identity of the lab, rep etc. - ask me no questions, I'll >>tell you no lies! I don't intend to get anyone in trouble, especially >>when he was really just helping us all out. >> >>Roger Cole

Please forgive me but I am skeptical of this. It leaves open some important points. First, in exactly what way does the film not come up to Ilford's standard? That is very important since some film faults, such as variations in sensitivity (blotching), or mechanical damage, would result in unusable film for many users. The quality of Arista film seems to be quite consistent which works against its being factory seconds.
Another problem is the volume of film. The better Ilford's QC the less film would be available for sale as seconds. At this point Freestyle has established a brand name and pretty constant demand. I wonder if they are willing to rely on a manufacturer having consistent manufacturing QC problems.
Ilford does custom manufacturing. I suspect Freestyle has a deal with them for purchasing a consistent amount of film which Ilford does not have to package, advertise, or warehouse.
Freestyle _does_ sell outdated film and paper and small paper cut down from rolls or larger sizes. It is usually made pretty clear what it is.
Since this story is third hand I think some skepticism is justified.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: "Adrian Tanovic" atanovic@NOSPAMgenre.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Found Some Info on Freestyle/Ilford Films
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999
I think most makers (Kodak possibly excepted) do some contract manufacturing for 'own-brand' labels. If you buy Jessop's film in the UK, most of it is actually Agfa. I don't believe it is 'seconds' or out-of-date film, however. Jessop's (a camera store chain) just sells a lot of film and can negotiate a bulk contract to create a lower-priced range of film (and also to give away with the "a free roll with every roll you process" offers). Since the manufacturer doesn't want to undercut the price of its own line (and neither does the retailer), it goes under a different label.
A.
Richard Knoppow wrote

> I will repeat that Ilford solicits custom manufacturing. Its likely >Freestyle contracts with Ilford for Arista films. Arista is not super >cheap, its just lower priced than branded stuff, which can be >accounted for by the high-volume regular sale to Freestyle. > The film is definitely Ilford. I even got 120 rolls one time which >had sticky lables which said Ilford on them! > Some of the graphic arts stuff may be other brands and Arista >printing paper definitely seems to be something else than Ilford >(Kentmere?). >--- >Richard Knoppow >Los Angeles, Ca. >dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Mon, 31 May 1999
From: "Dale Goninon" daleg@access.net.au
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Found Some Info on Freestyle/Ilford Films
Adrian Tanovic wrote

>I think most makers (Kodak possibly excepted) do some contract manufacturing

Kodak is not excepted. They produce a second label here in Australia known as 'Pacific'. I am led to believe that this brand uses the older manufacturing methods. Whilst still acceptable, it does not make use of the (often) updated technology used in their current products.
....

From: mr645@aol.comREMOVE (Mr 645)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Walgreens film?
Date: 31 May 1999
ok, Walgreen brand and Kirkland(costco) are Agfa. Konica and 3M also makes lots of private lable films.
KODAK and FUJI do not maker films for other brands.
I am not 100% sure about Konica and 3M but Agfa does not make a lower grade film for the private lables. The film inside a Kirkland canister is the same HDC+ film in the bright orange Agfa film canisters that you see.
Jon
http://www.jonlayephotography.com

From: athos3 athos3@concentric.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Walgreens film?
Date: 31 May 1999
Mr 645 wrote:

> KODAK and FUJI do not maker films for other brands.

Ritz/Fox employees claim Kodak makes Ritz.

From: jarnold975@aol.comspamkill (JArnold975)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Walgreens film?
Date: 1 Jun 1999

>KODAK and FUJI do not maker films for other brands.

Are you sure about that?

>From what I understand Ritz sells Fuji film under it's label.

Jim Arnold
Dallas, TX
http://members.aol.com/equineact/jarnphot.htm

Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: Mailorder film
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999
DWA652 dwa652@aol.com wrote:

> I order my film from B&H, have shot probably 1000 rolls of film from them > (mostly Velvia) and never had a problem with a single roll. I have also shot > grey market Kodak (about 30-40 rolls) and never had a problem. Remember the > Kodak rep has a vested interest in selling you Kodak USA film!

Remember also that mail-ordering film in the summer runs a heat risk! You just don't know how long the stuff has beein sitting in the back of a truck in the sun. If you're serious about stocking up by mail, I would suggest the following procedure:
Buy a year's worth of film during cold weather;
Test a roll to make sure you're satisfied;
Put the rest in the freezer until you're ready to use it.
--
Andrew Koenig
ark@research.att.com
http://www.research.att.com/info/ark

[Ed. note: Mr. Puts is a noted expert on Leica, lenses, lens testing...]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000
From: Erwin Puts imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] Kodak versus Fuji: is that the issue?
The topic of which film has the better sharpness impression and/or lower graininess, and which measurement is the best merit figure to evaluate a film is an interesting one and could fill a book to elucidate in considerable detail.
Let us first establish some baselines. A film has a number of measurable properties, like RMS values (for the random fluctuations of grain patterns), MTF-curves for a relationship between contrast loss versus spatial frequency, resolution value for the propensity to differentiate between closely spaced adjacent point/line objects and so on.
At the other end we have perceived, that is subjective, qualities of a film. like the impression of sharpness or graininess. If all would be well, the measurable properties should correlate closely to the perceived qualities and more importantly a shift in magnitude in one dimension should be proportional to a shift in magnitude in the other dimension.
Alas in our real world it is not that simple. Sharpness impression is related not to the fineness of the grain pattern, but to acutance, this being a property of an emulsion. Acutance can be explained as a rapid drop in contrast between two adjacent areas with different densities. A grain structure that diffuses the incoming light energy has by definition a higher propensity to scatter the light rays and so to lower the edge contrast. (= acutance). E-6 emulsions consist of dye clouds after development and while these clouds show a very low RMS value (low graininess), they also diffuse the light rays and lower the acutance. K-films are grain based and while the graininess impression is a bit higher they exhibit better edge effects and so enhance the sharpness impression. The perception of grain is lower when the very fine details are resolved quite good as in this case the randomness of the density patterns of the grain clumps or dye clouds reside behind the image structure that is recorded.
Looking at MTF graphs we may note that the sharpness impression is enhanced if the contrast figures are very high in the 5 to 10 lp/mm range. If a film has a value higher than 100% (which should be impossible) than the edge contrast is artificially enhanced. But the recording capacity of a film is closely related to the contrast value at 40 to 50 lp/mm. BUT: differences in contrast value in the bandwidth of �10 percentage points are not relevant. So a film that has an MTF value of 40 at% at 50 lp/mm is as good as one with a value of 45 to 50%. At the other end of the scale minor differences are important and a contrast transfer of 115% is significantly better than one of 110% at the same spatial frequency.
When I did a series of tests with K25/64 and Fuji Velvia and Provia100F (disregarding the saturation issue here), I found that the graininess impression of all four films (when comparing homogeneous areas of equal density) was very low and any difference would be irrelevant for most photographic purposes with high quality lenses (Leica ) and 35mm film at large scale projection. At this level differences in graininess are most likely explained by slight differences in exposure and with all films every possible detail could be recorded.
The K-films however recorded the same details with a better edge contrast and details were crisper and delineated with engraving like edges. Provia 100F had a definitely softer look, but in all fairness had somewhat less detail definition, compared to Velvia and the K 25/64.
We are however at a level of definition of details and a quality of recording capacity that is at the edge of what a lens can handle and the technique of the photographer is presumably the limiting factor here.
The overall impression then is that all four films handle the recording of object details very well, grain of all four is beyond the level of perception, but the K-films record details with more edge contrast and in doing so have a slight advantage. Velvia has the finest grain of all four, but as said above the difference with K25 and 64 and Provia F is so small as to be irrelevant, but to be fair again can be measured. As with speed of a car, you can measure a difference between 110 and 112 km/hour, but you can not experience it.
For ultimate recording capacity the K-films still have the edge, it is not a very big one, but in many instances a significant one and I would propose that we should not try to establish an absolute difference between these four but develop our technique to exploit the characteristics of our film/lens combination to suit our goals. My films of choice are K25 and 64, because of their higher fidelity when recording the reality in front of my lens. Comparing K64 with P100F at a large screen is no contest: Kodak wins on all visual and perceptual counts. In this sense the Velvia and Provia are not in the same league, but these films have really awesome capabilities and we should not indulge ourselves in an either/or discussion, but appreciate the differences as they are and use then when appropriate. It is really a pity that Kodak has lost all interest in these K-series as they could be the cutting edge in emulsion technology.
But Kodak also has lost interest in the traditional B&W; films.
Erwin Puts

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000
From: Erwin Puts imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] K-chrome cont'd
There is no difference in grain size between amateur and prof versions of K-chrome. Kodak states in their documentation that the differences in RMS values are due to changes in the measurement method.
K64 can be best exposed as EI-80, making the speed difference with P100F marginal.
I did compare the Kodak 100EC and VS with the others, and found the same characteristics to hold: Kodak is slightly grainier, but with a higher edge sharpness, giving the rendition of fine detail a slight boost.
Again I have to emphasize that all these films from K25/64 over V50 and P100F to E100EC/VS are a match for Leica lenses and most importantly a challenge to anybody's technique. Scanning these films and printing them with one of the ubiquitous Epson printers degrades the inherent quality to a degree that the quality converges to a common level.
Note that I explicitly exclude color saturation as a comparison dimension. This class of films defines current emulsion technology and image quality: I shoot most of my Leica lens test series (NO NO , not the topic again of me taking pictures of newspaper pages as my test object? I do not!) with all of these films with two goals: to see under what circumstances the Leica lenses deliver different (may I dare say: better?) quality and to see what is the influence (if any) of the different characteristics of the emulsions on the optical quality as designed and implemented by the Solms engineers. In my view the equation is: optical quality + emulsion quality = image quality.
It is in my view very difficult to discuss IQ without taking into consideration the EQ.
The relations between and the effects upon the different parts of the equation (not to mention the minefield of trying to agree on a definition of OQ, EQ and IQ) are very complex and defy any simplistic statements.
These issues have to be discussed in a relaxed attitude with the common goal of finding the truth and if the holy grail seems to elude us, the appropriate way is to find ways to further the understanding of these exciting topics.
I must say that I am now doing serious testing since 8 years and having used all and every B&W;, color neg and slide film on the market, I am still unable to make any definite and conclusive statements.Well a few actually, but again one has to be sensitive to all kinds of external influences and situational characteristics.
I have testseries where the K200 beats the E100 and I have series where I wonder if it was taken with V50. Sometimes even the Astia film delivers outstanding results. What I am looking for however is consistency and reproducibility under various conditions. And a kind of bottom line standard.
Erwin

[Ed. note: as a fan of Kodak's kodachrome films, I'm sorry to see this...]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000
From: "Tom Furlotte" tfurlott@midsouth.rr.com
Subject: [Leica] Unlikely Kodachrome resugence
As a member of Kodak's Pro Products Network of retailers I have to agree with Tina's post . Kodak has shot themselves in the foot with regards to Kodachrome. Even the new "minilabs" won't help. There is no market left to supply customers for them . All the professional customers that I had who shot Kodachrome have had to quit using it because of the slow processing time. We used to get film back in two working days; Now we're lucky to see it in seven days. Pros will not wait that long, nor will their customers. Who can justify the cost of one of these new minilabs based on the current volume of Kodachrome processing? Who would buy one "hoping" to get customers to switch back to Kodachrome?
As far as a new Kodachrome is concerned, Mark, Don't hold your breath . Kodak just discontinued the pro version of K25. And as long as the "bean-counter" mentality exists at the Great Yellow Father we can count on further developments like these:
~ Our only contact with Kodak is a quarterly telemarketing call. We used to have both consumer and pro reps to call on our store. Both have been laid of.
~ While Ilford is introducing new papers and films for b/w Kodak is discontinuing Ektalure and Elite and massively cutting back on size and surface offerings on their line. Ilford successfully launches a warmtome paper and Kodak discontinues theirs. Who's pulse is on the market here? We're seeing a resurgence in interest in hand-tinting of b/w images and Kodak discontinues their most popular paper for that purpose.
Of course, this is just one store in one market and one man's opinion.
Leically
Tom Furlotte
Memphis TN

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000
From: william corr sonoekurimoto@yahoo.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Cambodia
Dear Robert and other readers,
Apropos of things Chinese and photographic, I vaguely recall seeing a reference in an advertisement in a U.S. photo magazine to LUCKY 35mm B&W; white film. At one time or another in China and Laos, I've used Lucky, Shanghai and Fuda B&W; film. Assuming it's been kept under decent conditions (a big assumption in provincial China and Laos,) it isn't bad film at all at the price.
I've used Shanghai 120 film with adequate success, again in China. One wonders if it is ever to be found outside China.
Again concerning film, years ago I used to use Orwo 120 film from the now-defunct German Democratic Republic. Purely by chance I was leafing through a British photographic magazine in Osaka in December 1999 and saw that one of the not-quite-winning photographs had been taken with Orwopan. Either Orwo are still in business or the entrant had been keeping a stash of Orwo in a freezer all these years!
Recently, I was sent a modest consignment of Formapan 120 film made in the Czech Republic.
What do users of Kiev and Lubitel cameras use on their home patch? Does anyone know?

===== William Corr English Department, Yosu National University San 96-1 Dundockdong, Yosu, Chollanamdo, REPUBLIC OF KOREA 550-749 Tel: 0662-659-3510 FAX: 0662-659-3003 e-mail: sonoekurimoto@yahoo.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex question / Babies' transport
Jan B�ttcher wrote:
>the only film I got now is some communist B&W ...

Probably not Communist at all. More likely, this is ORWO film made by Fotokemika Zagreb, who holds the license from du Pont to manufacture the old ADOX formulations. Wonderful film!
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: [Rollei] Thom Bell's New Web Site
Thom Bell, of Kodak's customer service department has put his web site back up. It is now at:
http://www.geocities.com/thombell
Thom has a lot of stuff relating to Kodak products, color photography, filters, etc. Worth bookmarking.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000
From: olenberger olenberger@email.msn.com
Subject: Re: Velvia Fuji Film
On a overcast day with Velvia, I use a Hasselblad CR3 warming filter, which is a +30 Mired shift. Wratten Nos. 81A, 81B, and 81C correspond to shifts of +18, +27, and +35 Mireds respectively, so a CR3 is between an 81B and 81C. I also have heard that the Hasselblad series of warming filters (using the decamired system) have a slightly different color cast than the Wratten filters. However, maybe no filter is necessary nowadays, since you can add the warmth in Photoshop. Comments, anyone?
I have found Velvia works nice on cloudy days, when the contrast range is not so great. On sunny days, a bright sky (if you include it in the picture) will usually make the contrast range too much for Velvia to handle. Many photographers use a graduated neutral density filter under such conditions. (I don't, because I don't have one).
If you like saturation, but want more speed and more latitude, you might try Kodak E100VS (VS=Vivid Saturation), which is ISO 100.
-Fritz
....

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000
From: InfinityDT@aol.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Velvia Fuji Film
DKFletcher@aol.com writes:
My Kodak grey scale shows all the steps in open shade and bright sunlight.....that's about the best test there is. It is a very contrasty film, but the earlier posts claiming it only is capable of three stops is plain absurd. Dirk
Contrast range and exposure latitude are two different but related things that are often confused. Velvia can reproduce a contrast range greater than 3 stops (still less than negative film) but more than 1 stop under or over the correct exposure is fatal, which is why the 3-stop latitude (=exposure latitude) is cited. In addition, projection or illumination of a transparency reveals the entire tonal range, as can digital scanning, but anyone whose end-use is conventionally-produced (i.e. type R, Cibachrome etc.) prints has to remember that tonal range gets compressed in the printing (less with an interneg than a direct print, but nonetheless it's still an issue).

[Ed. note: Mr. Brick is a noted camera system designer (AF..) and Leica etc. expert...]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000
From: Jim Brick jimbrick@photoaccess.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Velvia Fuji Film
The resolution of lens f/stops is 1/2 stop. The resolution of C shutters is 1 stop. So the difference between ASA 32 and 37, or even 40, is immaterial.
The attempt to "calibrate" what is the "exactly" correct exposure for a given scene can only be accomplished by bracketing. If you just use the sunny-16 rule, you cannot set 1/32th, 1/37th, 1/40th or 1/50th at f/16. It's either 1/30th or 1/60th. Then you have only 1/2 f/stops. So you cannot get 1/3 stop resolution even if you tried. But it is not necessary. There is enough latitude in Velvia to cover this much.
With the accuracy of light meters (+ or - 1/3 stop) and the color density/diversity of a given scene (we're not simply photographing a gray card), there is no such thing as determining the "exact" exposure within 1/3 stop. Perhaps in a studio situation, your own lights, and after a calibration run, a "perfect" exposure can be nailed.
So when in doubt, bracket, bracket, bracket...
Jim
...

From Pentax Mailing List:
From: "William Robb" wrobb@accesscomm.ca
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000
Subject: Re: buying film
I haven't heard of any concerns regarding Costco and Kodak film, I suspect that the problems with Kirkland film are farther up the food chain, I suspect at their main warehouse. I expect that Kodak direct ships to each store, thereby circumventing the Kirkland problem. Good, reasonably priced consumer films that I know of, that are readily available in Canada are: Presidents Choice ( Fuji) from Superstore, No Name lesser quality Agfa stock) also from Superstore, Rave 200 and 400 ( Konica) from Wal-Mart, "Smile and Snap" ( silly name) Fuji brand name (Fuji HQ) from Wal-Mart, Kodak Funtime ( not their most modern emulsion), Kirkland ( Agfa) from Costco.
My own choice would be Presidents choice, simply because I prefer Fuji print film to the other films listed. Wal-Mart has some pretty good prices on multi roll packages of modern name brand films ( sometimes the house brand stuff is not the most recent emulsion), and you can get 5 rolls of Gold 100 for about 15 dollars, or 6 rolls of Fuji Super G+ for under 20 dollars ( I think the 200 6 pack was about 16, and the 400 6 pack is about 18 dollars), all 24 exposure loads.
What sort of archive information are you looking for? The PDML archives are available by moseying around the URL in the disclaimer at the message trailer.
Your quoting method is a bit odd. What mail program are you running?
Wheatfield Willie

From Pentax Mailing List:
From: SudaMafud@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000
Subject: Re: buying film
mikes@athabascau.ca writes:
and then settle on some pro films for travel and special occasions,
I recommend B&H; for "pro" film and Walmart for your consumer buys*+. *+Wal-Mart is a "just in time" inventory retailer. Thus, their products [all] simply do not have time to go "stale." *"Just-in-time" meaning *no* inventory [of any kind] sits around in Walmart warehouses waiting to be sold. Local regional and national suppliers thus are forced to keep Walmart stock the freshest available. For photographers, "pro" or otherwise, *fresh* film is a benefit you deserve.
For "pro" print use, KODAK has clearly pulled ahead of Fuji. Big name wedding photographers, who may be [big MAY BE] the real "Photoartists" in our craft, have nearly abandoned Fuji products. Those who still shoot Fuji do it for their own esthetic reasons, not for the stunning images KODAK'S PORTRA & PMZ 1000 emulsions are producing. A wedding and portrait film, PORTRA'S smooth, medium contrast palette has even begun to invade landscape imaging.
Of course the argument, [thus personal preference] is centered on "saturated" [read: unreal or putting color and tone where no color or tone is found] and whether you like your greens and reds to "shout" as opposed to the "Foundview." Fuji emulsions have a well known [and sometimes preferred] bias toward green-blues while KODAK leans toward red-orange. Thus, Fuji "saturates" green/blues & blue-green. *Gamma corrections tend to favor PENTAX SMC lenses for "correct" [no bias] renderings of color.
The comments on film seem to center on self-preference rather than the actual performance of a film. Consumer film is just that while "pro" film is [supposed to be] temperature controlled from the batch to the image, rendering truer colors, denser negatives/slides and shot to shot consistency [which is, after all, what a "pro" and their film does best, that is, produce shot to shot consistency in color, density and fidelity. Because "Pro" film costs more and thus, is more expensive to shoot casually, too many people pass on the benefits of shooting the top emulsions when they are doing "serious" work, choosing instead to rob themselves of the qualities inherit i "pro" film.
*There is one startling film most "pro" or amateur shooters have *not* tried; KODAK EKTAPRESS PJ 100, 400 & 800. PJ 100, perhaps the sharpest [readily available] print film of all, can be blown up to 16 x 20 even if shot with a crappy lens. For those who want to see macro as they have never seen, EKTAPRESS is your film. A medium contrast emulsion, [utterly no saturation] EKTAPRESS may also be the truest of the "WYSIWYG" films.
*Try a Macro shot of a coin [any coin] shot on EKTAPRESS. Better yet, for your own proof of its sharpness, shoot the details in a new $20 or $50 bill-startling with EKTAPRESS.
*EKTAPRESS PJ 100 is so finely grained, it seems to improve your lens.
*For shooting people of color, many of whom who tend to go too red-orange when shot with either consumer or "pro" print films, EKTAPRESS, because of its neutral palette, reproduces their [our] skin color and tone *exactly*. Another benefit of shooting EKTAPRESS with people of color is its ability to reduce specular highlights on dark or swarthy skin, a serious and frustrating problem for wedding and portrait shooters.
*While I was still shooting a lot of 35mm for PJ, weddings & contract jobs, I shot Fuji films, but only if the client insisted. Otherwise, I shot and shoot KODAK emulsions exclusively with my medium format camera.
No comment of film is worthy unless we understand that "pros" [generally] *have* to shoot true to color images. Making "saturated" images with a film for consumer use is one thing, doing so when the final image will be reproduced or used in four color separations is another.
*Digital imaging [medium format / 4 x 5 only] of course simply ignores the consumers need for "saturated" color.
*Consumers [and too many non-pro photographers think if an image doesn't "pop" it's no good. In the pursuit of "pop," truly garish [unreal] images can be seen in magazines and in slides. This generation, raised on the stunning colors averrable to us on television screens, seem unwilling to view *any* image as sufficiently good if it doesn't "pop" [a decidedly provincial term first used by slide shooters]. Now print shooters want to get in the act, with "pop" [and only "pop" being the goal. Thus print films, pro and consumer, now produce images that are praised for their color [saturation] and *not* their content or artistic merit. Pity. So much is being lost to the craft in the pursuit of "pop."
*In the pursuit of images, almost everything on this and other lists concentrate almost to the exclusion of anything else, on problems faced by (and the advantages of) slide shooters. We poor print-only shooters have to be observers in the discussions in that our comments most times fall on deaf [slide shooters] ears.
Mafud
suda.mafud@africana.com
zawadi.media@africana.com

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000
From: Jim Brick jimbrick@photoaccess.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: velvia vs. provia
Works best for what?
Different films, best for different subjects.
Velvia is super saturated, intolerant of underexposure, produces Fuji green like no other film, marvelous landscapes, urban scapes, etcscapes where vivid color, sharpness, good contrast are required. I use Velvia nearly exclusively for tripod chrome work. 35mm, 120/220, and 4x5 .
Provia is a mild Velvia at ISO 100 instead of 40. Less saturation, more tolerant of exposure variances, whites are cleaner, skin is truer, etc. For 35mm handheld photography, I prefer Fuji MS 100/1000 at 200. My Fuji rep says that Provia F at 200 will be even better. He gave some to me but I haven't tried it yet.
Jim

From Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000
From: John Francis jfrancis@sgi.com
Subject: Re: Kirkland film at Costco
Reg Wiest wrote:

> Has anybody shot Kirkland film from Costco? It certainly is reasonably > priced. I notice it�s manufactured in Germany, so perhaps it�s Agfa film.

That's exactly what it is. And at around $1 a roll, it's a bargain.
--
John Francis jfrancis@sgi.com

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Testing Slide Film...
Actually, the best way is to shoot bracketed chromes under daylight of a Macbeth Color Checker, which is made just for this purpose. Put the chromes on a professional grade lightbox with highest possible CRI and then see which one retains all of the gray patches and matches as closely as possible all of the color patches. Densitometry is pretty meaningless on slide films as the Macbeth folks will tell you.
Bob

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT:Supra Film
Good question. The 100 is almost a has been. It's the only one of the Supra family which is exactly the same as the old PJ series. The 400 has finer grain, the colors are just as good, so why shoot 100? One reason I can think of is to limit depth of field with high speed lenses which can be hard to do with 400 since you run out of shutter speeds too fast on many cameras. I'd use the 100 in the studio since I standardized my lighting for 100 speed and know exactly what apertures to use. But the days of 100 speed films may well be numbered.
Bob
...

From: mr645@aol.com (Mr 645)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 18 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: 21/4 slide duplicating film ?
Try Kodak EPN 100 slide film. Low contrast, it does a very nice job making dups.
Jon
http://www.jonlayephotography.com

From: dwa652@aol.com (DWA652)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 14 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: do you freeze your extra film, or refrigerate it?

>Sorry if this gets posted twice; server trouble again. I'm wondering >where to store film I may not get around to shooting for a year or two. >E6 and C41, mostly ASA 100, but some goes up to 400. Currently it is in >the refrigerator. Thanks.

Freeze it in freezer bags. That will practically stop the aging. Then you can shoot it when you want.
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Seattle Film Co.
you wrote:

>There is very little consistency in the quality of the Seattle films. They >always buy remnants, and all storts of film, so if you buy today one slide >film it will be a different one next batch so whatever results you may have >gotten once, cannot be replicated. > >They are great films for Joe Consumer, but not for anyone expecting some >degree of consistency in results. > >-_______________ >Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270) >NEC America, Inc. >14040 Park Center Dr.

The last I heard SFW was using Agfa color film bulk packaged for them. The original was Eastman Color Negative motion picture film.
You can tell motion picture negative from still camera negative film by the type of perforations. Motion picture negative has Bell & Howell perfs, which are flat on top and bottom and have round sides. Motion picture positive film and still camera film of all types has Kodak Standard perfs, which are oblong with rounded corners.
ECN has a combination anti-halation and anti-static backing called Remjet which must be removed by a jet of water as the film enters the developing machine. If its processed in a normal one-hour machine the backing will turn to a tar-like substance which gums up the machine and is hard to clean out.
Producers like to shoot everything on film of the same emulsion number. They buy as much as they can get and "bank" it. At the end of shooting, if there is any film left, it is sold off to folks like SFW or dealers in short-end stock.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Seattle Film Co.
If it's made in Italy then it's Imation, formerly 3M, and changing their name to Ferania this year. It used to be called Ferania, name of the beautiful Italian town they are in, before 3M bought the company. It's decent film, but older technology C-41 and so not as fine in grain as Kodak, Agfa and Fuji. I use their slide film sometimes when I want a warm, sunny, Mediterranean look to my photos.
I visited the company several years ago and found the area beautiful. The small town of Ferania sits right in the middle of a gigantic wildlife reserve with giant forests and big mountains. Great place to make film, or anything else.
I can't recall, though, if it is Ferania or Ferrania. Maybe one of our list members in Italy knows.
Bob
----------

>From: "Roger M. Wiser" wiserr@cni-usa.com >Subject: Re: [Rollei] Seattle Film Co. >Date: Mon, Jul 17, 2000, 7:14 PM > >Recently I got some new Seattle film mailed to me that I noted had a >different >package. They went from 20 to 24 exposures and the package said "process >C-41" >It also indicated "made in Italy finished in the USA"

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000
From: Klaus Schmaranz kschmar@iicm.edu
Subject: Re: Polaroid back
"Wilber" == Wilber Jeffcoat jeffcoatphoto@sumter.net writes:

Wilber> let the camera fire with it in place. Next where are you Wilber> getting Polaroid for $15.00 a pack, is this single or double Wilber> pack? Color or B/W. If that's for a double I need to know your Wilber> supplier.

Please let me know it too. I just had a look at B&Hs; Website - they're selling Polaplan 100 (664), double pack, for $16.95 excl. tax. That's until now the cheapest supplier that I found...
Cheers,
Klaus.

From: "Jeannie" see.message.body.for.e-mail@address.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Will freezing damage slides? (was stop fungus?)
I have no personal experience to offer, but here is a publication by Kodak on how to store photographic media. There's a section on storing slides in the freezer.
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e30/e30Contents.shtml
--
Jeannie
E-mail: moonflour at bigfoot dot see oh em
WWW: http://www.talisweb.com/jeannie/

From Medium Format Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
From: Schatzie Walton jdwalton@home.com
To: medium-format@egroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Re: 120 / 220 PRICES
With 220 you have to be careful about 2 things:
1) If processing yourself it's a heck of a lot more film to deal with and you have to be very careful not to bend or fold the film - elsewise you will wind up with "crescents"
2) If you are sending it out, make sure that your lab will handle it properly. One local lab (NJ) used to routinely chop or staple the first frame of every "chrome" -
220 saves a lot of space in the camera bag and is particularly valuable to have when you are outside the US - like India, Africa or China.
Jack
....

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000
From: InfinityDT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Velvia Fuji Film
ralday@retemail.es writes:
Hi all!
I have tried recently the Fuji Velvia film (I usually work in B&W;). The EI is 50 but the results were not totally satisfactory. The slides were fine grain and with wonderfull saturation colors but underexposed. Other friends said me that they use a EI of 40 or 32. Anybody has experience with this film? How many stops of latitude this film has? Only 3?
Thank you in advance
R. Alday
My experience (mostly in 35mm) is that Velvia's "true" speed is 40. I rate it at 50 only for maximum color saturation (but get higher contrast) and 32 for greater shadow detail (but get less saturation). As you noted, rating it at 50 gives a slight (hardly noticeable) tightening of grain and more saturation. Velvia is *very* contrasty and has barely a 3 stop latitude. If you're stuck with only Velvia and have a high-contrast scene, fill-flash and/or split grads might help expand the tonal range unless the highlights and shadows are intermixed. Exposure is critical, so you might want to have your shutters checked and get a print-out of their actual speeds (which unless they're electronically-timed are bound to vary some from shot to shot, unfortunately). With slide film, especially Velvia and especially with mechanical shutters, bracketing is usually wise, which with rollfilm is costly. That's one reason I choose not to shoot chromes with my Hasselblad.
I find that scanned negs produce a nicer print easier than transparencies, because they hold more overall detail due to the broader tonal range.

[Ed. note: reminds me of a test Mr. Bob Shell, Editor of Shutterbug, noted that photographers picked one film (agfa?) for most precise color rendition, but none of them wanted to use it but rather films with various desired color biases ;-)...]
From: indy1cache@inorbit.com (indy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap film VS. Expensive
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:24:00 +0200, fotoralf@gmx.de (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

>If a picture is worth taking it's worth being taken on decent film.

I use the expensive stuff. Does anyone remember a 20/20 or one of those investigavtive shows that did a film comparison? They had professional photographers take photos with various film brands. They then had a team of professional photographers and editors review the photos carefully. The end result was that the cheapest film was scored as the best. It was a K-mart or some dime store brand!
Amazing!!
John

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
From: DavidG6028@aol.com
Subject: Re: film and heat
Many years ago (with an older emulsion of Vericolor), I left some very important exposed (but unprocessed) negatives with a relative while I was gone on vacation. I was gone for a month (my honeymoon), during which time Los Angeles had one of its worst heat waves ever. The film was sitting unprotected in a back bedroom (I forgot to warn them that Vericolor likes to be kept cool), and probably saw 90-100+ degrees during the better part of the month. When I returned, I had the film processed and the COLORS seemed to be OK, but the GRAIN was much larger and easily noticeable in 4x6" proofs.
New emulsions probably react much differently, but I would NEVER do that again.
-David Gerhardt

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: No Kodachrome 25!!!!?!
Mark Rabiner wrote:

>NO Kodachrome 25 at pro photo in Portland Oregon. Not in the catalog they say. >I had to settle for some 64 and a roll of 200. I'm bummed out! >Mark William Rabiner

I said this last year when I found that it was not in the 2000 pro catalog.
But nobody would believe me. K25 is available in the "Select" series films however.
Jim
Jim Brick, ASMP
Senior Scientist
Agilent Technologies
Imaging Electronics Division

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From: SJacksun@aol.com
Subject: Re: Buy Film in Bulk
James,
I have purchased film in bulk from :
The Discount Film Source - 1-800-872-FILM
http://www.unidiscountfilm.com/
Check it out, delivery was fast, prices seemed fairly good.
Sincerely,
Steve
Portsmouth, VA

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: -= H.=- do_not_use@this.address.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 70mm
maab@nyc.rr.com says...

: Could you please explain what the 70mm film is? I only worked with 120 : format and I'm wondering if I could actually get some benefits from it. What : the actual image size would be with it (dependently from a certain type of : camera back/lens)? I really know nothing about it and I appreciate very much : for any help. : Thank you.

There are different types of 70mm film; the most common, I believe, is the perforated type II which is the one to use with Hasselblad's 70 magazine. As far as Hasselblad goes, the film is loaded in 15' cassettes which yield approx 70 images. The image size is exactly the same as with 120/220 film, but the film itself is 70mm wide. The film can be obtained both in 100' bulk and preloaded 15' cassettes. The availability of emulsions is poor with the exception of negative color portrait film, Tri-x, Plus-x and odd ball emulsions as IR-film. Color reversal is also available but very expensive. It is not very easy to find a lab that can process the film to a reasonable cost. I process mine by myself using modified 220-plastic spirals.
So you need a back that takes 70mm film, and if you already have a Hasselblad it wouldn't be too hard to find one to a reasonable price. 70mm backs are also available for some large-format cameras, Rollei, and some Mamiyas.
--
H�kan
h dot gunnarsson at ebox dot tninet dot se

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] Some news
The existence of the Summicron 2/28 has been 'officially' acknowledged by Bill. May I add that I have been testing this lens since the end of June. I have been able to use two different lenses, selected at random from the available stock. Every lens I could use for a prolonged period of at least a month per lens. The report will have to wait to be published on my site till 20 September, the end of the deadline. A redesign of the site can be expected then.
I am also testing a really exciting new film/developer combo for BW photography 35mm that is supposed to resolve 900 lp/mm (!! no typing error).
This film in combination with the new Leica lenses will deliver results of unheard of quality.
Soon in your theatre.
Erwin

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Who's making 120 infrared film?
Bob Randles randlesra@there.net wrote:

>My previous sources for 120 infrared film have dried up. >Where can I lay my hands on some these days, eh?

Konica makes one batch a year of their IR film in both 35mm and 120. Glazer's in Seattle still had it in stock the last time I was in the cooler.
Maco is set to introduce a new IR emulsion in 120, B&H; lists it but it wasn't in stock yet the last time I looked.
Kodak doesn't make 120 IR, but they do make 70mm, so if you have a 70mm back you can roll your own from bulk, or if you don't have a 70mm back, Rolland Elliot sells it cut down and rolled as 120 or 220 -- a DejaNews search should find his email address, can't remember it at the moment.
--
Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000
From: RalphRamey@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re:EFKE FILM
John,
The Czech film that was withdrawn from the market was not Efke. It was a film made by FOMA , Hradec Kralove, called Fomapan T200 (and other speeds) that was withdrawn. They claimed T-grain technology for it and the great yellop father in Rochester came down hard with the threat of a patent infringement case, forcing them to halt US distribution. It was a decent film and at ISO200, filled a niche for me. I still have one or two rolls left and wish I could get more. Ralph Ramey

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re:EFKE FILM
CLARINETJK@aol.com wrote:

>Is Efke the film manufactured in the Czech Republic that ran into some patent >problems when they tried to distribute in US? John K

No. EFKE film is the former ADOX formulation, now manufactured under license from EI Dupont du Nemours in Delaware, USA, by Fotokemika Zagreb in Croatia.
It's rather neat to use the Miracle Film of 1950, a half-century later. Almost the longevity of Rodinal (108 years) or D-76 (74 years).
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net

[Ed. note: Mr. Bob Shell is the editor of Shutterbug (#3 USA Photo Pub by circulation etc.), a noted glamour photographer and photo workshop instructor and camera repair expert etc. etc.]
From the Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Kodachrome
It has not been publicized much outside of photofinishing trade publications, but in the USA the Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to regulate silver content in effluent water very strictly beginning next year. If these new regulations go into effect you will see photo labs forced to make a rather fast transition to high speed inkjet printing and some sort of dry film processing that recycles all silver in the film.
Slide films, whether Kodachrome or E-6 may become much more expensive to process due to the labs having to invest in advanced silver recovery equipment. This could lead to phasing out of slide films during the next ten years.
There are protests being filed since silver has not been shown to have any negative environmental effects in areas like Colorado where the natural water supply contains high levels of dissolved silver. So far the EPA has turned a deaf ear to the protests and plans to regulate silver just as though it was as toxic as mercury or chromium.
Bob
.....

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Kodachrome
The PMA (Photo Marketing Association) has just issued a report about this. They are the closest thing this industry has to a lobbying oganization, but the photo industry is a very small industry as a whole and the government has not shown much interest in listening to us about anything in the past. Now if some major industrial users of silver got involved it might be different.
EPA apparently wants to take the simplistic approach of regulating all "heavy metals" identically, whether they have any environmental impact or not.
Bob
...

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
From: Frank Berghuis f64@mediaone.net
Subject: Re: [NIKON] US EPA anti-silver pollution law to threaten film & developers
Your message seems to imply that silver is completely harmless. While it's no mercury, there are some issues:
http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/silver_f_V1.shtml#t31
P> I can find references to controlling silver in land disposal from back in 1998, but nothing new:
http://www.govnews.org/mhonarc/gov/us/topic/environment/toxics/_msg00154.html
Can you reference were you're hearing that some new control is coming?
Thanks.
Frank

Date: 26 Sep 2000
From: sog@amaterasu.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: EPA new laws label silver a heavy metal pollutant... Re: Agfa APX

>>> rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >>>> basically, the EPA rather than digital photography now looks to get >>>the >>>> major credit for killing off film, esp. slide film and black and white >>>> at least in the major USA markets by requiring treatment of waste >>>water to

I saw the Bob Shell note on your web page, and frankly I've got to wonder whether he's not a little confused. I went to the EPA web site, and searched both the EPA and the Federal register for references to "silver" and "wastewater", and this is what I've come up with:
1) EPA has regulated silver effluent since 1992
2) The current standards were set in 1995. They were reviewed in 1997 and 1999 and the agency declined to tighten the standards based on silver's relatively low toxicity. These standards were based on "total recoverable silver" in the effluent, i.e both solid particles and dissolved.
3) In the May 18, 2000 issue of the Federal Register, EPA proposed changing the measurement criteria for heavy metals as follows (quoted from the Federal Register):
----------------------------------------------------------------
It is now the Agency's policy that the use of dissolved metal to set and measure compliance with aquatic life water quality standards is the recommended approach, because dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of the metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal.
Since EPA's previous aquatic life criteria guidance had been expressed as total recoverable metal, to express the criteria as dissolved, conversion factors were developed to account for the possible presence of particulate metal in the laboratory toxicity tests used to develop the total recoverable criteria. EPA included a set of water conversion factors with its Metals Policy (see Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, Martha G. Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, October 1, 1993). Based on additional laboratory evaluations that simulated the original toxicity tests, EPA refined the procedures used to develop freshwater conversion factors for aquatic life criteria. These new conversion factors were made available for public review and comment in the amendments to the NTR on May 4, 1995, at 60 FR 22229. They are also contained in today's rule at 40 CFR 131.38(b)(2).
--------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, EPA has attempted to arrive at a measurement standard using only dissolved silver which corresponds to the standards for total recoverable silver that have been in effect for the last 5 years.
Personally, I doubt if this represents any increased cost to major labs since I suspect they're already doing silver recovery. AFAIK, it pays for itself.
It's possible that I failed to mutter the appropriate incantation to the search engine, so I may have missed something. It would have been nice if Shell had actually supplied a reference for the proposed regulation.
Steve

[Ed. note: the BJP for Feb. 7, 2001 (per PPN newsletter) has an article on the British Environment Agency plan to classify diluted photographic effulents as "special", meaning they will require special disposal standards and treatment off-site. Naturally, this will add to the cost and difficulty of getting photographic prints processed, along with more bureaucracy.]

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000
From: Don Doucette carguy@cgocable.net
Subject: RE: film to be outlawed for pollution? was re: Obsolete?
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Here in CANADA most mini labs have outside companies that provide silver recovery equipment that is provided and serviced for free. These companies recover the silver and that is how they get paid.
Years ago Konica was working on a 0 effluent system that you could quite literally drink what came out of their machines. I don't know if they ever managed to get the system to market but you can bet with the multi-billion dollar film market out there companies like Konica, Noritsu, Champion, Kodak, Fuji as well as others will come up with a way to meet these new standards.
There is no way that Kodak and Fuji are going to let their film market dry up, and you can bet on that.
Don

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000
From: Rick Housh rick@housh.net
Subject: RE: film to be outlawed for pollution? was re: Obsolete?
I agree with Don. These proposed regulations have been in the mill for some time. Public comments were solicited by the EPA and a great many were received and considered before the closing date. This may be a great surprise to some of us, but the industry has known about it for some time, and it comes as no surprise to anyone in the film or processing business.
Finally, the bottom line is that recovery of the silver halides has always been a consideration in the industry, as silver is a precious metal, and its effective recovery from film processing wastes has been the subject of much technical study and implementation. In the long run, it pays for itself. In the short run, it may result in a shakeout of very small processors, i.e. the ones in the middle of the mall parking lot.
Here is a good site on the technologies available for almost every size establishment:
http://earth2.epa.gov/program/p2dept/defense/airforce/2817.html
- Rick Housh -

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: New Subscriber Introduction
At 10:10 PM 10/10/2000, you wrote:

>Have you had problems purchasing chemicals through the mail? There seems >to be something going on with new regulations on transporting this stuff. >Haven't been able to get any CN-2 processing kits for over a month now.

In the USA there are new Hazmat regs from the EPA or DOT or FAA and until retailers are in compliance shipping compressed air canisters and darkroom chemicals is a hassle. We're working on it item by item.
- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 From: "Jeff Novick" jhnovick@pacbell.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Cachet vs Oriental vs "Old" Oriental I haven't done side by side tests of 'old' Oriental vs. 'new', but I am under the impression that all the older emulsions used cadmium in their formulas up to a few years ago when the ban went into effect. I saw the immediate changes in Forte papers, both cold and warmtone. How could the old Oriental be the same as the new if they do not use cadmium any longer? Jeff ....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] reversal v. negative film for enlargements
Backwards, John. Ciba-Geigy, the maker of Cibachrome, bought Ilford.
Later, in a corporate downsizing, they sold it to International Paper.
International Paper spun it off last year into an independent company, and it is currently owned by an investment group. They have had layoffs right and left and the current company is a ghost of its former self. Only a handful of the people I know are still there.
Ilford is openly up for sale at the moment, and there was a rumor going around that Kodak was going to buy them. However, as of last week at photokina the Ilford management did not have any verification of this, although they, too, had heard it and did not discount it.
Ilford's long-term future will depend entirely on who ends up owning the company.
Bob

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000
From: Don Doucette carguy@cgocable.net
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Profit Margin OT
That's why most camera stores offer processing, sell batteries and other sundry items.
It's to help offset the cost of selling cameras.
The last photo lab I worked at sold 24 exposure processing with 4x6 prints for $13.99 at a typical cost to the company of $1.80 per roll. Now that is a margin.
That same company made 3-5 points on hardware sales.
you wrote:

>>What is the profit margin, (the mark up) of most Nikon equipment? I >>remember in the "old" days it was around 35%. That is, the retailer >>paid 35% less than MSRP. >>Ernie

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000
From: Larry Zakem eeye@ctd.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Profit Margin OT
Don,
Being a business owner myself, I would guess that the $1.80 cost per roll was for the chemicals and the paper. I would believe that some of the other costs that were associated with the processing of that roll of film included the processing machine itself, the building it was housed in, electricity, telephone, marketing and advertising, insurance and don't forget your pay.
Larry Zakem
ELECTRONIC EYE, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio
...

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
From: Ted Bradshaw ted@junior60.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: an appeal to Agfa ... keep APX 25 alive!
Godfrey recently suggested that we contact Agfa, asking them to reconsider their decision to end production of APX25.
I e-mailed them last night to express my concern, and this morning I received the following reply.
"Dear Mr. Bradshaw,
Thank you for your enquiry and comments regarding the discontinuation of Agfapan APX 25. This was a decision taken by our parent company in Germany after much consideration as to its consequences, and we can assure you that such decisions are never taken lightly.
Agfapan APX 25 is a beautiful film and is much loved by a small number of highly respected photographers. However the hard economic reality is that the demand worldwide for very low speed film has been declining for years and has now reached the level where production can no longer continue. Agfa Leverkusen has kept the production of APX 25 going for some years after other manufacturers had discontinued their own ISO 25 films. This was done more out of love of the product and as a service to photographers than for reasons of commercial viability. But in the end Agfa is a commercial business, and there is a limit to how long a manufacturer can make a product which very few photographers actually buy and then only in small quantities.
We very much regret the inconvenience to you and the remaining photographers still buying APX 25. There is currently enough stock in Germany to last for approximately 3 or 4 months. The expiry date of remaining stock is July 2005 so there is still an opportunity for photographers to secure some stock with a reasonably long expiry date through their usual dealer.
Agfapan APX 100 has many of the characteristics of APX 25 and is capable of very fine grain when developed in an ultra fine grain developer such as Atomal FF . We have no doubt that many photographers will find it an excellent and far more flexible alternative to APX 25. Regards,
Philip Miller
Corporate Communications Manager
Agfa UK"
Your comments would be of interest.
Best wishes to all.
Ted Bradshaw.

Date: 13 Sep 2000
From: h.nareid@nareid.demon.co.uk (Helge Nareid)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: New Chip "better than film"?
seetext@bottom.org (John) wrote
[...]

>Just for fun, Joe: > >I think all this talk of dry film plates replacing wet plates is a bunch >of crap. >Dry film plates can replace wet plates for commercial needs, but they >cannot replace the artistic process. Dry film plate cameras have not >replaced traditional wet plate cameras, have they?

There may be more truth to that statement than you think. Dry plates took over from wet plates in the 1880-1890 timeframe according to conventional wisdom. But wet plates were still used for specialized applications as late as 1960 (according to a very well-informed acquaintance of mine).
You may think that dry plates also are history, but in my day job (holography) we use dry plates every day. We would _love_ to go digital, but we need about 5000 line-pairs/mm of resolution to match the performance we get from dry plates. Digital detectors are still about two orders of magnitude away from that requirement.
So reading the press report about the alleged revolutionary chip, I was interested but not overwhelmed. I can think of very interesting things to do with a 16 megapixel chip, but it is certainly nowhere near being an adequate substitute for silver halide materials for our applications.
The lifetime of "old-fashioned" technology may be considerably longer than some people imagine. I am certainly no luddite, and I am following the emergence of the new digital technology with considerable interest, but conventional silver halide photography will live on for a long time yet. As a scientist, I have noticed that old technologies may go out of fashion, but they never _die_, and they often get resurrected in surprising ways. In the area of photography, I can mention Lippmann photography (an early colour photography technique=, which went out of fashion around 1907 but formed the basis of reflection holography from the early 1960's onwards.

From Medium Format Group:
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000
From: Mitch Winkle mwinkle@jonatas.com
Reply to: medium-format@egroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Velvia Product Advisory
Some of you may have seen this, and it is less than appropriate on the 35MM list, but I know many of you on NikonMF, as I, do a bit of medium format.
Fuji has noticed that a small percentage of a few of their runs of Velvia in 120 format may have weak gum seals on the end tape.
Here's the URL for the full details. I apologize for it's length and I suggest you cut an paste it into your browser:
http://www.fujifilm.com/tcm.html?x-tempest-op=generic&CategoryId;=334&ParentC; ategory=Tips+%26+Resources&pagetype;=CategoryContent&ContentType;=Promotion&Cu; rrentTopCat=335
Mitch Winkle
mwinkle@jonatas.com
AC4IY

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000
From: Enno Middelberg emiddelb@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Agfa APX 25 production will be stopped!
Hi,
I just talked to a guy in the Agfa marketing section. He confirmed that the APX25 will be discontinued and will no longer be available after the stock has run out.
He said that they are not able to just increase the film price (in order to get their costs fixed) as the local dealers wouldn't accept that. Only a high demand could possibly rescue the film. A "high demand" is in some way defined by the minimum of 20.000 films which have to be produced at a time, a smaller number is not profitable.
So c'mon people: order one year's amount of APX25 to let them feel there are still some enthusiasts out there!
Enno
Home: http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/emiddelberg

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
From: Otto Braasch otto.braasch@landshut.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Agfa APX 25 production will be stopped!
Scott,
I was just looking at the extreme end of 35 mm BW films with their combined effects of resolution, grain and sharpness. Tech Pan at ISO 40 developed in Tetenal liquid Neofin Doku offers a resolution of about 400 lines per mm and the new Gigabitfilm (still in the test phase for 135-36) is said to deliver about 700 lines per mm with it's proprietary liquid developer when exposed at 40 ISO. Guess the Ilford Pan-F with it's praised tonality is just a different animal? However if a professional film lab would run tests on all four candidates and then publish results, it would be much easier to compare and discuss.
Otto

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: Laura Rogan Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm Subject: Re: does anyone know where i can get 620 film????
620 and other obsolete types can be found on B&H;'s site, click on; http://www01.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=CatalogActivator__ Acatalog_html___336___SID=E24C76ADCF0

Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000
From: "Mark" mwestling@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Kodak Response re: 5x7 films
I recently sent an email message to Kodak asking for the status of 5x7 films, both color and B&W.; Here is there response I received this morning.
Regards,
Mark
=====
Mark,
Due to lack of photographer interest, Kodak will be moving virtually all types of 5x7 format films to special order status on December 31, 2001. One film type that will remain in 5x7 will be our Kodak Tri-X Pan Professional film in two sizes listed below.
Catalog number: 143-0271
100 sheets 5X7
TRI-X PAN PROF 4164
is currently stocked and listed in the catalogs
Catalog number: 143-0214
25 sheets 5X7
TRI-X PAN PROF 4164
is currently a stock item but not listed in the catalog.
Kodak will add the 25 sheet size to the catalog when the catalogs are updated on 12/1/00.
We sold just 2000 boxes of 5x7 film in the USA in 1999. This includes a combined total for all b&w;, color negative and color reversal films. Of this total, 968 boxes were of just one film type, Tri-X which will remain as a catalog listed item.
This is not a discontinuance but a removal of the product listings from the dealer catalog as a factory stocked item. Minimum order quantities for a 5x7 film can still be ordered from your dealer on a "made to order" basis from our factory.
The trend over the past 10 years has steadily diminished to the point were it is no longer feasible to factory stock this size since sales are so small per film type. Our manufacturing area is geared for much larger volumes and have been making these products at a loss for some time.
We regret this decision but the market sent us a message, and we have little choice but to respond.
Thank you for visiting our Kodak web site. If you should have any questions on Kodak products or services, please be sure to revisit our site. We are continually adding information to enhance our service.
Terrance McArdle
Marketing Manager
Kodak Professional
Original message follows:
-------------------------
Question: There have been a lot of rumors recently on the Internet about Kodak's plans to discontinue certain sheet films, in particular ReadyLoads and 5"x7" films. Please advise as to which 5x7" films (both color and black & white will remain in production.
Thank you.
Mark Westling

Date: 10 Oct 2000
From: chnr@aol.com (ChNR)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: More from Kodak re: LF Film Changes...
I think it would be in the best interest all LF shooters to support manufacturer(s) that support LF formats, be they 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10. My concern is that Kodak has said that they do not sell a lot of 5x7 in any emulsion so they are curtailing the availability of 5x7 films. Can 4x5 and 8x10 be far behind? Currently I use Agfa for 4x5 and 8x10 and Ilford for 5x7. I am wondering if it makes sense for all LF shooters to throw their support to Ilford to insure film in the various formats in the future. I have not even touched on LF color. Let's face it, the market for LF is relatively small when compared with point-and-shoots, etc. If we LF shooters divide our loyalties amongst three or four suppliers, the individual market shares get even smaller. Regretfully I think Kodak is a lost cause when it comes to LF, so do we throw our support to an Ilford or an Agfa?
Chuck Richards
St. Louis, MO

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: PHOTO-TECH photo-tech@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: More from Kodak re: LF Film Changes...
Paul Butzi butzi@halcyon.com wrote:

>The fact that Kodak did it all without any warning ticks me off >pretty good, too. I woudn't mind quite so much if they'd just >tell me, one way or the other. But apparently Kodak is not >structured so that the guys at the KIC can pass information >on to the rest of the company, nor does the rest of the >company pass on any info to the guys at KIC. This would >not seem to be a logical arrangement. > > >-Paul

I have to agree with you Paul. They really know how to push the button sometimes. I still can't understand the decision to eliminate Elite, kodabromide and Ektalure all in the same day. Not one single graded paper left in their lineup. Just VC. Next I guess it'll be FB that bights the dust.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Photographer Web Master Darkroom Wizard

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000
From: mikemac@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: More from Kodak re: LF Film Changes...
viewcam@wwa.com (John Horowy) writes:

> Hello Paul, > > Not knowing the mechanics of a readyload packet, I assume the upfront > engineering costs would kill me. I'd have to mortage my house, then > try to convince all the Kodak and Ilford followers to try my film. > That's hard enough as it is.

I asked the Ilford rep about their plans wrt to a Quickload type of B&W; film offering. He said the machine to make the and assmeble the packets cost a million US dollars. He also said that it'd take Ilford 60 to 70 years to ammortize that cost given B&W; volumes. So I think the idea of a B&W; Quickload film is history unless you want to pay the $3 per packet for gray market Fuji Neopan QL. (The Fuji rep snuck out before I could corner him and ask why Fuji doesn't import Neopan QLs.)
Mike McDonald
mikemac@mikemac.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nano 60 vs. Rollei 35 vs. Yashica T4
So far as I know both Kodak and Fuji have killed their planned APS slide films. Certainly neither is available in the USA at this time. I tested samples of both, which were regular 100 speed amateur emulsions, and the results looked pretty good but denser overall than the similar 35mm films due to the "transparent" magnetic coating on the APS film.
Bob

> From: Jan Decher jan.decher@uvm.edu > Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Rollei] Nano 60 vs. Rollei 35 vs. Yashica T4 > > Is there a good APS slide film I could use?

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000
From: "Welliver, H William" hwellive@intersil.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] _Old_ K-12 Kodachrome Processing
Hi!
You might try Rocky Mountain Photo... they can process original Kodachrome (and all sorts of other old processes) for a price. There are some caveats, which they outline at their website:
http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/
Hope this helps!
Best regards,
Bill Welliver

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
From: steven arterberry arterberry@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] _Old_ K-12 Kodachrome Processing
please note that there is a SIX to TWELVE MONTH turnaround time. The cost (about thirty bucks ) is reasonable,though. Have used them for some old Kodachrome that I found (K11 process).
>http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
From: Ferdi Stutterheim ferdi@stutterheim.nl
Subject: Re: [Rollei] _Old_ K-12 Kodachrome Processing
According to their website they just make B/W prints from K-12
Ferdi

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000
From: InfinityDT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Film recommendations?
aigner.ez@terra.com.br writes:
What happaned to Ektar 25??? Great print film.
AIGNER
Ektar 25 (was is ever available in 120?) was re-named Royal Gold 25 and promptly discontinued about 2 years ago. It was the Kodachrome 25 of print films, sadly lamented by those of us who like to do large prints from 35mm. It was a very contrasty film, though, quite like chromes. I switched to Royal Gold 100 when 25 was no longer available. The Royal 100 has the T-grain formula, and in comparison I don't find it gives up anything to Ektar, plus it is much less contrasty.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001
From: John Milne John.Milne@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re:EFKE FILM
You can buy 100 ft of it for 42 dm or 10 x 120 for 37 dm http://www.fotoimpex.de/Fotoimpex-USA/catalogue/page2.pdf. I bet if you could only find a Czech website you could beat that by half.

From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] _Old_ K-12 Kodachrome Processing
Dear All,
There's an Englishman who may be able to help. I have found him extremely helpful with regard to old b/w. His web site is:
http://www.processc22.co.uk/
best of luck
David Morris

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: Paolo Pignatelli paolop@snet.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: making B&W; slides (cont'ed)
Let me second that opinion, Tech Pan developed in Technidol is superb. I will be trying other developers too, but a 6x6 neg shot with a Hasselblad SWC looks beautiful.
Paolo
Paolo Pignatelli

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: B/W slide film
you wrote:

> is it possibly to buy (or somehow) find B/W >slide film??

Agfa's Scala is ISO 200 b&w; slide film. Also, you can shoot Kodak's T-Max 100 and process it in their T-MAX 100 Direct Positive Film Developing Outfit. Shoot at ISO 50 if you choose this. See http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j87/j87.shtml

- -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[Ed. note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted Leica and lens testing expert, an area which obviously demands the best of film resolution, so...]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Is there life after APX25? A scientifically conducted study by several German authors in 1990 gave these results. Technical Pan had a resolving power of 250 lines per mm and APX25 of 180 lines per mm. These were the best. A step below these two were almost on equal footing: PanFPlus and Tmax100, with a small finegrain edge for PanF. These data in another notation. TP and APX could resolve details of a width of 4 to 5 micron.
That is the maximum definition for a lens like the Apo-Summicron-R 2/180, which defines the practical upper limit for the moment. The recently designed Leica lenses however will be slightly below this level (in the region of 7 to 10 micron), where the PFP and TMX are located. Older Leica lenses have a limit at 20 micron generally speaking.
My own comparisons (prints at 20x and microscope analysis at 100 and 400 times enlargement) do indeed show a theoretical advantage of the TP and APX25 emulsion.(Both however are challenged by the new BW film, I am currently investigating).
For most situations, the PFP would be a worthy replacement of the APX25 with the additional plus of a full stop more speed and it is a true speed of ISO50. Because the APX25 has a fairly steep curve, the sharpness impression is excellent. The PFP however has a moderately steep curve, giving a smoother graded tonality.
The sharpness impression is a bit less, but even so an enlarger lens like the Apo-Rodagon-N 2.8/50 would have to perform at its best to get this level of detail on the print at 20x enlargement.
You could try to do a comparison shooting with some of your APX25 films and the PFP to see where the differences are and how important they are.
For most of my purposes I can easily switch between APX25 and PFP. If the problem is demanding I have TP with CC40 filter to compensate for the enhanced red sensitivity.
Erwin

[Ed. note: neat - a 120 infrared film resource!...]
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000
From: OneCachet@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Cachet's web site
I don't know that any of Cachet's web pages belong, but I thought it was
worth a mention that we have introduced a 120 Infrared film, MACOPHOT 820c
(820 nm) and all the medium format users we have talked to are pretty excited.

Ike Royer
Cachet Fine Art Photographic Paper Company
714 432 7070
E-mail onecachet@aol.com
Web Site http://www.onecachet.com/
Dealer Listing http://www.onecachet.com/dealers.htm
Infrared Images & Data http://www.onecachet.com/whatsnewz .htm

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Re: Kodachrome 200 discontinued

>On 14 Nov 2000, Mark Rabiner wrote, at least in part: > >> Roger the "guys" doing the slide shows were nationally known >> photographers of varied ilks. Not just Leica cultists just having >> climbed from under a rock! The pros are out there using it it >> seems. mark rabiner :) http://spokenword.to/rabiner/

At 06:15 PM 11/14/00 -0700, Roger Beamon wrote:

>Ok, but my reasoning still holds. Nationally known pros or >whatever, still use a small amount of Kodachrome compared to >the masses buying the E6 stuff. Sure they use a great amount >of film, but it still pales in comparison to Aunt Matilda times >zillions, doing the kids during the holidays. > >Besides, when did the wishes of the working pros have much >sway with Rochester for the last 15 years or so? Bottom line, >man, that's the name of the game! > >Roger, List-Owner

Keeble & Shuchat, one of the largest pro photo supplier on the west coast, sells cases and cases of E6 to every roll of Kodachrome. Pros buy E6. It comes in every flavor from saturated to dull, pushes easily, processed in two hours, can be projected for long periods without damage, and comes in all sizes. Kodachrome's flavor is Kodachrome, takes one day to many days to get processed, doesn't push well, is not suitable for projection use, and comes in one size. E6 is the staple, Kodachrome is now the cult.
Kodachrome is nice if you like vanilla. E6 is nice if you like tutti frutti.
Jim
...

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Michael Weinstein, M.D." drmike99@ix.netcom.com
[1] Re: APX 25 is finished
Date: Sat Dec 02 10:41:37 CST 2000
I have read in another NG that both APX25 and Ultra 50 are discontinued, at least in 35mm, but that Agfa has a replacement for Ultra 50 in a couple of months that will at last have fine grain (not as urgent here in MF) and will be faster, but still have the "ultra" colors. Maybe there is an improved APX25 coming also. Does anyone know?
--
Michael Weinstein

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: mr645@aol.com (Mr 645)
Date: Sun Dec 03 01:07:54 CST 2000
[1] Re: APX 25 is finished
Agfa has a new, faster, finer grained version of Ultra 50 coming out but nothing to replace the slow selling Agfapan 25.
bummer.
Jon
http://www.jonlayephotography.com

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: "John Crossley" john.crossley@bigfoot.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Kodachrome to be discontinued?
On the Kodak Canada website there is a document stating that Kodachrome 200 (pro version) is to be discontinued and the k25 pro is replaced by the consumer version.
http://www.kodak.ca/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/e55.pdf
Is this the beginning of the end of Kodachrome?
John

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] forgotten gangware count down

> From: muchan muchan@promikra.si > Organization: ProMikra d.o.o., Ljubljana > Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to > Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:38:09 +0100 > To: contax@photo.cis.to > Subject: Re: [CONTAX] forgotten gangware count down > > It was a bargain film form Ilford, just written "PAN 400".

When I visited Ilford a few years ago I saw them spooling and packaging this generic film. They said that when they have a batch of film which is out of spec, they package it this way and sell it very cheap so as not to take a total loss on that batch. They said that they mostly sold it in India and eastern Europe.
I'd guess it would be pretty good film even though not meeting Ilford's specifications in one way or another.
Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Which Film?
From: Heather Petty heatherpetty@earthlink.net Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 8:27 PM
Subject: [Rollei] Which Film?

> Being new to the world of medium format in general, and TLRs in particular, > I'm interested to know what kind of film, both B&W and color, others like to > use. I've only found Ilford 400 locally, but could order others from > someplace like B&H. > Also, I've heard good things about processing with A&I Mailers, are there > any others I should consider? > > Thanks for your time.

Heather,
Which films you use really depends on the "look" you want your photos to have. You need to try a number of films and settle on the ones which produce photos which satisfy you. Just because I think Kodak Portra 400 VC is the cat's pyjamas doesn't mean you will like it! You might want prints with more, or less, contrast. You might want more color saturation, or less. And always remember when shooting color negative that an awful lot depends on the lab. You can get wildly divergent prints from the same negative at different labs.
That being said, here are personal favorites:
Color neg: Kodak Portra films, all speeds. I prefer the VC versions because they have more color saturation.
B & W neg: For general use Ilford Delta 100. In my book this is the best black and white film on the market today. When I need more film speed I use the 400 or 3200 Delta films. I process the 100 and 400 in Ilfotec HC. Don't shoot black and white unless you can develop it yourself or afford to send it to a custom lab. Ordinary labs always ruin black and white.
Color transparency: Agfa RSX 100 II is the most neutral and realistic. If you like your colors just as your eye sees them, this is the film. A close second in neutrality is Fuji Astia 100. If you want punchy colors Fuji RDP III. If you want exaggerated colors Fuji Velvia.
I hope this helps.
Bob

From COntax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Re: zoned out

> From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com > Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to > Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 > To: contax@photo.cis.to > Subject: [CONTAX] Re: zoned out > > Since film is made of wide sheets of base which are coated by emulsion and > then cut into individual strips, I'd relegate the above to the "Photo Myth" > category.

Yes, usually, but not always. There have been cases when medium format films were coated onto different base material than the 35mm equivalents. Example, the original batches of T-Max films.
Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000
From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de
Subject: Subject: [Rollei] SEMI-O/T: Slow-speed, fine-grain B/W film now history?
Regarding Efke the German importer, www.fotoimpex.de, has announced on his website that they won't get film until October/November, because the factory is moving to the outskirts of Zagreb. Probably it takes longer than anticipated to resume production.
Generally speaking, b&w; film is a niche product and traditional slow speed film is a niche within this niche. And I read on www.fototechmag.com "that recent improvements in 100-speed black-and-white films [Delta/Tmax] have made slower-speed films increasingly irrelevant".
On the other hand, a small German firm has announced a new, utlra-high resolution film (www.gigabitfilm.de). 9x12cm and 4x5" is already on sale (ASA 25, 900 lp/mm, DM 170 for 50 sheets including special developer). The 35mm version (ASA 40, 720 lp/mmm, DM 17 per roll including developer) is announced for mid December. If only 20% of these company's promises are true, and beta-version tester confirmed it meets 100%, Agfa bailed out just in time. But no 120/220.
Hans-Peter

From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000
From: "Paul B. Hill" pbh@MIT.EDU
Subject: RE: BBlack & White slide film

> Is it true that Agfa makes a black and white slide film in > the 120 or 220 > formats, has anyone used it, and which Labs will develop it > > Mark
Your referring to AGFA's Scala film.
There are a limited number of labs that can process it,
http://www.agfaphoto.com/products/scalalabs.html
More information can be found at
http://www.agfaphoto.com/products/scala200.html
How to develop Scala yourself
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/devscala.htm
I like the film. However, most amateurs may not be happy with the results of printing. C-prints will tend to have a color cast. To print on traditional B&W; papers you, or the lab, will have to create an internegative. Most labs don't do a great job of making prints. The film is really aimed at the commercial photographer that is dealing with clients that are set up to receive transparencies but want B&W; for a particular job.
That being said you can get very good results if you subsequently scan the film, with a good scanner, and print the results using ConeTech's B&W; Piezography inks on a suitable printer.
http://www.coneeditions.com/conetech/piezographyBW.html
Paul

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Erik Asgeirsson" erik2@mediaone.net
[1] Another great IR film bites the dust - courtesy of Kodak
Date: Sun Dec 31 16:21:17 CST 2000
Surprised? Kodak has discontinued HIE Infrared Film in sheet sizes. Are any IR films still available in 4x5?
See the following link to Kodak -
http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?section=&cc;=US&lc;=en&product;=KODA K+High+Speed+Infrared+Film+(HSI)

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001
From: Keven Fedirko altered@lynx.net
Subject: Re: Bye bye Agfa

>In a newsflash I heard that Agfa will stop producing film, and will go >entirely >digital. Are you happy or disappointed ?

That would be a bummer -- but my favorite film (Agfachrome 1000) they stopped making in 1995 -- and nobody makes an equivalent. The reds were horrible, but it was an amazing outdoor available light concert film especially. Awesome grain (lots) and inexpensive, since you didn't need to push it -- so you also didn't get a lot of un-wanted contrast boost.
They make great B+W printing paper -- they only I've tried that gives decent results in RC -- and their Scala 200 B+W chrome film is amazing -- but a local shop stopped carrying their 35mm stock a couple months ago. Haven't tried any of their print-stock myself...
k.

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: James Lacey James.Lacey@Motorola.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro.ccd-imaging,sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Kodak film for astrophotography
James Lummel wrote:

> How good are the (readily available) Kodak Max films for astrophotography? > Are there better Kodak films that are easy to find or readily available Fuji > films? What are the general purpose films for astrophotography? > > Thanks, > > James

http://www.connecti.com/~rreeves/filmtest.htm
I use Fuji 800 Supera myself.
Works great.

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: Bill Brady wmbrady@olg.com
Subject: Svema arrived from Moscow
I shot some Russian Svema 120 film today. I developed it in D76 with good results. One huge difference is the thickness and stiffness of the paper backing. It reminded me of the old Kodak paper. Because of the difference, I got 11 1/2 pics on the roll in my Kiev 60. Part of this was my fault because I let it come partially unwrapped while loading. My mistake was not making sure the spool was engaged in the cameras dogs before proceeding.
The film arrived from Moscow wrapped in metal foil. Wrigleys could have packed this film as each roll is also wrapped in foil, reminding me of a stick of Juicy Fruit. The package is not moisture proof so care will be needed for refrigeration.
The speed is rated as ISO 64 and I shot it as 64. I might be tempted to down rate it to 50. Under a microscope it looks very sharp with good contrast.
Wm. "Bill" Brady, Harwood MD 38�51'30"N 76�41'00"W - Happy Holidays to all and to all a clear night!

From Rollei Mailing LIst;
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Rapid Rectilinear
Not completely. I have some Maco ortho film in 35mm that was sent to me for testing this year. Sadly, I haven't had the time to try it. Should be interesting for replicating an old fashioned look.
Bob

> From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Rapid Rectilinear > > It is only recently that orthochromatic film has completely disappeared. > I think the last pictorial ortho was Kodak Tri-X Ortho. Currently there are > some ortho high contrast films still being made.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001
From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de
Subject: [Leica] exploring the limits
Erwin, how did you find out that Gigabitfilm is plain Agfa Copex? I am not that much surprised , since it was evident that Gigabitfilm manufacturing is subcontracted to a major film maker. I understand making true quality film isn't a garage business. And there hasn't been much r&d; in improved, even less in "new" b&w; emulsions.
The idea to use document microfilm with low contrast, highly diluted developer for pictorial photography isn't new either. Therefore I find the marketing of Gigabitfilm exaggerated if not misleading. This strategy may backfire, since Gigabitfilm is adressing the most competent and ambitious darkroom enthusiasts who might have achieved similar results with their own developing technique.
On the other hand, the product is no rip-off at all! It is cheaper than Techpan with Technidol or Neofin Doku and offers Agfa Copex in a convient 35mm cartridge.
Hans-Peter

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] DOF Was: Selective focus cop out

> From: "Golvala, Charez (London)" cgolvala@velaw.com > Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to > Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 > To: "'contax@photo.cis.to'" contax@photo.cis.to > Subject: RE: [CONTAX] DOF Was: Selective focus cop out > > One thing puzzles me however, why do you think that film improvement will > adversely affect perceived DOF and therefore we may need a smaller CoC? I > would have thought that the CoC is a purely optical phenomenon and changes > with the variables mentioned above and also with the enlargement of the shot > and viewing distance. Assuming an enprint and standard viewing distance, > the optically deternined out of focus area would be the same whatever the > film used. On a grainy modern 1600 ASA film, you'd see the grain in in > focus bits and out of focus bits............so too on older film stock.

I think you're right. CoC, actually more properly CoLC (Circle of Least Confusion) is based on assumptions of the resolving ability of the human eye at "normal" print viewing distances. The larger the print the greater the assumed viewing distance. So it really does not depend on the film in use, although super fast, super grainy films might make a muddle of your circles. I used to use Kodak 2475 film at EI 1000 and processed in Rodinal, and although it makes a nice "charcoal drawing on rough paper" effect, nothing in the print really looks sharp except the film grain.
Bob

Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Another great IR film bites the dust - courtesy of Kodak
Erik Asgeirsson wrote:

> Surprised? Kodak has discontinued HIE Infrared Film in sheet sizes. > Are any IR films still available in 4x5?

Maco (http://www.mahn.net/) now makes IR film in several formats, including 4x5. The US distributer is Cachet (http://www.onecachet.com/), and the film is available from several retailers.
--Michael

Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001
From: smieglitz smieglitz@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Film Rant (was Re: Thoughts about 5x7)
Largformat wrote:

>(snip) > Some people seem insistent on trying to get films that have been discontinued > - T-Max or Delta 400. My advice is to let these go and concentrate on what is > available so we keep the demand up enough to keep these films available. >(snip) > I am interested in hearing other people's thoughts. > > Steve Simmons

I agree, but also wish to add the thought that the marketing division at Kodak is probably a major reason why the products eventually disappear, some sooner, some later. Kodak has pretty much lost all my business since they have discontinued my favorite products recently. These include Ektalure paper, 2475 Recording film (yes, 35mm, forgive me), VHC, 4x5 IR, and the not quite expired AZO. Granted, I'm a very small volume user, doing it for pleasure and not commercially, but when was the last time you saw an ad for Ektalure or AZO? 1960? Ever? No wonder these products disappear if they aren't marketed. Ektalure was the sweetest paper I've ever used and now it is gone. The Kodak reps I speak to all talk about demand and quote the bottom line, but never talk about their marketing department.
I'd like to buy a box of Kodak11x14 PCF 4125, but I'd have to special order $5000 worth (28 boxes). How many people here even know about PCF 4125?
And, I can't keep up with all the "New, improved" emulsions. Geez, how many Ektachromes are there now? How many do we really need? And, why is smaller-grained better? Maybe it is more accurate, but we've lost the expressive palette of the older, grainier films. (So, I'm a dinosaur...)
And another thing... I'm puzzled why Kodak markets 11x14 TMX and 4x5 TMX Readyloads, but doesn't offer the same in TMY. I mean, the large format cameras minimize grain effects, but the ease of use of these cameras would also benefit from the higher speed emulsions due to the larger lens' inherent reduced depth of field, extended duration exposures, etc. Who makes these decisions about what and how to market these products? We can lament the loss of products and let our opinions be voiced to Kodak, but I don't really think they care about any niche market or else they would be pushing different products. They really don't seem to care, and if you've called them recently, the front line phone reps don't seem to know much about photography or their company products (at least in my experience).
As Steve has suggested, perhaps it is better to let the big guys do their thing and let the smaller manufacturers know what we want in terms of products. So thanks to CAW for Centennial to replace Studio Proof, and to Bergger for the 200 in place of Super XX, and to Ilford for big HP5 and to Fuji for the RVP.
These manufacturers should all take out huge, eye-catching, big-time mondo ads in View Camera magazine every month and really push their products. And their R&D; departments could also look into a nice available pictorial ortho emulsion for me in 11x14 and other sizes. :)
Personally, I'm going to learn to make collodian wet plates and autochromes just in case all 11x14 films bite the dust in the near future.
Joe (smieglitz@aol.com)

From COntax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Film data sheets interpretation

> From: Tom Christiansen tomchr@ee.washington.edu > Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 > To: contax@photo.cis.to > Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Film data sheets interpretation > > All Fuji 100 speed negative film (as well as 160 speed NPS) has RMS values > of 4. NPC has 5. The value is 8 for Provia F100 and 10 for Sensia 100. > Everybody seems to agree on the fact that Provia and Velvia are the finest > grain films available, so it seems like the definition of RMS granularity > is measured differently with slide and print film.

I don't think so. Dye clumps (there is no real grain in color film) are smaller in color neg film due to the one-generation developing process. Slide film gets processed twice with a chemical reversal bath in between and this process tends to produce larger dye clumps. That's why any slide film at the same ISO will be grainier than the equivalent neg film.
Bob

Date: Mon Jan 15 2001
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.adverts,uk.rec.photo.misc
From: "Mike Chirnside" mike.chirnside@ntlworld.com> Re: Supply of 126 film anywhere ?
Agfa was, I believe, the last 126 manufacturer. They ceased production about a year ago and are using up world-wide stocks (I have four films remaining!). I, too, am searching for the stuff and will keep you posted (no pun intended!) if I find any!

rec.photo.marketplace
From: "Jadran Boban" jboban@bbm.hr
Date: Thu Feb 08 15:26:28 CST 2001
[1] EFKE Films
For everyone who is interested in EFKE films, I've been in Fotokemika shop today here in Zagreb, Croatia, and it seems that they are producing the film again. And the importer for the rest of the world is Fotoimpex in Germany (www.fotoimpex.de), so you should go there and order the films. I saw both 35 and 120 films (25, 40, 100, 400 ASA), and prices here are ~ $2 for role, they do have bigger packages (30,5 m ...). These are all the information I could get from saleing woman. One of these days I will try to check it from Fotokemika factory.
Greetings, Jadran.

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001
From: "Per Backman" pbackman@algonet.se
Subject: Re: Re: Svema 35mm Developing/"smelly"film
Kevin Kalsbeek wrote:
Perutz film was made in Spain in the 70's. i have a box from Perutz 21, Negativo Pancromatico 21 DIN, PERUTZ PHOTOWERKE M�NCHEN, which also says Manufacturado por Mafe, Aranjuez and Made in Spain. the slidefilm Perutz Color C18 says Made in Germany. Perutz made a C18 slide film from 1958, in 1971 a C19 appeared, but that may already have been an Agfaproduct.
Otto Perutz Trockenplattenfabrik was one of the oldest producers of negative materials in Germany and a leading one in the first half of the last century.
In 1987, when I was working in a shop with a minilab, an Agfa-salesman, who tried to sell us film, explained, that if an emulsion turns out really well, it is called Agfacolor Professional, if it turns out OK, it will be Agfacolor and if it is below the standards, it is called Perutz.
Ferrania was bought in 1963 by 3M (Scotch etc.)
Per B.

>Richard, >The 1962 "Amateur Photographer's Handbook" supports you. Perutz is listed >as a German film, period. >Best wishes, >Kevin

...

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001
From: Merlyn Gabriel merlyn@globalserve.net
Subject: [Rollei] new film
Has anyone out there tried the Ilford delta 3200?
It comes in 120 now.
sorry if this is not new news to anyone , I just found out about it today.... don't know quite how it will work in my dinosaur Rolleicord but I am gonna give it a try.
fiona

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001
From: fotoralf@gmx.de (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: big B/W film list
I've just found what the authors claim is a comprehensive list of all B/W film made world-wide. Do note that the copyright date is 1998, though.
Still I thought this might be quite interesting.
http://www.fotoline.ch/FOTOintern/98-18/sw-tab.htm
The following page includes a list with many addresses of B/W film manufacturers, a number of them are for their Swiss importers but still better than nothing:
http://www.fotoline.ch/FOTOintern/98-18/sw-filme.htm
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
coming soon: http://www.free-photons.de

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: rlf rlf@halcyon.com
[1] Boo to Kodak regarding Azo
Date: Tue Feb 20 11:46:25 CST 2001
Kodak's response to all of the positive promotion they have received from fine arts photographers like Michael Smith has been to practically eliminate the grade 3, 8 x 10 /100 . Grade 2 only. Few can invest in 500 sheet special orders. One more nudge into the abyss.
rlf

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] APS, a "brilliant format"

> From: "ross bleasdale" ross@rolleye.freeserve.co.uk > Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 > Subject: Re: [Rollei] APS, a "brilliant format" > > For Fuji APS slide film try www.7dayshop.com and Kodak B&W 400 APS film is > still available in the UK.

Last I heard you must still send the APS slide film to Japan for processing and mounting. No one in the USA offers the service. My last rolls took a couple of months to come back! I knew Kodak had planned B & W but did not know they actually marketed it anywhere. APS must be doing better in the UK than here, then. Ilford had plans for APS film, too, but shelved them when sales were well below expectations.
Bob

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo. + film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.large-formatR [1] Re: 120 Ortho film?
Date: Wed Feb 21 14:34:52 CST 2001
Try:
http://www.onecachet.com/pricez2.htm
Freestyle in Los Angeles also carries some MACO films. There are possibly more vendors. Run a quick search on www.google.com or www.northernlight.com
and see what comes up...
Michael
....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] consistency
Photographic gelatin is a much more purified product than the grocery store stuff. As I recall it is made from animal bones only, no skin or other stuff. It is much clearer than ordinary gelatin, and harder when it sets. I think you can buy it from places like Photographer's Formulary. I used it years ago when doing gelatin chromate printing. It is really fun to get it dissolved! Takes days.
Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001
From: Richard Urmonas rurmonas@senet.com.au
Subject: Re: [Rollei] consistency

> Isn't the film's emulsion an organic gelatin? If this is so, and gelatin being a > colorless or slightly yellow, transparent, brittle protein formed by boiling the > specially prepared skin, bones, and connective tissue of animals, wouldn't > various environmental conditions have an effect on these skin, bones, tissues > etc.? I don't know but it seems amazing that regardless of the external > conditions our film remains consistent year after year.

From: Ilford Manual of Photography, 5th edition, edited by Alan Horder, printed 1958: Pg 206:
Gelatin is an active binding agent, containing "impurities" which profoundly influence the speed of emulsions made from it.
and
The gelatin must be carefully chosen, since it is not a simple chemical but a complex mixture of substances obtained from the hides and tendons of animals, and, although silver salts form the actual sensitive material, gelatin plays a very important part both physically and chemically, as already explained. Gelatins vary greatly in their photographic properties. The "blending" of gelatins originating from different sources helps in producing a binder with the required properties and in obtaining consistency. The general way to test a blend of gelatin for performance is to use some of it to make an emulsion and to test this to see whether it possesses the desired photographic properties.
Any spelling problems are due to me.
Richard
Richard Urmonas
rurmonas@ieee.org

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] consistency
you wrote:

>What I find amazing is the consistently found in film year in and year out. > >Isn't the film's emulsion an organic gelatin? If this is so, and gelatin being a >colorless or slightly yellow, transparent, brittle protein formed by boiling the >specially prepared skin, bones, and connective tissue of animals, wouldn't >various environmental conditions have an effect on these skin, bones, tissues >etc.? I don't know but it seems amazing that regardless of the external >conditions our film remains consistent year after year. > >Appreciate hearing any thoughts on this issue.

The consistency is indeed astonishing, especially when you consider all the variables possible.C Color film, in particular, can have as many as twelve coatings, all of which must be very uniform if the film is to have consistent behaviour.
The Gelatin is only one component, but one of the most important. Gelatin acts as a carrier and protectant for the silver halides, but it has other functions, which take place during the emulsion making process.
Photographic gelatin is made from hides, ears, bones, of cattle and pigs. It is refined to a controlled pH range and purified as much as possible.
Kodak discovered before 1900 that trace compounds in the gelatin could have a profound effect on the characteristic of the emulsion, emulsions are now made with highly purified Gelatin where the trace compounds are added in known and controlled amounts.
What was discoverd at Kodak was that sulphur compounds in the gelatin as a result of the cows eating mustard plants considerably increased the sensitivity of the emulsion. When a batch of gelatin was used wich didn't have the sulfur in it the plates failed and the whole lot had to be replaced. The story is told in several places by C.E.K.Mees
Emulsion making used to be a very closely guarded secret, right up there with the formula for Coca-Cola. Much more of it is now protected by patents, but its still hard to find much about it in the literature.
Emulsion making goes through several steps. For a simple emulsion the steps are:
A solution of diluted gelatin is made which contains a halide, like Potassium Bromide. This is brought up to a fairly high temperature and a solution of Silver nitrate is squirted into it using a nozzle. The rate of addition of the silver nitrate determines the basic grain size. The faster the silver nitrate is added, the finer the grains.
When the silver nitrate is added to the gelatin-bromide mixture Silver bromide is precipitated. If this were done in water, the silver bromide would simply fall to the bottom of the container. However, the gelatin holds it in place. The reaction also produces potassium nitrate, which is washed out later.
Once the silver halide has been precipitated the the emulsion (its really a suspension)is allowed to "ripen" for a time at a relatively high temperature. When the ripening has progressed far enough additional gelatin is added and the emulsion is then rapidly cooled to form a gel. This gel is then washed by shredding into noodle shaped pieces, which are washed in cold water to remove any soluble salts.
After washing the gel is again melted and more gelatin added. It is now allowed to ripen again, at a controlled temperature. During this ripining the grains grow to their desired size and sensitivity. During this process, or just before it, various additives can be added to the emulsion, such as anti-foggants, sensitizers, color sensitizing dyes, hardeners, etc.
The emulsion can now be coated.
There is another type of emulsion called an ammoniated emulsion, which generally has higher sensitivity than the above. It is made in a similar way except that ammonia is added at the first precipitation stage and the temperatures and timing of the following processes is somewhat different.
Halides other than bromide can be added. Printing paper is made with Bromide, Chloride or a combination. Film is made with Bromide and Iodide, the Iodide considerably increasing the sensitivity.
The methods of ripining, and additives used during ripening have a profound effect on speed, grain size, and sensitivity. While some of this technology is discussed in the literature, especially more recent stuff, most of it was considered very secret, and I suspect much of it is still considered so.
The interaction of gelatin with the other components is complex and was not very well understood. Some modern papers indicate the understanding is much better now.
To some extent some plastics have been found wich can replace some of the gelatin, evidently some modern emulsions, particularly color emulsions, have considerable plastic in them. I do not have specific citations for this.
Part of the way T-Grain emulsons are formed has to do with the method of squirting the silver nitrate into the gelatin during the precipitation stage. Some data on this is found in the patent literature, which of course, is not written to make it easy to understand.
Probably the single strongest force for uniformity and consistency of photographic materials has been the motion picture industry. At one time it was necessary to test each emulsion number for speed and characteristics.
No more. It is also required that shots made at different times be intercutable without variation of color timing, etc. Kodak now claims to be so consistent that it is no longer necessary for producers to "bank" film with a given emulsion number in order to get consistent results.
In any case, George Eastman's ideal of doing the hard part at the factory is still very much with us.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Gregory Fraser Gregory.Fraser@pwgsc.gc.ca
Subject: [Rollei] OT APS Film Removal
Since there was some talk of APS film removal I thought I would list this site http://www.CameraHacker.com/ that has a detailed article on opening APS canisters without damaging them.
Greg Fraser

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Film Speed

>From Greg Fraser: > ....My question is why would you need a film speed of 64 or 160? Why > not 75 or 150?

First I remember that positive/negative Polaroid 665 P/N used to be rated 75 ASA. Now it is rated 80 ASA for a reason (this is my guess) explained below.
My understanding is that the standard ASA speed scale (a linear scale in terms of exposure E x t) is in correspondence step by step with the DIN series (a logarithmic scale). A logarithmic series makes sense since the eye has a logarithmic response in terms of grey levels, and that the "linear" portion of the film response curve (where mid-tones should be placed) is in fact always plotted in a log-log scale.
The decimal logarithm of 2 being 0.30, the value 1+10*log_10(ASA) rounded up to an integer yields something close to the standard DIN series. So the reason why (+3 DIN = -one f-stop = 2 x in terms of sensitivity) is a numerical coincidence due to the particular value of log_10(2) = 0.30.
Now the starting value of both series is somewhat arbitrary. This is now ISO-normalised as a peaceful agreement between the US (ASA) and Europe-Germany (DIN). There used to be other scales like "Scheiner" in Germany before WWII.
-- Emmanuel BIGLER bigler@ens2m.fr

FRom Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001
From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Orwo Film
It is just a trademark nowadays. I believe Agfa is using it for marketing older colour neg emulsions through discount stores. www.fotoimpex.de offers Ilford FP4 and HP5 under the Orwo label.
Hans-Peter

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Paterson ISO 200 and 800 Films
I shot a couple rolls of each flavor when they came out two or three years ago. I didn't find them remarkable in any way, but certainly decent film. They would not tell me, but my guess is that they are rebranded Ilford. They are marked "Made in the UK" as I recall, and I don't know of anyone other than Ilford currently manufacturing film in the UK.
Bob

> From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net > Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Rollei] OT Paterson ISO 200 and 800 Films > > Dear All, > > Has anyone used these black and white films? Who makes them for Paterson? > Are they any good - they are supposed to be "high tech" emulsions? > > Thanks, > > David Morris > > > David Morris (pbccon@gn.apc.org@gn.apc.org)

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001
From: Fred Greenspan greenspan@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Paterson ISO 200 and 800 Films
Philippe Tempel wrote:

> I've been reading about 200SFX. Anyone have experience with this > film? It's seems to be much easier to work with if you want some > infraredish effects by using it with a red filter.

Compared to "true" infrared films SFX is not that impressive, IMHO. My own experience concurs with Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz in their book "Perfect Exposure" - that you have to use it with a true infrared filter, rather than a Red 25 or 29, to get the really obvious sort of infrared effects. There are some good examples throughout the book. Even with a B&W; 092 I still don't get anywhere near what I get from Maco 820, or believe I would get with Konica 750 when it is available, and this give less effect than Kodak HIE. So, if you just want a little infrared inhancement, give the SFX a try. But, if you want that infrared look, Maco and Konica seem just about as easy to handle and will give more effect. If you are really interested you should join the Infrared List.

Send the message: SUBSCRIBE INFRARED to MAJORDOMO@A1.NL *----------------------------------------------------* * For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links: * * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm *

Back on Topic, Rollei TLR's are great for using the really dense infrared filters. You don't have to take the filter off each time for focusing!-Fred

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
From: "Mikko Niskanen" mikko.niskanen@turkuamk.fi
Subject: AGFA selling its film industry
Now this was up as a rumour some time ago, but today's Helsingin Sanomat (biggest newspaper in Finland) had a small article that Agfa is selling its film industry and concentrating on digital products. Possible buying candidates were told to be Konica and some other I don't recall.
It is also visible in a less obvious way in AGFAs home site: http://www.agfa.com
Look for the "Targets for 2000 clearly exceeded" and search for "Consumer Imaging".
They write that no agreement has been done yet, but they are negotiating.
Mikko

[Ed.note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted Leicaphile and lens/camera/film tester who writes numerous articles, books (and even CDROMs) on photography related subjects...]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:09:49 +0100 From: imx Subject: [Leica] 400ISO slides (part 2) Message-ID: References: The Macbeth color checker chart is the base for the sensitometric analysis and the color comparison. The emulsions for slide film are much more honest than their color neg collegues. Generally the color reproduction and differences in color hues are light years ahead compared to the color neg emulsions. One notes that the demands for color neg (exposure latitude, acceptable colors in all kinds of color temperature, high contrast range of the object) are too much for the emulsion: the loss of color accuracy is one obvious consequence.
After using slide film and doing a test of color neg I am always shocked at the loss of overall quality with the color neg films. And by now I have tested almost every color neg film on the market. (and slide films too!) Now on to the films at hand. One quite remarkable observation which holds for all three films (E200, EPL400 and 400F) is the low density of black. In previous generations of slide film I could measure an easy Dmax of 2.2 and even sometimes 2.5. In the old days one could see the meter stop at D=3.0, but that is nostalgia.
Now we are happy to get D=1.85. It is obvious that the low maximum density is needed for good scan quality, but it is too low for brilliant projection. A change in habit that is being picked up by the slide film manufacturers I suppose. By the way, the maximum density of the deep black in a slide film is now lower that that of a high quality BW print, where D=2.2 is still the norm.
The Macbeth chart has a grey scale running from 0.05 (white) to 1.5 (black) in six steps:

400F EPL400X E200 at 400 0.05 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.62 0.60 0.69 0.70 0.92 0.91 0.98 1.05 1.28 1.38 1.38 1.5 1.66 1.81 1.71 base 0.10 0.10 0.14 max D 1.85 1.81 1.83

These figures tell you all you want to know. The contrast range of the object is 1:30 and it easy to see that the films cannot handle more. The 400F and the E200 have a bit more tolerance in the shadow area, the EPL400X can handle specular highlights more routinely.
Note that the 1:30 range is compressed by te 400F to 1:7.5, the EPL400 to 1:6.9 and the E200 at 400 to 1:7.4.
I will spare you the rest of the data. The exposure latitude of the 400F is the least (from -1/4 to +1/2), Greatest with K400 which can handle easily �1/2 stop). E200 at the 400 push has a bit wider latitude than 400F, but is at its best at +1/2. So the 400 push should be 320 on the exposure meter. The grey values are true greys with only a very slightly bluish cast for all three films.
It is not my habit to rank films as there are too many variables involved and applications to look at. And luckily I am not forced to abide to consumerism.
The 400F and the E200 (at 320) are a close match with that perennial Kodak/Fuji difference in philosophy (acutance versus fine grain (in this order). When projecting the slides all three films performed well, with the EPL400 a bit gritty (Tri-X like) and the others more like Tmax100. Still you should try them all three to find the film that suits your style.
I used my M6 and the Tri-Elmar for these tests, which is a great combo with the 400ISO slide films. Maybe one should bury some preconceived opinions regarding this lens. It is an excellent performer and very versatile when snapshooting/grabbing candids.
Erwin

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001
From: Robert Meier robertmeier@usjet.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] What do people here use for high speed B&W; film?
Ilford's (relatively) new Delta 3200 is a superb high speed film. I shoot it at 1600 and develop it in T-Max developer per Ilford recommendations and get results that have full tonal range, good contrast, and no grain in 8x10 enlargements and only barely visible grain at 11x14.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001
From: imx imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] ISO400 slide films
Just completed a test with slide films: Kodak Ektachrome 400X, Fuji Provia 400F, Kodak E200 pushed to 400 and Kodak 100SW as a reference. Colour rendition, sensitometric curves will be discussed later. Now the grain and resolution issues.
Using the same pattern as with the high resolution BW test, these are the results for resolution. (M6 with Apo 90 at f/4 at 3 meters)

Kodak 400X 45 lp/mm Fuji 400F 55- 60 lp/mm Kodak E200 pushed to 400 60 -65 lp/mm Kodak 100SW 60 -70 lp/mm

For grain pattern (microscope at 40/100/400 times enlargement) the conclusion is more difficult.
Finest grain is for provia 400F and Kodak 100SW, with the latter one having the finest grain and the tighest dye clouds. Provia's dye clouds are very smooth and evenly distributed but also a bit vague. The E200 at 400 is second by a very small margin, but shows higher acutance, so bringing more sparkle and edge definition. The 400X is having dye clouds at about two times the size of the Provia, but its edge sharpness is very high, giving pictures with punch but with rough fingerprint.
All tests on tripod! Comparison shots handheld at 1/125 and 1/250 showed a drop of resolution from 70 to above 30 (I managed in some shots 40 lp/mm). Still excellent in itself. On close scrutinity the difference is not the resolution as such, but the edge contrast at the 30 lp/mm threshold. here the tripod pictures show extreme clarity and excellent edge sharpness, where the handheld shots tend to some fuzziness at the edges and a less crisp rendition of fine detail.
My choice: Kodak E200 pushed to 400. A very versatile film, can be used at 200 with almost ISo100 quality and at 400 equals the Provia and offering a bit more edge contrast to suit the leica lenses.
The Provia is the choice without any doubt if you need the fine grain and unobtrusive rendition of larger patches of uniform colour. There is stil no substitute for a very good ISo100 if you have to pull the last detail out of the negative.
Kodachrome comparison has to wait because of long processing time!
Erwin

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] 167MT with IR film?
Ilford SFX is not a true infrared film. It just has extended red sensitivity.
It was originally developed as a special film for use in automated cameras at traffic lights and over highways. The extended red sensitivity allows license plates to be seen clearly even through some fog. Heavy fog, of course, will block everything.
Bob
...

[Ed. note: Mr. Shell is a noted glamour photographer, photobook author, industry analyst, former editor of Shutterbug, repair guru...]
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Let down by my Rollei

> From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com > Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Let down by my Rollei > > Kodachrome is NOT dead > long live Kodachrome!

No, it is not dead, but I have a feeling it will be in a matter of a few years. Kodak tried to liven things up for Kodachrome with their smaller K-lab introduced a few years ago. It was a dismal failure in the marketplace and I do not know of even one in operation in the USA. Some versions of Kodachrome have already been discontinued this year, so I think the writing is on the wall.
Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001
From: Robert Lilley lilley@eclipse.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT Orwo Film
Nope, Orwo is still alive and well
This is one such source: http://www.phomage.com out of Canada. A Polish friend of mine tells me it was a big hit in Eastern Europe, this is why I am following up on it.
Rob
...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Orwo Film
David Morris wrote:

>Was >ORWO a post war version of a pre war company like Agfa?

Gosh! How quickly we forget our past! The original AGFA plant was at Wolfen in Germany. After the War, this fell into the Soviet Zone of occupation. And, in the trademark litigation which followed the Soviet efforts to 'nationalize' companies, AGFA retained the rights to their names. So, the East Germans, with an unusual bit of wit, continued production under the "ORiginal WOlfen" brand, or "ORWO".
The Great Socialist Friends of the People didn't give a shit for environmental concerns, so ORWO continued to produce silver-heavy films and papers long after these were illegal in the West. I have a few rolls of "Original ORWO" film left, and a scant few sheets of that wonderful fiber paper, all carefully frozen. This, and my sole role of PanX, will be used someday ...
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001
From: J Patric Dahl�n jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Orwo Film
David Morris wrote:

>EFKE is not so good with flare and against the light subjects IMHO.

Use a Sun Shade! ;-)
Efke films are the last ones of the "old school" films with a single layer old type emulsion. At least is that what I've heard. I like the results of Efke films, their grain, sharpness and grey scale. I think the R 25 and R 50 films are the only orto-panchromatic films on the market today.
/Patric

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: ahem
Brian Reid wrote:

>Anybody got anything to say about photography?

A while back, Kodak sent me a half dozen rolls of K64 and said "use these along side your current slide film, send the K64 to us, process your current slide film as you always do." I was photographing some illustrations for a scenic Napa Valley book so took the K64 and my trusty Velvia. On every setup (always a tripod with Arca release clamp) I had one R7 loaded with Velvia and another loaded with K64. I switched bodies, moves the lens to the new body, and photographed everything in duplicate. After a couple of days photographing around Napa valley, I sent the K64 to Kodak and I processed my Velvia. Kodak sent me the processed K64 and I was to fill out an extensive evaluation (many pages) and send them identical samples from each film. I made plenty of in camera dupes.
The bottom line was that for sheer brilliance, color, and beauty, the Velvia blew away the K64. The LP/MM resolution difference between the two films was irrelevant as these were book illustrations and not meant to be murals. Not that Velvia is second fiddle to K64 in this ballpark anyway.
And part of my evaluation, besides the obvious, said that after travel to get somewhere (always costly), several days of intense photography (even more costly), and travel back, I refuse to pack my film in a box to be then shipped yet on another trip (not in my custody) to "hope" that it makes it there and back, and doesn't get lost or corrupted in a lab, whose location I know not where, and whose personnel I know not of.
Therefore, I'll stick to my Velvia and Provia 100F and 400F films. I have yet to find Velvia saturation and balance objectionable. On the contrary. I find it intensely to my liking. I quite often use 100F at ASA 200 and 400F at ASA 800. Good stuff.
Jim

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Lawrence Akutagawa" laku@sprintmail.com
[1] Re: Source of cheap 4x5 film
Date: Sun Apr 08 00:31:50 CDT 2001
My 2 cents....hang around a photo store and be on the lookout for discontinued/outdated 8x10 film. When available, grab it and hie to the darkroom to cut it down to 4x5. Of course, clip the tip of the upper right corner of the newly cut 4x5 sheets to maintain orientation of emulsion side up. Works like a charm. Last time I did this, I scrounged a couple of 25 sheet boxes of 8x10 ISO 200 bw for $10 apiece.
Lawrence
-----
My Email address is aku@sprintmail.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: [Rollei] [OFF-TOPIC] Kodachrome in 120/220 : Lausanne Lab Info
I just placed a phone call to the Kodak Lausanne (Switzerland) lab about Kodachrome film. This lab is the one where I send my 35mm rolls.
- the person I had on the phone in Lausanne has never heard about 220 size Kodachrome. I double-checked the ad' in "Chasseurs d'Images", and 220 is what is actually printed ; either a misprint or a special order.
- To the question : "what do you think about buying some 120 Kodachrome if someboby offers an old stock" the technician's answer was clearly : "I strongly recommend *against* buying it." One of the reasons, beyong the fact that the film will be far outdated, is as follows:
- In Europe there will be an *ultimate* run of 120 Kodachrome processing *this October 2001*. So for Europeans who still have Kodachrome in 120 size, this is the very last opportunity to have it processed. All films sent before October will be kept refrigerated and assembled for processing in the final run.
My opinion would be that it could be fun as a collector ;-) to be the proud owner of one of the very last 120 Kodachrome rolls in History, to but make understand the potential vendor that he should really ask a small price for it.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Agfa
Agfa in talks with investor to shed photography
AGFA has announced that is 'in intensive negotiations' with one of the world's largest investment companies regarding a possible take-over of the multinational's photographic divisions. The Belgian company unveiled news of the talks to staff and released a public statement last Friday (20 April), revealing that London-based firm Schroder Ventures (which already has an investment in film manufacturer Ferrania) is interested in acquiring Agfa's Film, Finishing, Lab Equipment and Consumer Digital Imaging divisions. The business employs 5000 personnel worldwide.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: Goodbye Kodachrome 25 film
Ken Lassiter wrote:

>Kodak confirms plans to discontinue Kodachrome 25 film > Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, N.Y., said it will discontinue >Kodachrome 25 color reversal slide film later this year. > Improvements in consumer versions of both Kodachrome 64 and 200 >films, which represent the majority of the > Kodachrome business, as well as performance advances in the >Ektachrome family of films, have made these films more > popular with consumers. As a result, Kodak has seen a significant >decline in use of Kodachrome 25 film. Kodak said it can > no longer justify production of products with extremely limited >usage. Kodak will continue to offer Kodachrome 64 and > 200 consumer film. > The company has provided retailers with a specific timetable for >inventory planning purposes in the near future. > However, Kodak anticipates supplies will be available for most of the >year. > >Now, what will we test Leica lenses with? > >Ken Lassiter

Tech Pan & Velvia.
JB

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: Eduard Crombie crombie@skynet.be
Subject: RE: 70mm Film in the UK
Dear Brian, Q.G., Stein,
As promised in a previous post, a list of the films I found on the Kodak and Agfa sites available in 70mm roll format. Apologies for eventual typos that have crept in.
Eduard.

=========================================== Kodak Professional Ektachrome E 100 S 70mm x 100ft - E100S/SP475 - CAT No 110 1302 =========================================== Kodak T-Max 100 Professional TMX 70mm x 100ft - TMX/SP473 - CAT No 801 1702 =========================================== Kodak Professional Ektachrome Duplicating film EDUPE 70mm x 100ft - EDUPE/SP481 - CAT No 813 7523 =========================================== Kodak Ektapan film 70mm x 75ft - /SP473 - CAT No 152 6797 =========================================== Kodak Plus-X Pan Professional film 70mm x 100ft - PXE/SP473 - CAT No 165 0480 =========================================== Kodak Tri-X Pan film TX 70mm x 100ft (no perfo) - TX/SP473 - CAT No 852 7616 =========================================== Kodak Portra 400VC, 400NC, 160VC, 160NC Long rolls, but no info if 35mm or 70mm, no CAT code. =========================================== Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 PE1 70mm x 30,5m (100ft) - P(perfo) - CODE 3GYSN =========================================== Agfa Aviphot Color X100 PE1 70mm x 30,5m (100ft) - P - CODE EELTH =========================================== Agfa Aviphot Color N400 PE1 70mm x 30,5m (100ft) - P - CODE 37XBM =========================================== Agfa Agfachrome Duplicating Film CRD 70mm x 30,5m (100ft) DP (no code) ================================================

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: Ragnar Hansen Ing A/S raghans@powertech.no
Subject: Re: 70mm Film in the UK
There is another way to get hold of 70 mm film. It's cheap but it needs some working.
The companies who does aerial photo for mapping and LF pictures mostly use 9,5" film.
When the only have 20-30 pictures left on the roll they seldom bother to take this along on a new flight. Therefore ,their freezers are often stuck with such rolls with 20-30 feet ends.
If you contact them and telling what your intended use is, most of the time their happy to get rid of these for free or for a nominal fee.
I made myself a cutting machine with two spools and an axel with rotating cutting blades.
I recut this film to whatever I want, mostly for myself it is five inch for the aerotechnica. 30 feet of 9,5 inch will be 90 feet of 70 mm.
You still got a problem; the hassy 70 mm magazines are made for perforated film.
I am sure that preforating machines exist, but I am afraid they only belong to companies like kodak etc. If someone know of one, please e-mail me.
I have seen convertion kits for the hassy 70 mm mags on e-bay, but these was only a wheel with a rubber o-ring to exchange for the sprocket wheel in the magazine.
I do not know how safe this is regading spacing of the pictures. A better idea would be to exchange the roller in line with the sprocet wheel with a smaller roller with a high friction rubber hose. I will make up some of these when I get hold of some hose.
Ragnar Hansen

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001
From: Dave Huffman huff@teleport.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 Kodachrome film users
I was astonished to realize there ever was 120 Kodachrome (why not?!). The Kodachrome list (almost all 35mm, of course) is suicidal over the announcement of Kodak's discontinuing K25 in 35mm format. Here is a note from the Kodachrome list re: 120 KChrome processing by Kodak:

Subject: [Kodachrome] Kodakchrome film (KMM1074651C0KM) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 From: USA Support USAsupport@kodak.com To: kodachrome@kjsl.com

Here is a copy of the letter sent out to 120 Kodachrome film users who submit their film for processing.
March 2001
Dear Kodachrome User,
Thank you for sending to us your Kodachrome 120 roll film.
I am writing to inform you that since the discontinuation of this film in 1997, the volume of 120 Kodachrome films being sent for processing has diminished significantly.
As a result of this, we are taking the following steps:
1. From Friday, 30 March 2001 Kodachrome 120 film processing will be suspended. All films received after this date will be stored under refrigerated conditions awaiting the final processing run*. *If you would prefer us to return your film to you unprocessed please contact us.
2. On Monday, 1 October 2001 the final processing run for 120 Kodachrome will be conducted. This is the last day by which films for processing must have been received. After this date, we will be unable to process any further films, films received will be returned to the sender.
It is our understanding that this laboratory is the only remaining facility in the world able to process 120 Kodachrome 64 into colour transparencies. If you have any remaining stocks of this film, I recommend that you should send them to us for processing to reach this lab before the final date above.
Please note that processing services for 35mm Kodachrome film will continue for the foreseeable future.
Yours faithfully,
Customer Service Manager

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 Kodachrome film users
I believe Kodak is trying to get rid of K-14 processing and do not understand the reason for it. Kodak doesn't make any other film that has its color rendition or storage archival life. The additional problem is no E-6, nada, zip, zero, made by anyone, has the edge sharpness of Kodachrome, color rendition aside, and I doubt that there ever will be with any E-6 emulsion. The basis for that is _not_ rms diffuse granularity numbers . . . it's the inherent emulsion designs for K-14 and E-6 processing. K-14 emulsions are thinner because they do not have the dye couplers in them. E-6 emulsions do. This difference is what gives Kodachrome its "edge sharpness."
I will "second" Richard's suggestion to shoot some extremely fine grained chrome through your best MF camera (lens) some time if you have never done so. Then revel in the results and have some prints made from the best frames on the roll. If you manage to do it with some Kodachrome, so much the better. If not, try some Provia 100F instead (an excellent general purpose film). IMO it has the combination of color rendition, saturation, and contrast closest to Kodachrome 64 (but still does not have the sharpness). There are those who love Velvia or E100VS or some of the others. Reason I recommended the Provia 100F is that it is a general purpose film . . . not super saturated, low contrast, etc. . . . and it is the finest grain E-6. Reminds me . . . I need to pick up the 8x10 "R" prints being made from some 645 chromes day after tomorrow.
....

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 Kodachrome film users
...
I have no inside information on this at all, so the following is speculation on my part. I've heard that Kodachrome processing chemicals are on the EPA's hit list, and perhaps this is the reason Kodak seems so intent on killing Kodachrome.
Bob

From Kiev 88 Mailing LIst;
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: Bill Brady wmbrady@olg.com
Subject: Re: Any "cross processors" out there?
JeffClarkPhoto@cs.com Wrote:

>If you're not at all familiar >with it, it's when you take either E-6 film processed in C-41

I've been developing Ektachrome in C41 for many years. You end up with super saturated color and no orange mask. Fantastic still lifes.
Wm. "Bill" Brady, Harwood MD 38�51'30"N 76�41'00"W - 7 cloudy nights predicted.

From Kiev88 Mailing LIst;
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: "J-2" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: Re: Any "cross processors" out there?
Jeff
Just shot a roll of Ektachrome Pro with the Lubitel the other day and had it 'cross-processed'. To get max effects (the type you see in cd covers and magazines)- this is what is usually done-
1] Overexpose by about 2 stops. The denser the negative you get, the more the 'crossed effect'gets better. This is dependent on the film type you're using. With Ektachromes, two stops are usually sufficient. With Fujichrome, one stops is often sufficient, and with Fujichrome Velvia, with its dense dyes normal exposures (EI 50) works.
2] Processing is as for normal C-41 negative film. Running E-6 type films in negative chemistry won't foul up the soup.
3] Have a 'straight' proof made and evaluate the results. A custom lab can make better prints.
4] Lighting wise, the contrast is exaggerated. If you want less shadows (they tend to be very opaque), use fills like crazy. Otherwise, if it's contrast you're after, then use extreme lighting ratios. 1:2 will likely give harsh highlights and heavy shadows.
BTW, the shoot I did the other day is for a CD cover. I'm looking at the proofs as I type this and I've just described to you the technique I used.
regards
Jay

From Kiev 88 Mailing LIst:
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: Jan Zitzmann zitzmann@gmx.de
JeffClarkPhoto@cs.com wrote:

> I want > to do some playing around with cross processing. Not even our lab tech who's > sharp, knows of who or exactly how it's done. If you're not at all familiar > with it, it's when you take either E-6 film processed in C-41 or vise versa.

I have my films crossprocessed at my local minilab (slide as well as neg) and it works out fine. Just remember that not every film is suitable for x-processing, since some films tend to dev. to a extreme color disbalance, which is not what you want. In fact you want fake colors, and wil lcorrect for color imbalances while doing your prints. This compensation is also the reason why I found that I had to do prints from my xprx-processed material myself, machines just won't get you what you want.
In principle you'll have to find out for every kind of film (and sometimes even lab) what ASA is right when it's x-processed. This is crucial, for - as you know - the outcome is rather contrasty and therefore the correct exposure is even more critical than with slide film (maybe bracket).
As a starting point I would recommend to expose slide film to its nominal ASA for processing in C41. Neg-film I would over-expose for three stops or have the lab push it three stops in E6, while you expose it to nominal ASA. From this you might guess that x-processing neg-film is much more critical - and indeed it is.
Just want to mention that there's also the possibility to process film (slide or neg) in BW developper - called Maximisation. A technique I haven't played around with (yet).
Some good links for x-processing:
http://www.darkroom.org/pages.php?page=Techniques
http://members.aol.com/photoinfo/TipsTricks.html
http://www.geocities.com/nitelitephoto/xtech.htm
http://www.agfaphoto.com/de/library/photocourse/200005/index.html
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/99/23/index3a_page4.html?tw=design
have fun
Jan

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001
From: "Fox, Robert" RFox@aarp.org
Subject: RE: [Rollei] TMax 100: link to film reviews
See link at Photography review for user opinions of B&W; film - it's worth a look:
http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/blackandwhite_film/
R.J.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: xosni@gega.net (xosni)
Date: Wed May 23 09:43:41 CDT 2001
Newsgroups: soc.culture.egyptian,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment. + medium-format,rec.photo.technique.people
[1] Forte, a sleeping beauty
I don't know how many people here use Forte films (esp. Fortepan 100), but I realized that it's looked upon & ignored by many..just because it's grainy. I have found that this film renderes unparalled tonality. I'm talking about the 120 which seems to have a different curve than the 35mm. I develop in DK-50(1:1).
The film is grainier than TX but the gradation is beautiful & antique. I tried it in Xtol straight but with not as good separation. So far I have used it for studio work. Try it!
Xosni
email preferred
xosni@gega.net

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: "Alan Kerr" southernlightsphotography@xtra.co.nz
Subject: Re: Difference between film types?
Patrtyck check out these sites
http://www.agfa.com/library/photocourse/index.html
http://www.primenet.com/~bcalzada/
http://www.photosecrets.com/
Best Wishes
Alan Kerr
Southern Lights Photography
http://www.Minoltians.ws the gallery dedicated to Minolta Photographers

From Camera Makers Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 22 May
From: Mike Hadley mike@spcplus.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Glass plates - ortrochromatic emulsion
Hello there,
I have been making glass plates for quite a while now, it's the only way to get plates to fit my older cameras. It would be nice to know about any other recipes for emulsion and methods of coating glass.
Mike

From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
From: bmaxey1@juno.com
Reply to: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: 5" b&w; film for sale
Try Kodak, too. Especially before you order outside the USA. You run a risk of damage, you do not know how long it will sit or the conditions it will be exposed to. You might not have the problem, but it pays to check around first.
Through the Aerial Film division of EK Co, you can purchase a variety of materials including Panatomic-X and color materials.. They are for the most part not factory stocked in any size - with a few exceptions. There is NO minimum order requirements, either. Many materials are available on several base thicknesses
HCM

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
From: Alfred Zommers A.Zommers@bhtafe.edu.au
Subject: [NIKON] Re: NATURAL CURL of film
Peter Wear wrote:

> Can anyone say why film has this 'natural curl'? This is more than idle > curiosity - those of us who project slides have to wrestle with film curl. I > do my own E6 processing and notice that the film has nothing like the same > curl before development as it does when it comes out of the tank. If it's > too bad the projector can't get even focus from centre to edge. Can you take > bad curl out of film?

Either the backing (or substrate) stretches during processing or more likely the emulsion shrinks. The shrinkage does not have to be much to cause the curl. Can you fix it, Yes, by placing the film in an album and placing some weight on it. Over time the negative or slide will be flat. However, having said that, the heat from the projector may return the curl again.
- --
bye for now,
Alfred

- -------------------- Dr. Alfred Zommers Ph.D. PO Box 474 Box Hill Victoria 3128 Australia

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001
From: Shane W Davis swdavis@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [contaxg.com] Gigabit and the G (fwd)
You may find this new film interesting, if you haven't read about it before. Site is in German. /sd
The other Gigabit film page at:
http://www.2pics.de/2pics/drf/gigabitfilm.htm is also a good place to start.

>I found an article on the film where the guy tests the film >with Contax G optics: > >http://www.2pics.de/2pics/drf/gbft2.htm

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: Re: [contaxg.com] Gigabit and the G (fwd)
....(see above posting)
The reason this isn't making a big splash is that it is ordinary document film, been around for quite awhile, developed in a weak developer. Exactly how Kodak Tech Pan works. And Kodak Tech Pan, well known to the photo world, produces basically equal results.
Basically... this is no big deal. Independent tests (those NOT run by the manufacturer) show that for anything less than heroic photographic measures, Tech Pan is totally as good. And easier to get, easier to process, etc...
Jim

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: Re: Ektachrome E200?
Anne Bellenger wrote:

>I've used E200 only in 35mm format and found it to be inferior to Fuji >Velvia. Colors in E200 don't seem as saturated as Velvia, and that is >only for macro flower shots. In the Hassie EL/M I use Fuji NPS 120, >Professional 160, color negative. It's adequate for nature shots, like >landscapes. I wish Fuji would make Velvia in 120 size. > >Anne B.

Velvia and E200 are at different ends. Velvia ASA 50 (best at 40), E200 at ASA 200, best at 360. They cannot be compared.
Velvia is available in both 120 and 220. I use both.
Jim

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Film expiry date
you wrote:

>My question is would the life expectancy be prolonged by >putting it in the fridge/ freezer remembering this is non professional >film and has >been stored on the shop shelf and not in the fridge.

Yes. For all practical purposes, film aging ceases while it's frozen.

- -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
From: "Jonathan King" jon@king.mv.com
Subject: Re: Kodachrome
Ok, Here are some film names and speeds from the US army manual 'Elements of Signal Photography', Dec 1953. It is a 'how to' manual, in good detail, including film types , characteristics and chemical formulas.

Excerpts from their film list: "35mm Film for the Miniature Camera" Color Transparencies: Ansco Color Daylight ASA 12 Ansco Color Tungsten ASA 12 Kodachrome Type A ASA 10 Kodachrome Daylight ASA 10 B&W Super XX ASA 100 Plus X ASA 50 Panatomic X ASA 25 When you get to roll and sheet film, you pick up Ektachrome, Daylight ASA 8 Ektachrome, Type B ASA 10 Tri-X Pan ASA 200 (sheet film only)

The manual emphasizes the need to be able to use any film locally available, so I think that the list was fairly comprehensive, and not limited to 'official' army film types.
This should nail down the names and speeds at least at one point in time. I can not add my memories of 1953, because mine don't start for another decade ;)

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rodinal/sulfite (formerly I love the Rolleinar!)
you wrote:

>It's Kodak Tri-X. I also found (and still find) some of the manufacturer's >shorthand names for their films confusing. Check an archive for this list >and you'll find a small discussion here on it (as compared to TXP or Tri-X >Professional) whithin the last week. > >> I hope I'm not asking something really stupid. What is TX? >> >> Gene

The differences between the two films sold as Tri-X can be seen from their data sheets, available from the Kodak site at http://www.kodak.com
For some reason beyond me Kodak decided to market two very different films using almost identical names. Tri-X Pan film is a medium-toe general purpose film (TX, ISO 400)), Tri-X Pan Professsional is a very long toe film for studio work (TXP, ISO-320). The tonal rendition of the two films is quite different. The confusion is that both are available in 120. In 35mm size, only the medium toe film is available, and in sheet sizes only the long toe film.
There are also two Plus-X films but only the medium toe film is available in 35mm and 120 sizes. The long toe film is sold only as sheet film.
Medium toe Tri-X is most like the traditional Tri-X which made this film's reputation.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Developer for Rollei Negatives
you wrote:

>Could part of the lacking be lower silver content? >Dale > >Gerald Lehrer wrote: > >> you really should discuss >> the differences between a "physical" developer >> and a purely "chemical" developer. There is >> something about looking at some of my 40-50 >> year old Rollei negatives that is lacking in recent >> negatives.

There is probably not much difference in silver content in modern films. T-grain films have greater covering power than standard films so can have somewhat less siver. They are capable of much greater density than most older films. There appears to be no relationship between silver content and maximum density of either film or paper.
Richard Henry actually measured silver content of a number papers and also measured their Dmax. The highest Dmax was one of the middle silver content papers and the paper with the least silver had density equal to that with the most silver.
There is a great deal more in emulsions than silver halide. A large part of the magic of emulsion making is the technique of obtaining the suspension to begin with and the exact techniques of ripening (cooking) the emulsion along with the many additives put in at just the right time.
Modern emulsions are even more complex plus may have some of the gelatin replaced by polymers of various sorts.
Some idea can be gotten by reading recent patents on emulsions. Older emulsions were very closely guarded trade secrets. Reportedly (in a 50th anniversary book about Kodak Labs) only three people at Kodak knew the whole method of making emulsions there. In GE's day, he was one of the three. The complaint was that the scientists in the research labs could not find out what the emulsion department was actually doing.
Kodak relys more on patents now than in the past but much of emulsion making is still secret.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: "Mr. Wratten" mr_wratten@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Ratio of LF to MF and SF shooters
"P. MacGahan" p2macgahan@compuserve.com wrote

> I suspect the difference in the numbers is substantial. Perhaps the > number of people is only 10:1, but the difference in the amount of > film shot by each, must also be quite large.

If you look at it from a film volume perspective, a 35mm 36 exposure cassette contains about 1.4in x 67in of film, or about 94 sq in. One sheet of 4x5 film is 20 sq in of film. So five 4x5's about equal one 35mm cartridge.
Adorama sells a roll of 35mm 36 exp Plux-X for $3.69, or about 3.9 cents per sq in. They sell a 25 count box of Plus-X 4x5 for $17.95, or about 3.6 cents per sq inch. However, this is not really a valid comparison because of the extra packaging involved in selling 35mm. 100 feet of bulk Plus-X (1680 sq in) costs $31.95, or 1.9 cents per sq inch. 100 sheets of 4x5 (2000 sq in) costs $66.95, or 3.4 cents per sq inch.
So, for perforating and packaging onto 100' rolls, you pay 1.9 cents/sq in. For cutting into rectangles and putting into boxes, you pay almost twice as much for what is basically the same thing. I'd say that Kodak is already getting their money's worth out of LF photographers. I'd also say that most, of not all, LF people would pay twice as much or more for film if they had to. So, the profit motive will probably be there for some time to come.
Jim
BTW, If a readyload is the moral equivalent of a pre-loaded 35mm cartridge, you pay 9.2 cents/sq in for that in TMAX 100.
BTW II, 120 at about 72 sq in (30in x 2.4in) in Plus-X is about 3.5 cents/sq in.

Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001
From: Tom Mooney tmooney@ns.sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ratio of LF to MF and SF shooters
I regularly go to events sponsored by kodak canada for retail stores and the figure that gets tossed around is that about 90% of film made is colour negative(the last 10 % is everything else b&w; slide etc )and at least 75% of that is 35mm.
In our store which is ina small town/region we are the only ones to carry any significant stock of 35 b&w;(plusx,trix tmax 100/400 and the 400 c41) we sell at least 80 or more rolls of colour for every B&W.; We are the only ones for about 100 miles in any direction who process and print it and we do more than 100 to 1 colour over B&W.;
We large format shooters are just an itsy, bitsy little bit of the photo pie.And I do mean little. Last year I wanted to order 25 shts of 8x10 and I prefered trix would of settled for plusx but had to get tmax because when I ordered(direct from Kodak Canada) all that was curently available in Canada was one box of tmax 400. Since the US is about 20 times bigger than Canada I imagine that there are times that even rochester doesn't have very much.
kodak has a global plan where in most cases all of one kind of film for the world is made in one plant and shipped to various other places. Canada for example apparently makes all of the worlds microfilm ( that what they told me on a plant tour 4 years ago) and ships it everywhere. When in Toronto at the main plant I saw huge rolls of colour film and paper waiting to to be cut and packaged for the Canadian market. I'm not sure if 4x5 and larger film sizes would even show up on a pie chart of total film production.
Tom Mooney
...

Date: 5 Jun 2001
From: /dev/null@cantsl.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ratio of LF to MF and SF shooters
Eugene A. Pallat (eapallat@apk.net) wrote:

: Not always. MF and LF photographers begged Kodak to make Kodachrome available : in 120 and sheet sizes. Kodak refused, even though they used it internally in : sizes up to 8x10. Then, I think they made it briefly in 120, but : dropped it. I : once spoke to a Kodak employee who gave the tired mantra "If there was a demand : for it, Kodak would make it." I told her the pros BEGGED for it and Kodak : refused.

The stupid thing is that they just cut large sheets to size. When Kodak announced that kodachrome 25 production was ceasing, one person asked if some could be made available in 120 size. The Kodak man said yes, it could, but the last processing run in that size is scheduled for August so they weren't intending to make any available.
To answer the question of this thread. At the stock agency where I place my work they have on file about 5 percent LF, 20 percent MF, and 75 percent SF.
--
Bill Rea

Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ratio of LF to MF and SF shooters
....
For many years Kodak made Kodachrome in sheet sizes up to 16x20. When Ektachrome was announced in 1948 (about) Kodachrome was discontinued in sheet sizes.
Why? One can only guess but I rather think that the processing was not profitable, rather the opposite, and Kodak just wanted to get rid of having to do it.
Early Ektachrome was not as good as Kodachrome but could be processed by a sophisticated pro lab. Many users liked the fast turn around and the freedom from having to rely on Rochester for processing. I suspect the processing is still the bugaboo since Kodachrome requires a complex process which needs very close control. Its also likely that some of the K-14 chemistry is more toxic and more difficult to dispose of than E-6.
I don't think it was Plus-X that killed off Panatomic-X but rather T-Max. Kodak claimed that T-Max processed in Microdol-X is as fine grained as Panatomic-X. In fact, it has better resolution because of its very thin emulsion. But Panatomic-X had a particular look which is different from T-Max.
Agfa has also discontinued their slow film leaving Ilford the only game in town.
Kodak's problem is the same one faced by other companies with publically held stock. If they don't generate a large enough return on investment the stockholders will sell off the stock and damage their capital base. Privately held companies can choose to make less money in the short term in order to finance research and development to stay competitive. When competition shifts from the market for goods and services to the financial market very often a company's ability to compete gets tossed out in preference to making the stock look good, and BTW, generating bonuses for the directors. I think Kodak is in such a bind. Obviously Agfa got into a similar situation and is now in a sort of limbo.
Its interesting that both Henry Ford Jr. of Ford Motors and William Paley, the founder of CBS, both said in interviews that the worst mistake they ever made was taking their companies public.
Boy, this is off topic.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ratio of LF to MF and SF shooters

>"Eugene A. Pallat" eapallat@apk.net wrote > > >[small snip] > >> K-14 was a dye transfer process with many steps. E-6 can be processed in a home >> darkroom. >> >{larger snip} > >Are you sure? > >I know that Kodachrome film does not incorporate dyes, and that it takes up >dyes during processing, but this is a far cry from what I've >always understood dye transfer to be. Dye imbibition, with three negatives >each producing a matrix that takes up one dye and is used to deposit the >stuff on the print, is what dye transfer usually means. That isn't K-14. > >Also, process K-14 is still somewhat alive, I'm still shooting KM 135 and >Kodak is still processing it. And at least a few independents have K-14 >machines as well. > >Cheers, > >Dan

Kodachrome differs from other color films in that the chemicals which form the dyes in reaction to the development of the silver image are not contained in the emulsion but in the developers.
These intermediates are called couplers. One of the most difficult research problems in the development of practal color films was finding a way to anchor these couplers, and the dyes they eventually produced, where they belonged, so that they wouldn't wander between layers. Becaue the couplers are in the developer Kodachrome does not have this problem. However, it has a very complex processing method since each layer must be developed separately with a developer having the appropriate coupler.
Two methods of processing have been used. The first one was used for only about a two years beginning when Kodachrome was first put on the market. It required controlled bleaching of the layers, a very difficult task. The later method, the one being used now, depends on preserving the color sensitivity of the red layer after the first development.
The processing cycle is approximately this (leaving out interemediate rinses, etc.).
1, First development. All three layers are developed to a B&W; silver negative image.
2, Re-exposure of the bottom layer through the back of the film using red light. Since only the bottom layer is sensitive to red it is the only one exposed.
3, Reversal development of the bottom layer in a developer containing the coupler for Cyan dye.
4, Re-exposure of the top layer to blue light. Both the top and center layer are sensitive to blue but there is a yellow filter layer, composed of colloidal silver, located just under the top layer. Its used to separate the blue from the green image during exposure and does double duty in procesing. Ony the top layer is exposed by the blue light.
5, Reversal development in a developer containing the coupler for yellow. Since only the top layer has been exposed dye will be generated only there.
6, Reversal development of the center layer in a developer containing a fogging agent and the coupler for magenta dye.
At this point there film has three positive dye images and all the silver halide has been exposed. The film looks completely black at this point.
7, Bleaching of the silver image and silver filter layer. This is done with a blix similar to that used in conventional color film. The Blix removes all the silver, including the yellow filter and any halide which has somehow escaped being converted to silver.
The image now consists of the three dye layers. 8, washing.
In the original process the the original silver negative image was bleached out after devlopment leaving the unexposed halide in all three layers. The first step was to develop all three layers in a developer with a Cyan coupler. The dye was then bleached out of two top layers by a controlled penetraton bleach, which also converted the silver image in those layers back to halide. Then the remaining two layers were devleoped in a Magenta coupling developer, and etc. Actualy, the film was washed and dried between each step since it was eaisier to control the penetration of the solutions into the dry emulsion.
AFAIK, this process was used only for 16mm motion picture film. The second method being introduced at the time that Kodachrome in other formats was introduced.
This is a pretty far cry from three-step E-6 :-)
Dye transfer (called dye imbition by Technicolor) is something else. It is a printing method. The original Technicolor process used beam splitter color separaton cameras which photographed on three strips of 35mm film simultaneously. These were very complex cameras. Some still survive and were used (maybe still are) for a special effect known as blue backing fop making traveling matts for color film.
Someone estimated that these cameras would cost something like a million dollars each to make now.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From hasselblad mailing list;
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Polaroid Explores Debt Restructuring [OT]
Read http://public.wsj.com/news/businessbox/article1.html from the Wall Street Journal about Polaroid's financial difficulties. The article says Polaroid, "...is giving serious consideration to a voluntary filing for bankruptcy-court protection..."
There was also an article on Polaroid in the NY Times of July 1, 2001 titled, "Polaroid makes a digital leap, but is it enough?" The NY Times web site is www.nytimes.com.

-- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: Polaroid Explores Debt Restructuring [OT]
you wrote:

>Read http://public.wsj.com/news/businessbox/article1.html from the Wall >Street Journal about Polaroid's financial difficulties. The article says >Polaroid, "...is giving serious consideration to a voluntary filing for >bankruptcy-court protection..."

In a follow up article on page C1 of the NYTimes of July 12th, the Times reports that "The Polaroid Corporation won a reprieve from its bank yesterday, receiving a waiver that will keep it from defaulting on $367 million in loans." So, bankrupcy is apparently averted for the time being. The company though remains on shaky financial footing.

-- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Polachrome 35m
I've used it. It's awful. Much denser than regular slide film due to the mask, and pixillated as hell if you project to any size.
On the other hand their black and white slide film is gorgeous stuff.
After yesterday's WSJ story, though, I wouldn't count on this stuff being around much longer.
Bob
...

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Steve Bartlett sbartlett19@home.com
Subject: Re: Re: Tripod Use in Museums
For what it's worth here's my opinions on a few print films that I have used:
Fuji 800 Superia: Very contrasty with a lot of punch. Very good grain for 800 speed film. Much better grain than Kodak Max 800. Good general purpose film. Not very good for portraits, particularly closeups since it tends to render skin tones red and blotchy. I can get this very cheap, about $10 for 4 rolls.
Fuji 400 Superia: Very similar to Fuji 800 Superia with slightly less grain.
Fuji NPH 400: My prefered film for low-light portraits and people pics when flash is used. I slightly overexpose by rating it at 320 for best results. Fine grain. Not as contrasty as Superia. A bit more expensive.
Fuji NHGII 800: Very good but expensive. Can be pushed without a significant increase in grain. Is going to be replaced by Fuji NPZ 800.
Fuji Reala 100: A very good general purpose film. Extremely fine grain. Contrasty and yet still very good for portraits. Not too expensive. This and NPH are my favorite print films.
Kodak Gold 100: Good general purpose film. Good contrast. Fine grain but not as fine as Reala. Does a reasonable job on skin tones but not as good as NPH or Reala (but better than Superia). Very inexpensive and can be found everywhere.
Kodak Max 800: Yech! Way too much grain. Fuji 800 Superia performs better and costs less! New version is supposed to be better but I haven't tried it.
Kodak Royal Gold 1000: Worse than Kodak Max 800.
I still haven't tried the Kodak Supra 400 or 800 films but I hear good things about them.
Regards,
Steve
...

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: Transparency Development
E6 is very easy and economical to do yourself. I process dozens of 35mm, 120, & 122 rolls and 4x5 sheets each month. I buy Kodak's E6 "Single Use Chemistry Kit".
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti2443/ti2443.shtml;$sessionid$V3FYH3QAAAR2PQHIO2SXWIQ
The instructions tell how to mix it to any volume up to 5 liters. I typically mix either one or two liters, depending on what I have to process. I use JOBO Protectan Anti Oxidant Spray in the unused mixed and concentrate 1st developer and Color developer bottles. This works wonderfully.
This is a six step process. Many people use the three step process but when I queried JOBO/Tetenal, their response was that the six step process is the professional standard. The manufacturing and testing of E6 film is based on the six step process. They said that while the three step process usually works OK, manufacturers do specify that some films are incompatible with the three step process.
The only two steps that have rigid temperature constraints are the 1st developer and color developer. The others have a reasonably wide temperature window.
This is a very easy process whether in a hand tank or a JOBO. The only difference being that a JOBO will let you do something else during the 35 minute process
The unused chemicals protected via Protectan have a very long shelf life. Easily six to eight weeks. The protected concentrates are good for at least eight weeks.
Another thought. It takes 1 liter to process four 35mm/36 rolls of film in a hand tank. A 5 liter kit therefore processes twenty rolls. In a JOBO, you can process 38 rolls in 5 liters of chemistry. Basically double. Same for 120 & 220 film. So with a JOBO, you both don't waste time and don't waste money.
At 01:42 PM 7/13/01 -0500, S.K.Boyd wrote:

>This isn't a "Leica" question, however I appreciate the opinions stated by >this group. > >For years I have used nothing but B&W. I am now going to start using >transparency films, and will be doing my own processing. The quantities >will not be large; only two to four rolls per week average, and I'll >probably use mostly Astia, or Kodak E100 series 35mm films. My photography >is entirely available light, and almost all daylight. > >I'm looking for suggestions on developers to begin with. Also is it worth >using semi-automated processors such as Jobo, or will regular tank >development be adequate, and give repeatable results. I've developed B&W >for over 40 years, and know how to control the process. > >I'm not a "Bokeh" type person, but usually want extreme sharpness, and >strive for maximum "in focus" in my photography. > >I do use the Leica M series, and have been doing so for the past year. > >Thanks, >Stu Boyd

[Ed. note: Happy Birthday, Simon, and many happy returns!]
From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001
From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com
Subject: Re: Birthday
Simon Nathan is the person who has letters from Kodak to Simon telling him that his idea for them to make 220 film is not a good idea. Then they introduced 220 film. He also was the assistant to Dutch Photographer Frits Rotgans, who pioneered the large-format wide-field image concept. He also was a friend of Weegee. He also happened to be near the Empire State building, in the 1940s, when a U.S.bomber airplane crashed into it. He's also my friend...
Happy birthday to you too, Michel
Ed

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Imported Film--OT
you wrote:

>I just loaded a roll of Kodak Elitechrome 400 for some 'misty' shots >this morning. >On the box it says: "Made in England by KODAK LIMITED". >My conclusion is that film manufacturers have production plants all over >the globe.

A lot of Kodak's "Made in EC" film is actually from the USA. Master rolls (base & emulsion made in the USA and coated here) are shipped overseas where the Master Roll is cut down to individual rolls and packaged. With Fuji, ALL their pro film is still made is Asia.

- -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
From: "Holcombe Jr, Joe D JOE_D.HOLCOMBE_JR@ROCHE.COM
Subject: [NIKON] OT: Film, where's it come from...
for a quite resounding confirmation that fuji does not ship all it's film from asia, check out the link to the company's announcement of the recent expansion of the south carolina facility:
http://home.fujifilm.com/news/n010219.html
a brief excerpt:
Fuji Photo Film, Inc. began manufacturing operations in South Carolina in 1988, when the company announced the construction of its first U.S. factory. The Greenwood manufacturing complex is currently comprised of eight high technology manufacturing plants, the Greenwood Research Laboratories, and the largest Fujifilm distribution center in the world. The 1,500 Associates employed at the 500-acre complex currently manufacture 35mm color film and photographic paper, QuickSnap one-time-use recyclable cameras, DLTtape IV computer data storage media, VHS-format videotape for the consumer and duplication markets, and presensitized plates and film for the graphic arts market.
now if anyone knows how the heck to find "kodak-like" film & processing instructions (technical data sheets) for neopan 1600 then i could quit wasting time on the fuji web....
joe
ps- since i live in south carolina i feel much better about getting fresh film now ;-)

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
From: "Ron Rogers" rcrogers@annapolis.net
Subject: Re: [NIKON] OT: Film, where's it come from..
Mass market Fuji made for COSTCO, SAMS, etc is manufactured in the Netherlands. At one point, it lacked the "fourth layer." Reference: the Q&A; section of Fujifilm website. The origin doesn't make it different, the technology does.

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Baby" Graphics sale flat?
John Stewart see REAL email address in message. wrote:

> > Indeed no Graflok back. But the 2 x 3 filmholders are cheap and so is > > the 2 x 3 film. > > Where is the film cheap? Last time I looked, only Ilford was making it, and > it wasn't cheap. > > John

Last batch I bought (several years ago) was FortePan 2 x 3 box of 50 in Hungary for (literally) several US dollars. I suppose that today the 2 x 3 film is about $1.00 per sheet. However, if you are really hard up, Freestyle has some 8 x 10 Fuji color slide film (18780) at $1.00USD per sheet and some 5 x 7 Ilford FP4 also at $1.00USD per sheet you can cut down. That brings it down to around a half-buck or less per shot. Not bad.
Regards,
Marv

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Baby" Graphics sale flat?
Last time I priced it was a year or more ago and it was $12.50 for 25 sheets., or roughly 50 cents per exposure (film cost only). Rollfilm would probably set you back 30 cents per shot plus processing and can more readily be sent out for processing.
Actually, for size of camera and negative, I am disappointed that 3x4 was essentially abandoned as a cut film format.
bob

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: Transparency Development
you wrote:

>At least two labs in Paris provide 48-hour turnaround on Kodachrome >development. >It used to be 24-hour, but it was recently increased to 48-hour (working days >only). This is only for pro Kodachrome film. For the "amateur" >Kodachrome, the >delay is 14 days unless you pay a few euros extra for expedited service.

There is no difference between amateur and professional Kodachrome. Same film. Simply aged differently before sending it to the store. Professional labeled film, E6 or K14, is aged at the factory to an exact point, then shipped. Refrigeration at the store maintains this "age" so professional photographers are buying a known color rendition/balance.
Amateur labeled film is not aged by the factory. It is sent directly to the store and ages while it sits on the shelf, or not if it is used right away. The color rendition/balance is not a stable factor.
So why would someone separate out film "labeled" professional from that "labeled" amateur and process them at vastly different times? Many many professional photographers buy and use amateur labeled film. There are many photo jobs that do not require an exact color rendition over time. Amateur labeled film is cheaper. But exactly the same film. Off the same manufacturing machine. At the same time.
You are paying for Kodak/Fuji/Agfa/etc. to "hold" the film when you buy "pro" labeled film.
Jim

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Rich Lahrson tripspud@transbay.net
Subject: [Rollei] Kodak 'Custom' Film Sizes in Bulk?
Hi Philippe,
I've heard this as well, but was under the impression that it applied only to sheet film sizes. Little known is the fact that Kodak still lists Panatomic-X in aerial roll sizes. I don't think Kodak would set up to spool film or put it in 35mm cassettes or even in 35mm bulk for any size order. Ask the Kodak rep.
Cheers,
Rich Lahrson

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodak 'Custom' Film Sizes in Bulk?
....
The Aerial film may not be the same emulsion as the still film. Kodak likes to recycle trade names. I think they still have a Super-XX aerial film, though I haven't looked lately.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: John Lehman al7jj@yahoo.com
Subject: [Rollei] Kodak 'Custom' Film Sizes in Bulk?
Rich Lahrson tripspud@transbay.net wrote:

>...Little known is the fact that Kodak still > lists Panatomic-X in aerial roll sizes.

The bad news is that Kodak has discontinued most of their aerial films, altho they are still listed on the web site. In 70mm black and white, only Plus-X and infrared are still available; in 5" only Plus-X. No more Tri-X or Panatomic X :-(
This is relevant (at least to me), because I prefer a twice to four times normal lens for aerial photography, and so use a Graphics-70 rather than a Rolleiflex for it.
John Lehman
College, Alaska USA

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
From: mgdalton@home.com
Subject: Re: Costco and Film
Paul -
Costco's Kirkland brand film was manufactured by AGFA. Apparently it's off the shelves because late last year AGFA decided to not renew the private labeling deal. I read a post on another web site that said Costco was now looking to make a private labeling deal with Kodak, but have no idea if that is true. If it is and Kodak puts Max film under their, you might get your preferred film for less. ;->
- Matt

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
From: Ron Andrews randrew1@rochester.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Kodak ISO 1000 color film
gordito wrote:

> Last year I shot a couple of 120 rolls of a Kodak ISO 1000 color print > film. > It was great, very fine grain and soft colors, excellent for portrait > work. > > It seems to have disappeared, and I can't find any references to it. > Was > it replaced by Portra 800? Anyone know what film I'm talking about?

Yes, Kodak's 1000 speed film was discontinued. The announcement was overshadowed by the announcement of the demise of Kodachrome 25. Portra 800 is the best replacement. It's a third of a stop slower, but much sharper, finer grained, and better color.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: Scott Gardner jantamrac@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Best 35mm film pricing?
Sam, I've had very good service/prices from Charlie at:
http://www.zreiss.com/products.htm
He has domestic and imported film so if that's important to you, make sure you state your preference. Actually, I find it best to talk with him directly - 800-943-2000 Ext. 212.
He also seems to have a decent selection of short dated roll film AND is willing to compete with pricing from other dealers.
hth/Scott Gardner
...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@avaya.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT Best 35mm film pricing?
Go to www.unidiscountfilm.com they also have 120.
Peter K
...

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Dennis Painter dennis@hale-pohaku.com
Subject: [Leica] freestyle film
www.freestylecamera.com has a deal on Fuji MS100/1000 RMS (cold stored)
buy 5 at $11.95, get 5 free (35mm, they also have 120/220 but no buy get free, $1.59/roll for 120 though)
with a minimum order of $25 you will have to get buy 15 rolls, get a total of 30 for $36 plus tax and shipping.
I grabbed some for that deal, just passing on the info.
Dennis

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: ShadCat11@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] OT: 35mm film
you wrote:

> Bob Shell wrote: > Does anyone here know how it came about that 35mm film became the standard > for motion picture photography and later for still photography?>>

My information is that when Thomas Edison was talking it over with George Eastman, the latter proposed slitting in half his film for the Kodak camera. That way, existing production facilities could be readily employed to produce motion picture film. Original Kodak film measured 2 3/4 inches wide, or a rounded off for metric 70 mm, which is how it was designated for export. The conversion was inexact, which is why what we call 35 mm film actually measures 36 mm.
Allen Zak

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: "John A. Lind" jlind@netusa1.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: 35mm film
you wrote:

>Does anyone here know how it came about that 35mm film became the standard >for motion picture photography and later for still photography? I think I >remember reading that 35mm (and 70mm) could be slit down from master rolls >without waste, and I'm sure that may be part of the answer, but there must >be more. Why 35mm? > >Bob

Bob,
The story is that Edison had a 70mm camera and was familiar with 70mm roll film. When working on creating his motion picture system, he picked this as it was readily available, and had his lab order it in bulk reels slit down the middle. His lab perforated the edges in their own darkroom. The film width and perforation pitch became *the* standard for cinema film. Film frame dimensions were supposedly 14mm x 18mm, same as what we would call a "half-frame."
During the development of smaller format still cameras, "Edison size" cinema film was readily available almost everywhere. Oskar Barnack was not the first to attempt using "Edison size" in a still camera, but he is credited with a number of things related to the Leica A:
* Use of "Edison size" or 135 film; same width, sprocket hole size and pitch
* First successfully marketed camera using this film
* Full frame as we now know it, 24mm x 36mm
* Cannister loading (although one had to load your own reloadable cannisters)
* 50mm focal length as the "standard" lens
* Accessory shoe exactly as we know a "hot shoe" today, except it was a "cold shoe" then primarily to mount accessory viewfinders for use with lenses other than 50mm
* Shutter release on top right, winder (knob) on top right, and rewind on top left
I've probably left at least one thing out that dates to Barnack's original camera.
-- John

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: 35mm film
Eric Goldstein wrote:

>Can't help you with the motion picture side but I've heard from numerous >sources that the still side was the result of the film DPs wanting to use >the same emulsions in a still camera to do inexpensive exposure and lighting >tests for movie work... the use of the 50 mm lens as a standard also >(supposedly) derives from "normal" cinema lenses being used to make the >testing as accurate as possible... double frame just made reading the >negatives easier and allowing for better positives for "pass around" >purposes...

Eric's correct in saying that this has been advanced as a theory: Barnack's good friend, Mechau, was working with cine film while Oscar was off making that Ur-Leica, and this has led to all sorts of idle speculations. However, Oscar Barnack himself confessed that the real reason he chose 35mm film was his bronchial problems, which made his lust for wandering in the woods to take pictures a chore, what with the weight of a 5 x 7 view camera. So, recognizing the titanic improvements in the quality of roll film which was occurring just prior to the first War, Barnack developed the Leica on the theory of "small negative, BIG picture" (sorry, Minox!), as a light camera that he, personally, could tote about. The idea of making a production camera of this belongs to Ernst Leitz II, after his American tour in 1914.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: 35mm film
you wrote:

>I wrote: > >>Bob, >>The story is that Edison had a 70mm camera and was familiar with 70mm roll >>film. When working on creating his motion picture system, he picked this >>as it was readily available, and had his lab order it in bulk reels slit >>down the middle. His lab perforated the edges in their own darkroom. The >>film width and perforation pitch became *the* standard for cinema >>film. Film frame dimensions were supposedly 14mm x 18mm, same as what we >>would call a "half-frame." > >Didn't make it horribly clear in the first posting. Kodak (Eastman) slit >the film before delivering it and Edison's lab punched the sprocket holes. > >Errata: 14mm x 18mm should read 24mm x 18mm >This is still a standard size frame for 35mm cince film. Some of the >wide-screen movies were filmed using anamorphic lenses to compress the >image horizontally into the 3:4 aspect ratio of this frame. > >-- John

The original frame size was 1 inch x 3/4 inch. There are a number of standard apertures now. The old "full" aperture, used for silent pictures and special effects is 0.980 x 0.735 for the camera. This size frame was also used for early talking pictures which used sound on disk.
Sound on film requires a sound track printed between one row of perforatons and the picture. The reason for this track placement is that Fox Film Corp. neglected to get world wide rights to a set of German sound patents. The German system used film about 42mm wide with picture size the same as silent film and the extra film outside one set of perforations.
The sound track was on the outside. Another part of this series of patents was for a moton stabilizing drum at the sound pick up point with the sound track edge overhanging the drum. This is an eminently satisfactory system although it was never used in practice. Fox realized too late it should have obtained more than the US rights, so, in order to limit European competition in the US adopted the system of putting the sound track on the inside of the perfs. The result was a cropped image. At first this nearly square image was projected in theaters, but it was eventually decided to use a smaller aperture and return to the silent aspect ratio of 1.33:1. this left a large strip of unused film between frames and required greater magnification of the image for the same screen size.
The sound aperture for cameras is 0.868 x 0.631. The projector apertures for all formats is slightly smaller than the camera aperture.
Cinemascope was an attempt to increase the film area used. Unfortunately, although it was a good idea, the choice of a 2.65:1 aspect ratio was a blunder of the first order. I think the idea was to make a cheap version of CineRama. It didn't work and even with the reduced width of 2.35:1 was an artectural impossibility for many theaters and reduced seating in even especially designed theaters. It would have been a world beater if a decent aspect ratio, say 1.66:1, had been chosen.
There really is no standard format anymore.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "Cousineau , Bernard" bcousineau@tmisolutions.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: 35mm film

> From: Bob Shell > Does anyone here know how it came about that 35mm film became the standard > for motion picture photography and later for still photography? I think I > remember reading that 35mm (and 70mm) could be slit down from master rolls > without waste, and I'm sure that may be part of the answer, but there must > be more. Why 35mm? > Bob

Bob,
I looked it up at home last night, and I now can fill-in more of the blanks.
The format was indeed picked by Edison for mostly economic reasons (Kodak could supply him at a reasonable price).
The way that it became a standard is through the workings of the "Motion Pictures Patents Companies" (a.k.a. MPPC, est. 1908) which was a consortium of companies that cross-licenced some key motion picture patents to each other.
The idea was that only licenced films couled be shown on licenced equipment, and anybody who didn't want to play along would get litigated out of existence.
It didn't quite work out that way, as some patents expired, some were challenged in court (independents were allowed to keep operating while court actions dragged out for years), and many producers moved west (to a village named Hollywood) to escape prosecution.
In the end, the MPPC dissapeared, but the standards that they established stuck.
For more details on this, you can look-up some early motion picture histories, or perhaps legal texts and histories dealing with the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Perhaps Marc, being both a historian and a lawyer, can point you in the right direction for this line of research.
Bernard

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF sales, # of users
tduffy8486@aol.com (TDuffy8486) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: LF sales, # of users >>From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris) >>Date: 7/24/01 >> >> >>I was not aware that 5x7 film had disappeared. Sure, the emulsions availabel >>are limited but it was alive and well the last time I looked (which was just >>now). At the moment Badger Graphics lists 9 emulsions from four suppliers. >>Ted Harris >>Resource Strategy >>Henniker, New Hampshire >> > >I just received my first order of Fuji Acros in 8x10 and 4x5 sheet film from >Badger. > >Based on Ted's comment, I think a scarier question might be, "What happens when >Badger Graphic goes?" > >Take care, >Tom Duffy

Someone else will pick up the business, if its worth picking up.
Sheet film of all sizes is cut down from large rolls. Anyone with the requisite equipment can do the cutting and packaging. I think the larger problem comes when the film manufacturer stops coating an emulsion of the type of support needed or stops making the emulsion.
The last has happened to many emulsions in the last decade. Normal contrast orthochromatic films are no longer available and many panchromatic films have been discontinued. The number of B&W; printing papers discontinued is legion.
Film and paper making is a mass production operation which becomes un-economical in smaller amounts.
I don't think digital will kill off chemical photography for a while yet but its already had a large effect and that effect will continue to increase.
Its getting harder to make the argument that electronic photography is of lower quality than chemical photgraphy, although IMHO that is still a valid opinion.
The ease of manipulation of images makes electronic photography very attractive to many, especially for advertising purposes.
I think for motion pictures conventional film will be around for quite a while, especially for original photography. However, electronic imaging holds the promise of tremendous cost saving for distribution and exhibition so there is a concerted effort to make it acceptable in quality.
IMHO, the photographic quality of current product is lower than that of sixty years ago despite considerable improvement in materials and equipment. One problem is simply that what is in the theater is more generations removed from the camera original.
Unfortunately, people have become used to less than sharp images, weaving, etc. Too bad.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: SegalPan@aol.com
Subject: Re: off topic: alden 70mm bulk film loader
Just buy one new from Queen City Plastics in Ohio at 513-871-5544
This is the best 70mm bulk film loader i've found.
Mark Segal

Date: 24 Jun 2001
From: john@stafford.net (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: MACO IR 820c (120) Film (follow-up)
MACO IR 820c Film
This is a follow-up regarding a post I made last week after I received a shipment of this film, and then read their web site. A few people properly badgered me to give more information. I've run a few test rolls since then. Here's a few notes.
MACO's web site has considerate cautions regarding the handling of the film.
While they suggested that the camera be loaded in unloaded in total darkness, I found it unnecessary. I loaded and unloaded Hasselblad backs in total darkness and in subdued light. No problems, no differences whatsoever.
Similarly, I had no problems developing the film in stainless tanks with Kinderman plastic tops. (no surprise there, really)
The film package says to store at a max of 55 degrees, but I had no problems with it in a wqarm camera bag (about 80 degrees) for 12 hours. YMMV!
=====
Other Notes.
This is a profound IR 120 film! If you have tried the deep-red sensitive 120 film, you will certainly see a huge difference. I see no reason to ever use one of the alternatives to Maco IR 820c for true IR 120 work.
For my tests I used a B&W; 092 filter, Hasselblad SWC (early model) late model film back.
GRAIN is, indeed, fine. Finer than, for example, Kodak's IR 35mm. The BASE is a robust (heavy) and is remarkably clear. ANTIHALATION characterists are good.
EXPOSURE. You know how tricky IR is. However, a good rule-of-thumb for me was to spot read using ISO 6 without the filter. The anticipable gray tone came from spot-reading the shadow of a heavily leafed tree. One absolutely must gain experience with IR to develop a reading technique. Consult with the well-known sites for this subject. BRACKET, of course. I think some will be surprised by the short lattitude of this film. If you bracket two stops either side of a good exposure in bright daylight, the second stops-out produce unusable negatives.
DEVELOPMENT. Maco's web site gives a N+3 times. Believe it - their recommendation really is N+3. My last developed roll was only close to my needs for bright sunlight scenes. I used ID-11 straight, 70 degrees, 10 minutes but got N+1, but I use a Leitz Focomat IIa condenser enlarger which exaggerates contrast. I'll be trying shorter times next.
When I can, I'll put up a simple web page showing a test print and EI readings of segments using the B&W; filter and Hasselblad SWC. And in a few weeks I have a technical (survey) project which will use this film with long telephoto (Tele-Tessar 500mm). If I get interesting images, I'll post them as well.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: Rich Lahrson tripspud@transbay.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Bayonet Filters, Infra-red
Hi Les,
I should have checked last week before buying the filter, but a call just now to B&H; in New York revealed that they have Konica Infrared film in 120 @$5.99 ea. I called because it's not in B&H; current hardcopy catalog, and I was concerned it might have been discontinued.
BTW, the TLR's ideal with infrared film and the heavy filter as opposed to the SLR when you have to remove the filter to see anything.
...

Date: 03 Aug 2001
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film availability
I just got a note saying that Kodak may be discontinuing some of their 25 sheet boxes of film - T-Max, Tri-X, and some of the 10 sheet boxes of transparency film. This would be both in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes. I can not confirm this but will check.
steve simmons
view camera and cameraarts magazines

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001
From: "Joe Portale" jportale@gci-net.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film availability
I remember reading something about this a few weeks ago. All I could think was, "Here goes those marketing wizards back in Rochester shooting themselves in the foot again".
A bunch of years back I had a chance to talk with one of the Kahoonas of Kodak on a totally seperate issue. When an opening presented itself, I begain to rip him a new one over the discontinuing of Panatonic-X and the rumors of the death of Plus-X (not overly worried about that film) and Tri-X. The answer that I got was these films were simply not holding their market share. I looked at this guy and said, "Tri-X!!???!!? Probably the most successfull film in history, not holding it's market share???" As this guy went on to explain about the "new and exciting films" to be offered by Kodak. Are there enough of us old duffs out there to still remember the early days of Tech Pan and T-Max? These films were deplorable. It took Kodak several years to get these films to where they could be used reliable. Kodak just keeps pushing film users towards Ilford and Agfa with there great marketing ideas.
Joe Portale
Tucson, AZ.
...

Date: Fri, 11 May 2001
From: neutrodyne@isd.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: I like the site.
Hi,
I like the Medium Format site, it has given me some good information for some of the cameras I have recently acquired. I do more serious collecting of old radios than cameras, but some noteworthy cameras have caught my eye recently. At some point I will be adding a page devoted a few of my more noteworthy models.
Of some interest is the Kodak 616: Mine is actually a "Model 3A" and has a red bellows rather than the black example you have illustrated I am not sure if Kodak had other colored versions of that model like they did with some of their Brownies, and a folder model in 120 format. The brass fittings make it pretty.
I actually was able to develop a roll of film that had been in that camera, which had been exposed over 80 years ago. While heavily fogged, it did have a few printable images with some special care.
....
Regards,
John McPherson

[Ed. note: dang, I already miss kodachrome 25 ;-( ]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001
From: Laurence Cuffe Laurence.Cuffe@ucd.ie
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 Kodachrome film users

Date sent: Wed, 02 May 2001 From: Kip Babington cbabing3@swbell.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 Kodachrome film users >The SR-71 reconnaissance plane flew from the base at which I was stationed in >the late '60s and early '70s. RUMOR had it that one of the keys to its >phenomenal resolution of ground objects from 15+ miles up was very wide (foot >or more) Kodachrome film in very long rolls. I've heard that later they went >to satellite type sensors, but early on it was supposedly just film. Of >course, it was all highly classified at the time, and may still be, but to us >ground pounders without a need-to-know it sounded right at the Officers' Club >after a few beers.

I've printed copy negatives from the corona satelite program which ran in the early to mid sixties.
BW ground resolution from 100 miles up was 6 feet. with a 24" focal length lens. The film stock was, I believe, a 70mm wide version of tec pan. The resolution on the 5" color long roll stuff was considerably less.
A lot of that stuff has been declassified now see:
http://edc.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/disp#disp5
The comments on color film were interesting:
"Nearly all of the imagery from these systems was collected using black and white film. There is a very limited amount of infra-red film and high definition color aerial film that was tested as part of the KH-4B missions and yielded poor spatial resolution performance. The original film is being preserved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and is stored at the National Archives at College Park, MD"
On the copy negatives I got (of an area in nepal where I wanted to go climbing) The resolution was phenomenal, it was easy to make out foot paths which would be around 2m wide. They were also quite cheap say $10 a copy
All The best Larry Cuffe

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
From: Martin Barlow <martin@mostyn.org>
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [medium-format] 120 film freezing...cooling...refreezing?

Robert Harding wrote:

> Hello All;
>
> I have moved and had to take my film out of the freezer and let it thaw. Is
> there any problem with freezing it again? What about film that has been
> refrigerator stored for a while, allowed to come to room temperature for a
> period...can you freeze that without problems?

A few years ago I checked with Fuji's technical dept, who told me freezing
film is no problem and preserves the film indefinitely, at least in
practical terms.

Since then I've done it as a matter of course and have never had any problem
with the Velvia, Provia and Multi-speed that I use (all 120). Some have
been frozen, thawed, re-frozen, etc, but the results don't change.

They advised 24hrs out of the freezer before using it.

Martin Barlow
Wales

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
From: Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Permanence

I guess the poster intended to say: before you put exposed film in a
freezer, lock it in a ziplock bag to keep moisture out. Just common sense
precaution. Freezing will not ruin the film, but some sneaky condensate
will definitely find a way to screw up the most important shot on that
roll. Remember Murphy and his laws.

Andrei D. Calciu

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001
From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: The future of film?

you wrote:
>I thought film was manufactured in extremely large sheets and then cut to
>different sizes. Is this correct? If so, then 120, 4x5, and larger sizes
>won't last any longer than 35mm. If digital displaces 35mm, all fim will be
>gone, since there won't be economies of scale in film manufacturing.

Film and paper are coated on webs about forty inches wide (from memory).
However, film is coated on several kinds of support. The supports used for
35mm, 120, 220, and sheet film, are all different. Some films are coated on
special supports, like Technical Pan and some other special purpose films.
So, its not just a matter of cutting down all sizes from a single master
roll.

Film and paper have a definite shelf life. Recent changes in emulsion
chemistry, due to environmental protection requirements, have lessened the
shelf life of many materials. So, stockpiling a particular film or paper is
not as practical as it once was.

One problem is that the major photographic material suppliers grew to
gigantic size. Much of their manufacturing facilities are geared to very
large quantities and on a nearly continuous basis. The trouble is that its
hard to shrink capacity economically.

All sorts of low-volume specialty products have, or will soon, go away
because the jobs they were intended to do are now being done in some other
way. Some of these products were subsidized in the past but can't be any
longer since the overall profit structure of large companies like Kodak has
changed.

I think conventional photography will co-exist with digital methods for a
long time but in some areas, like photomechanical processes, and some
others, conventional methods have virtually disappeared in practice and the
materials used have, or will soon, also disappear.
----

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Date: Mon Sep 03
[1] Re: Kodak Sheet Film Supply

Hi,

Not wanting to feed the fire of rumour, but we received a notice
yesterday at the Retail Photo store where I work that Kodak will be
discontinuing BOTH 10 and 100 sheet boxes of film, and replacing them
with 50 sheet boxes.

I'm already frustrated that 8x10 only comes in 25 sheet boxes...arg

e.

Eric Boutilier-Brown
Halifax, NS, Canada

Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday--RIP Dan Kalish asked: >Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?" Because it's "Edison Size" film! "35mm small format" film used in still photography was first created by Thomas Edison's laboratory for making motion pictures. Edison's laboratory ordered reels of 70mm film from Eastman with the request it be slit exactly down the middle into two 35mm wide strips. Edison's laboratory added the sprocket holes on each side. It ultimately became the "standard" for cinema film and was known as "Edison size" film. The film frame had to be made narrower than 35mm because of the sprocket holes along each edge. Oskar Barnack (et alia) leveraged the near universal availability of 35mm cinema film in designing the "Leica A" and its film cannisters. The film and film frame was turned sideways and made larger (about 2X) to its current 24x36mm size used for still photography. The sprocket hole size and pitch has also remained unchanged. His camera set the standard for 35mm small format. The following names all describe the same thing; take your pick: - Edison Size (because Edison created it) - 35mm (because of its width) - 135 (Kodak's 3-digit film numbering scheme) -- John
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: "Thomas A. Frank" taf@wiredwizard.com> Subject: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday--RIP) >> >>Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?" >> Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my Starrett electronic caliper) would have been poor advertising? Tom Frank
From: Rei Shinozuka shino@ubspw.com> Subject: Re: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday--RIP) To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 perhaps the confusion is that the 36mm in 24x36mm is coincidentally close to 35mm. the 24mm dimension is physically constrained by the space between the sprocket holes, but the 36mm is an arbitrary dimension: the doubling of the 18mm cine format. back in the old rangefinder days, i believe nippon kogaku used 30mm and then 32mm as their long dimension before accepting the 24x36 standard. and the old pens used 18x24mm on 35mm film. -rei > From: "Thomas A. Frank" taf@wiredwizard.com> > > >> > >>Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?" > >> > > Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or > the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK > Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my > Starrett electronic caliper) would have been poor advertising? > > Tom Frank
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday--RIP) From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Thomas A. Frank at taf@wiredwizard.com wrote: >>> >>> Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?" >>> > > Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or > the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK > Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my > Starrett electronic caliper) would have been poor advertising? > > Tom Frank > So howcome Kodak says it is 36mm wide? This is in their official history and says when Thomas Edison wanted to buy motion picture film from his pal George Eastman, they decided on slitting Kodak's film for the original Kodak in half for economy, and that original Kodak film was 72mm wide (but called 70mm). Bob
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:17:23 -0800 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina diedyesterday--RIP) you wrote: > Thomas A. Frank at taf@wiredwizard.com wrote: > >>>> >>>> Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?" >>>> >> >> Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or >> the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK >> Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my >> Starrett electronic caliper) would have been poor advertising? >> >> Tom Frank >> >> > So howcome Kodak says it is 36mm wide? This is in their official history >and says when Thomas Edison wanted to buy motion picture film from his pal >George Eastman, they decided on slitting Kodak's film for the original Kodak >in half for economy, and that original Kodak film was 72mm wide (but called >70mm). > >Bob > Perhaps historically the first film supplied to Edison may have been 36mm but the standard for 35mm motion picture film requires a width of 35mm within very close tolarences. These stardards have applied since at least the early sound period and probably long before that. Slitting and perforating of motion picture film must be done to a very great degree of accuracy if the images are to be stable. I have a vague memory of an article in the SMPTE Journal of long ago on the history of slitting and perforating techniques. BTW, Technicolor, in their early days, used to buy un-perforated stock from Kodak and do their own perforation because they needed a greater degree of accuracy than Kodak could provide. Kodak eventually caught up. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: lkrz@aol.comxnox (LauraK) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 03 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: Instamatic 120 Camera? > I never saw any Instamatic that took anythig but the 126 cartridge - which >was 35mm film with a single sprocket hole per frame, allowing for a 27x27mm >picture area. > Perhaps there was a model numbered 120 in the instamatic camera line. > All 126 or 110. Kodak's own history of its cameras is here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13pg2.shtml Interesting reading. Kodak doesn't seem to have made a camera that took 120 film since the 1930s. laurak@madmousergraphics.com http://www.madmousergraphics.com web design, print design, photography
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Instamatic 120 Camera? Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 Kodak was always playing games with film. 620 was the exact same film as 120 on different metal rollers. Only 620 would fit Kodak cameras and no one else was allowed to make that size film without running into heavy legal opposition. BTW my grandmother's camera took a film called 119 - which was the same as 116 save for spools - I never checked into the histore of these but I tend to wonder if they were'n't each another form of 120 - same size negatives 2.25x3.25 in the case of her camera. 126 was the same story - Kodak merely cut a standard 35mm film with different sprocket holes and then put it in a cartridge - holding patents on the sprocket holes, and the cartridges. Other film manufacturers had to pay royalties to manufacture 126 cartridges - few did. OTOH Kodak handed out sweetheart deals to camera manufacturers since every 126 camera made took only Kodak film. Consequently they had a monopoly on the most profitable side of the business. The 126 was the most successful format of it's day with cameras ranging from the simplest box to dedicated amateur level. Kodak killed 126 when the patents ran out, substituting 110 - this was the biggest error they ever made - and they've made a lot of errors lately. Despite heavy promotion the 110 format simply didn't take off like the instamatic. The public started looking for something with the same quality as 126 so the Germans and Japanese quickly filled in the gap with something better - the 35mm P&S.; Had Kodak not been greedy, and allowed the 126 to continue I think they would still be in clover. Instead of letting technical evolution dictate the lifespan of a product they let monopolistic greed do it - and pissed off millions of people in the process. One doesn't even have to mention what happened to Kodak's next two BIG Ideas 1) The disc camera. 2) 2) Trying to comandeer Polaroid's market by reverse engineering. -- http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist's Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Old site with some pictures still up at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony "LauraK" lkrz@aol.comxnox> wrote > > I never saw any Instamatic that took anythig but the 126 cartridge - which > >was 35mm film with a single sprocket hole per frame, allowing for a 27x27mm > >picture area. > > Perhaps there was a model numbered 120 in the instamatic camera line. > > > > All 126 or 110. Kodak's own history of its cameras is here: > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13pg2.shtml > Interesting reading. Kodak doesn't seem to have made a camera that took 120 > film since the 1930s. > > laurak@madmousergraphics.com > http://www.madmousergraphics.com > web design, print design, photography
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why "35mm?" was Re: My Retina... Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 Someone wrote: > > Because it's "Edison Size" film! > > > > "35mm small format" film used in still photography was first created by > > Thomas Edison's laboratory for making motion pictures. Edison's laboratory > > ordered reels of 70mm film from Eastman with the request it be slit exactly > > down the middle into two 35mm wide strips. Eastman did not slit the film. It was Edison and Dickson who did that. When these two started ordering Eastman's film in quantity George Eastman agreed to supply if Edison would agree to buy an entire "tables" of 200 ft long and 42" wide, uncut. Only years after Edison and Dickson invented the 35 mm format did Eastman supply film in that width. > > The following names all describe the same thing; take your pick: > > - Edison Size (because Edison created it) Don't forget Dickson. As so often, Edison relied heavily on somebody else's genius to do "his" inventions for him, in this case it was that of W.K.L. Dickson.
From: T P please.reply@newsgroup> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Bronica SQAi Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 Karen Nakamura mail@gpsy.com> wrote: > > The other problem with TTL/OTF flash systems is that the reflectance Off > The Film depends greatly upon the film brand and type being used. Just > look at the leaders of some different films, there's at least a 1 stop > difference between the lightest and darkest. So you have to calibrate > your flash TTL to the film you're using. Hi Karen, If this were true, no-one would be using TTL auto flash! When Olympus developed their 35mm OTF metering (both ambient and flash) in the 1970s, they found that the reflectance values of nearly all the 35mm emulsions they tested were within 1/3 stop. That was before OTF metering was in common use, and I suggest most of the newer emulsions have had OTF metering very much in mind at the design stage. -- Best regards, TP
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Bronica SQAi Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 T P wrote: > If this were true, no-one would be using TTL auto flash! > > When Olympus developed their 35mm OTF metering (both ambient and flash) > in the 1970s, they found that the reflectance values of nearly all the > 35mm emulsions they tested were within 1/3 stop. That was before OTF > metering was in common use, and I suggest most of the newer emulsions > have had OTF metering very much in mind at the design stage. Oh but it is true! Hasselblad provided reflectance values of current film brands and types in their manual to the Hasselblad ProFlash. Things may have changed a bit since the 1970s. However, despite it being true, differences are not that big (1 stop is real, but extreme). And anyone using his favourite type and brand of film soon discovers how good his results are when using OTF flash, and (hopefully) adjusts accordingly.
From: russbutner@aol.com (russbutner) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 14 Oct 2001 Subject: Ode to Kodachrome---Galen Rowell Ode to Kodachrome by Galen RowellRegardless of recent innovations, Kodachrome is the color film of the century. Reigning supreme for more than five decades, it was so universally accepted that magazine guidelines would state: "submit only Kodachromes." The few living photographers who shot Kodachrome 8 x 10 sheet film during its brief manufacture after World War II speak in hushed reverence of its quality, archival stability, and an Ansel Adams image duped to 18 x 60 feet for Grand Central Station. Kodachrome was the first truly effective commercial color process. All previous attempts were lusterless by comparison. For the first four decades of its reign, it remained the most saturated of all color reversal films, to the consternation of purists, who rejected its bright colors as unreal. While there was no denying that Kodachrome colors were richer than those of a test strip shot at close range in controlled lighting, nature is rarely like that. There's no precise way to measure a film's colors against distant landscapes shot in fleeting light, where even Kodachrome blues and greens pale into grayish-brown murk. Supposedly color-accurate films continue to perform much worse for scenics, because they lack the saturation to deliver the brighter colors our visual system constructs in our mind's eye through haze, shadow, and the mid-day blues. Like most revolutionary discoveries, Kodachrome was more the brainchild of gifted individuals than of a broad R and D effort. Two professional classical musicians, Leopold Mannes and Leopold Godowsky, performed their original experiments in the bathrooms of their parents' New York apartments. After they patented a two-color process in 1924, Kodak lured them to Rochester to become involved with the Eastman School of Music as well as film research. Mannes had gone back to Harvard to study physics in order to perfect the first commercial three-color process. I've often wondered if his scientific background led him to suspect what physiologists only came to accept a half-century later--that the three different cones of the retina don't "see" color at all, but record separate gray scales that the brain constructs into the sensation of color. Kodachrome was unique in not having its color dye couplers incorporated into the film emulsion. This created extremely fine grain, but at a price. The black-and-white emulsion has color dyes introduced into its layers during development by an expensive, complex, multi-stage technique. Later Agfachromes, Ektachromes and Fujichromes had color dye couplers incorporated into larger film grains. (My 1960s Kodachromes are less grainy than my 1999 Ektachrome 100VS images, though far less saturated.) Kodak barely beat out Agfa to introduce the first practical subtractive three-color process on April 15, 1935. Agfacolor, the first dye-coupler incorporated film, came out the following year. Ektachrome was announced in 1949 after American troops in World War II had seized the Agfa plant near Leipzig, Germany, claiming patent rights to the closely guarded process as "war indemnity." Common wisdom had it that Kodachrome would remain unchallenged for fineness, especially for 35mm work with considerable enlargement. The 1990 introduction of Velvia took everyone by surprise, including Fuji reps who were kept in the dark until days before the release of the impossible: a dye-coupler-incorporated film as fine grained as Kodachrome with better saturation and resolution. Just as today's younger photographers don't recall the world before Velvia, most purists of Kodachrome's heyday were too young to recall the dull and blotchy Autochrome plates introduced by the Lumiere brothers in 1907. The truth is that a film can no more match the way our visual system constructs color than a silicon chip can match the way our carbon-based brain cells construct consciousness. A color-accurate film for textiles and flesh tones at close range will always look dull as death focused at distant infinity. A richer film designed to match the apparent saturation of broad landscapes (to which our brains assign known colors to known objects, such as green grass or red sandstone) will always make highly saturated reds and yellows shot in warm light at close range appear garish. Kodachrome taught me a lot about how film records natural light. Had I simply gotten saturated greens and reds without effort, I wouldn't be the photographer I am today. Kodachrome never reproduced as green grass as I saw, as blue skies, or as neutral flesh tones. I had to use a polarizer at an angle to the sun to get a decent green and underexpose up to a full stop--not just the third of a stop I use with Velvia or E100VS today--to get a rich red. A common shortcut to saturation was to seek out only yellows and reds in warm lighting, the secret of the early success of Arizona Highways, a magazine that attracted the masses but turned me off with one-dimensional sunsets, red rocks, and fall colors that seemed to assault my senses rather than visually interpret the natural world. I vowed to do something different and never sent them a submission, having heard from a pro that nature magazines that aren't publishing the kind of great work you believe you're doing aren't likely to become enlightened by your latest efforts. They've found a formula that works for them. I realized that many of my own Kodachrome sunsets, shot with the best intentions of course, had much the same look as the images I reviled. How could I get rid of that phony appearance of rich oranges and reds that might or might not have been really there before my lens? The answer was to always include subject matter at the other end of the spectrum, however unsaturated it might appear. Thus I began including blue sky, blue water, snow in shadow, green grass, or neutral rocks in my compositions to give credibility to magnificent warm light for those who weren't there to see it. When I came across the books and Life magazine work of Ernst Haas, who used a 35mm Leica to create images where color became the subject itself without the use of colored filters, I was deeply inspired. His 1950s images on ISO 12 Kodachrome appeared splendidly rich with a full range of hues, and I made up my mind to emulate his color palette in the Earth's wild places. Shortly before his death in 1986, Ernst Haas attended a New York gallery opening of my work on Kodachrome. We chatted at length about the film. He confirmed the legend that he'd filled a freezer with ISO 12 Kodachrome when ISO 25 Kodachrome II came out, and added that he did it again in 1974 when the newer and duller K64 and K25 were announced. He wished he'd stockpiled more, because the new films had considerably less silver and color saturation than Kodachrome II, the culmination of Kodachrome quality. We reminisced over old KII (on which the image on the lead page was taken) and how Kodak introduced a more environmentally correct Kodachrome with far less of that polluting silver only after the Hunt Brothers had manipulated silver prices into the ozone. Yes, my film freezer holds unopened bricks of 1980s Kodachrome 25, but instead of being purposely stored for future use, they are relics that reflect the sudden end of an era.
From: bhilton665@aol.com (BHilton665) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 14 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: Ode to Kodachrome---Galen Rowell >From: russbutner@aol.com (russbutner) >Ode to Kodachrome by Galen Rowell ... Actually it's an ode to the pre-1974 Kodachromes, if you read it carefully :) The Kodachromes introduced in 1974 (K-25 and K-64) "had considerably less silver and color saturation than Kodachrome II", which they replaced. At the time they were still the best films available, but that changed dramatically. Between 1974 and 1990 Rowell says he shot several types of film, including K-25, K-64 and Fujichrome, but converted to Velvia as soon as he shot his first rolls with it in 1990. To quote from one of his Outdoor Photographer columns anthologized in his book "Galen Rowell's Vision": "After 25 years of using Kodachrome ... I abruptly gave up on it in February 1990 after seeing tests of an amazing new slide film from Japan Velvia>". The K films have lower resolution than Velvia, shorter storage life when projected (longer storage life if not projected though), are more expensive to buy and more expensive to process, and are only available in 35 mm while Velvia is available in 35 mm, 120 and 220 for medium format, and both 4x5" and 8x10" sheet film. E-6 processing for Velvia is much more widely available than Kodachrome processing. Velvia has fewer problems with reciprocity (you can easily shoot it out to 30 sec with proper filtration; the K films look terrible much past 1 sec) and it scans easier than the K-films (try Digital Ice on a Kodachrome :). Velvia is by far the most popular film among the winning entries in the major nature photo contests like "Nature's Best" or the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year, usually preferred by 40-70% of the winning entries. Here's a list of a some of the top nature pros who are on record as preferring Velvia ... John Shaw, Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Jim Brandenberg, Frans Lanting, David Muench, Tom Till, Jack Dykinga, Carr Clifton, Robert Glenn Ketchum, Tom Mangelsen, and on and on. Here's a list of the top nature pros who are on record as preferring the Kodachromes ... (empty list ... I don't know of any). There's a reason K-25 was killed by Kodak ... few people are using it anymore.
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net> Subject: [Rollei] Since You Asked, Pete! The Best of Obsolescent Technologies! Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote: >Oh C'mon Marc. Agfa does great retail business through their OEMs. >Walgreens, and many others private label the Agfa film. >That is where they make their money in North America. Do you use Kodak film >or is that off limits too? I use AGFA when available but it is not carried by any camera store within a considerable radius of my home, Peter. I am not interested in private-label film due to storage concerns. I do have one twenty-year-old bottle of Rodinal which I use on occasion. I use AGFA RA-4 paper for color printing. I use Kodak as a fall-back for color work, as I can purchase that universally. I use Kodachrome, Elite 100 and 200, and a variety of their C-41 emulsions. I use Kodak XTOL as my principal B&W; developer, and will use Dektol if I'm too lazy to mix up an equivalent. I use Ilford for B&W; work, primarily Delta 100 and 400 and XP2+ with some PanF+, as well. I use Ilford MG papers for B&W; printing and Ilford fixer for film and paper. I occasionally use Ilfosol for B&W; development. I also use Ilford chemistry and papers for Ilfochrome work. I use Beseler RA-4 kits to print; I mix my own C-41 soups. I have odd lots of AGFA and ORWO paper. I develop my film in Kindermann tanks with Hewes reels. I tray-process B&W; papers. I have a Beseler rotary drum for RA-4 and Ilfochrome work. I have a Leitz V-35 and a Beseler C23 Dual Dichro enlarger; the Beseler has a 2.8/50 APO-Rodagon and a 4/80 Beseler-HD (Rodagon). I am looking for a hell of a deal on either a 2.8/40 or 4/45 APO-Componon for the V-35 and either an APO-Componon or APO-Rodagon to replace the 4/80. What more do you want to know? Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From: "jwjensen1" jwjensen1@msn.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cold light Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 Unfortunately, the Costco film (labelled Kirkland) is no longer available. It looks like Costco did a complete sell-out to Kodak. You used to have your choice of Kodak, Kirkland, and Fuji. I agree with Jerry. The Kirkland film was great; 200 and 400 and 'cheap'. I loaded up on it when they did a close-out. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc James Small" msmall@roanoke.infi.net> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cold light > Jerry Lehrer wrote: > >Peter (and Marc) > > > >Agreed! Some of the best 35mm color negative film I've used has > >been the Agfa film sold under the private label of Costco (Price Club). > >And it surely was inexpensive! > > Thanks for the hint, Jerry! Alas, but I believe the nearest COSTCO is > something like 400 miles from me. I live in civilized turf. > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net >
From: BronicaPro@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 From: lawrence reiss lawrencereiss@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: 35mm in a 120 / 220 back A while back I helped someone do this by taking a couple of empty 120/220 spools and loading them with 35mm IR film. To keep the film properly positioned I wound two long lengths of masking tape onto the 220 spools so that each formed a thick guide ring on the shaft of the spool. This worked quite well. I wonder if anyone has tried using an insert, such as the one Mamiya 7 uses for using 35 in place of 120. I recall some folks have simply rolled 35mm emulsion onto spools (tape) and darkroom loaded the setup, shot film, and darkroom unloaded and processed the 35mm film. Again, only reason to do so is special emulsion (IR) only in 35mm. Not very handy, but you get mf panos with the 35mm " ". Just a thought... Lawrence
From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Konica to discontinue IR 750 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:41:32 +0200 I have it from a reliable source that Konica will no longer manufacture their IR750 infrared b/w film. This product used to be made in a single batch, once every year, usually around early spring. Local Konica sales people have been telling our dealers that there will be no next time, in early 2002. :( So, we'll be left with the considerably more expensive Kodak HIE and the Maco IR film which is rather difficult to obtain in most parts of the world as the only 'real' infrared emulsions. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Konica to discontinue IR 750 From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 Just got confirmation from Konica's photo division, Konica 750 is *not* discontinued, it *will* be produced again for a 2002 batch. As usual, it is listed as unavailable now that the 2001 batch is sold out, and will be shown as available again when the 2002 batch is out. -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam http://www.phred.org/~josh/ Updated Infrared Photography Books List: http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html
From: DaveHodge@aol.com Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:11:25 EST Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1462 To: hasselblad@kelvin.net hasselblad@kelvin.net writes: >> Got a pack of expired TriX offered to me free by my local store.. expiry date was a year ago. I took the pack (it was free!!) but am not sure whether I should shoot and hope for the best. >> This subject has been hashed and rehashed on the former Kodak Photography Forum, now know as the AOL "You've Got Pictures" forum. The primary cause of aging in film, assuming it has been refrigerated or frozen, is gamma radiation. It is all around us, all the time, and will penetrate anything including 10 ft. of lead. Eventually (which might be a very long time) the gamma radiation will cause an increase in the film's fog level. But, as various readers have pointed out, the increase in fog level is very slow when films have been stored properly, and even the slight increase in fog level does not disqualify the film for use. I have many rolls of Kodak High Contrast Copy (AKA Microfile) dated 1970 that have always been frozen and still give good results--maybe I have to bracket a little, but no problem. I have been making slides on some Ektachrome Tungsten film dated 1986 and the show juries seem to think the slides look fine. I recall a story about Admiral Byrd, who returned to some arctic outpost after 20 years and found frozen film that was still good. Hope this helps, at least a little. Best regards, David Hodge
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Subject: [HUG] Identifying Ilford film spools... Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 Hi, We were discussing the size difference of the new(er) Ilford spools a short time ago. Someone asked, how to identify the spool. I responded saying it had circular openings along the slit you slide the paper through...and while doing (a whole lot of) processing tonight...I also noticed that they have a cross (X) on the ends, instead of the normal single slot for the advance to engage in. Just thought I'd add that piece of data... Regards, Austin
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: [Rollei] black and white development From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Rich Lahrson at tripspud@transbay.net wrote: > I sent away for a sample of that Piezo stuff that's available. I'm > not thrilled and still prefer the look silver prints. I suppose > you're right though, at some future time, digital prints will be > able to match silver prints and maybe further. Along with > this, we will see less choices in black and white films and > papers. > We're already seeing it. Most of my favorite papers are gone, and a number of black and white films have vanished, including Agfapan 25, one of my long time favorites. Over the next ten years I predict we will see a mass extinction of black and white papers and films. > I'm inching toward 60 and probably will not move out of > the darkroom and use the computer because I enjoy > analog printing. But it seems doubtful that there will be > any rush of young people clammering to learn the > traditional skills. All that will remain will be a handful > of die-hard workers, much like those who print > with platinum and wet plates. Ah, but there is a difference. Anyone with a half decent knowledge of how to handle chemicals can make their own platinum paper and wet plates. Those are low tech. But when black and white films and gelatin silver papers go, it will be impossible to make your own. Bob
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Agfa was hived off into a separate company several years ago, and at the moment is up for sale again. A recent deal for the purchase fell through at the last minute for unknown reasons. I may have mentioned here that they sent out a press release last week announcing that they are dropping out of digital completely to concentrate on their core business of film and photo paper. Bob > From: "B. D. Colen" bdcolen@earthlink.net> > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient > > I believe 'Igee Farben' did indeed own Agfa, along with a boatload of > other companies....Unless they've spun it off recently, AG Bayer - once > part of Igee, owns Agfa. I once visited Bayer HQ in Leverkusen (sp), > where it has been since before the war...amazing, chilling, > place....fabulous manicured grounds - no need to ask who manicured them > during the war - and above the massive main entrance doors to the main > stone building is a protruding hunk of stone - which is where the eagle > and swastika used to sit....
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Let's hope not since I really like Agfa film! Polaroid has been plagued by ineffectual management since Dr. Land died, and is now paying the price of hiring so many Harvard MBAs who had no clue about the photo industry. Kodak seems headed down the same road. I'd hoped Agfa would be smarter. When Agfa was still part of Bayer I went out to Leverkusen a number of times when they had dinners and other events during photokina. I noted the same things you mentioned. The casino at Bayerwerke is certainly a posh place to hold press events! Bob > From: "B. D. Colen" bdcolen@earthlink.net> > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient > > > > Bob Shell wrote: > they sent out a press release last week announcing >> that they are dropping out of digital completely to concentrate on >> their core business of film and photo paper. > > And might this be described as "doing a Polaroid?" ;-) > > B. D. >
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 Subject: [Rollei] OT: Exclusive film deal From: Eric Goldstein egoldstein@usa.net> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>, canon-fd@KJSL.COM>, CosVoigtUser@topica.com> > Wednesday, October 31, 2001 > > > BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has bought the rights to exclusively > sell 35mm Polaroid film. Spokesman Rob Phillips said yesterday that the > Bentonville-based company signed an agreement with Agfa, a German film > manufacturer, to buy film under the Polaroid name. Agfa now controls the > Polaroid name. > > AP
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [Rollei] a "secret signature" of a R-TLR.. at least some R-TLRs ;-) you wrote: >Richard > >Sorry, but Manny clearly asserted that it occurred >AFTER the 12th exposure, and possibly due to >winding on after the roll is transferred to the take- >up spool. > >He might have a very high-tensioned toothed wheel >in his Rollei to cause this. > >Whoops! I just checked some Rollei negatives taken by > Bob Gill, of me and my AC Bristol, in 1957. He used >his Rollei, and those magic marks are there! No question >about it, through most of the roll too. > >Jerry I would expect that. The film is only the paper thickness away from the teeth of the wheel at all points so the pressure marks can be continuous along the entire length of the film. I haven't looked to see of there are any signs of weaker double marks at the very end but its possible the wheel could leave marks through more than one layer of backing paper. Since other cameras have similar metering wheels I imagine they would leave similar marks. I think someone posted that they do. A slight digression. My 1943 _Photo-Lab-Index_ has a page in the "cine" section showing identification marks left by some 42 16mm, and 6 8mm, motion picture cameras. Evidently, nearly every brand and model had some sort of notch in the gate or pattern of holes in the edge of the gate to leave markings on the edge of the film. If you have old home movies you can probably tell what kind of camera they were shot with. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: sell-3d@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 From: Lawrence Kaufman kaufman3d@earthlink.net> Subject: Print film bargain Please excuse the cross-posting, but I thought everyone would like to know about this deal. Seems like a good price for print film users: Until recently Costco Wholesale sold their 24 exposure, 200 ASA, 35mm Kirkland Signature color print film for around $4 US. They currently only stock Kodak print film and they carry no slide film at all. The Kirkland print film is now being liquidated in Southern California through the '99 Cents Only' chain for only 99 cents. http://www.99only.com/ Good luck, Lawrence
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 From: simonwide simonwide@earthlink.net> Subject: 120/220 To: Richard Schneider richard.schneider@nara.gov> dear steve- would you like to have my 1963 letter from kodak saying that 220 wasn't feasible? it was thunk by simonwide, published in 1964 modern photography as a simon says column. i have correspondence with rollie, calumet, nikor (stainless steel reels) and good explanation how camera makers adapted.it could go out only as the complete letter, not excerpted. richard second place on this. simon nathan
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [Rollei] black and white development you wrote: >Dave and Mark > >Y'know, about 40-50 years ago, someone tested the >difference in grain size 'tween negatives dried naturally >vs. those force dried. Can't remember the results, but >I believe that nature won. > >Jerry Kodak did testing in, when, the 1930's, and found no difference. The heat of drying did not cause any migration of silver particles in the emulsion. The alleged gain in graininess is a myth. This is not to say that sometimes excessive heat can cause the appearance of increased grain but its caused by reticulation from slightly melting the gelatin. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Efke vs Maco Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 ChrisPlatt chrisplatt@aol.com> wrote: > Has anyone used both Efke and Macophot b&w; negative films, 100 speed? > > If so, how do they compare? They are identical. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Efke vs Maco From: Huib Smeets hsmeets@plex.nl.removethis> Date: 13 Jan 2002 ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote: > ChrisPlatt chrisplatt@aol.com> wrote: > >> Has anyone used both Efke and Macophot b&w; negative films, 100 speed? >> >> If so, how do they compare? > > They are identical. > > Ralf > Hi Ralf, I hear this often but why are the developing times from, for example Efke R25 and Maco UP25+ so completely different in any given developer? Huib
From: steven.sawyer@banet.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Efke vs Maco Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 My guess is that Maco is re-branding the Efke 127 film for export. The Macophot box says "Made in EU". I e-mailed Maco some months ago about this and they said they have "many" sources for the 127 film. That tells me it's Efke. I believe this only applies to the 127 size film. Plus I checked their website and there's no mention of a color 127 reversal film. I assumed (and hoped) that their 127 "reversal" offering would be B&W;, so I could develop it myself. Huib Smeets wrote: > ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote: > > > ChrisPlatt chrisplatt@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> Has anyone used both Efke and Macophot b&w; negative films, 100 speed? > >> > >> If so, how do they compare? > > > > They are identical. > > > > Ralf > > > > Hi Ralf, > > I hear this often but why are the developing times from, for example Efke > R25 and Maco UP25+ so completely different in any given developer? > > Huib
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 film containers From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Not to take away from Yuri, but I get mine from Kiev USA. It's not bad stuff. Comes in 32, 125 and 250 speeds, and in 35 mm and 120 sizes. The 125 and 250 come in the plastic cassettes with screw on lids. The 32 comes in no cassette at all! It is foil wrapped and has a paper band around it to allow daylight loading into a cassette. Weird. I don't use the 32 because of this. The 120 has thick backing paper which some cameras don't like. Bob > From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net> * Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 film containers > > you wrote: >> Very good, now where can I buy Smena >> film? > > Contact Yuri Boguslavsky at Blanka007@aol.com> Yuri can supply ANY of > this stuff, at a price, of course! > > Marc > >msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From: "Brian Larmay" brileau@earthlink.net> Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature Subject: Tech Pan being discontinued? Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 Here is an excerpt from a mailing list I belong to: Today, I spoke with two professional photographic supply houses I use here in Dallas and they both said Technical Pan film has been discontinued by Kodak. They may or may not have a direct line to Kodak, so when I can find the time (right now I have a very busy shooting schedule and jury duty this week) I intend to go directly to Kodak. I'll post what I find out. This is just the latest rumor that has been circulating now, but has anyone here heard anything relating to the issue?? Should we start buying bricks and freezing them? I personally love tech pan and use it for the newspaper I work for and also my astrophotography. It would be a shame to lose such a valuable film. good fortune, Brian
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@earthlink.net> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Rollei] Film Permanence On 15-Aug-01 Les Clark wrote: > Subject: [Rollei] Film Permanence > > Bob, Austin, and others.... > > I remember the name of the researcher at RIT who wrote about film > permanence; it is Doug Nishimura. What I read was a summary of his work > in one of the newsgroups. Douglas Nishimura posted in rec.photo.darkroom on 4 Sept 2000 a long message "Warning: Negative base deterioration" about the deterioration of cellulose acetate film base. Almost all safety film not using a polyester base (like Kodak Estar) is on cellulose acetate. Depending on storage conditions and the exact manufacture of the plastic, eventually the plastic will deteriorate via an auto-catalytic reaction. As the plastic base deteriorates, it shrinks, which causes big problems with the emulsion which isn't shrinking. In some cases of GOOD storage, this can happen in 40 years. Under bad storage, much sooner. Dr Nishimura also posted a long message about how to greatly delay this problem by storing your film in the freezer. His method is simple and prevents the film from being subjected to excess humidity. Don't just stick you exposed film in the freezer. Unfortunately I can't find either of these messages on the newsgroup archive at http://groups.google.com. Strangely, 13 articles from the end of the thread seem to be there, but not the beginning of the thread. The above details are summarized from a printout that I made (how quaint!). Somewhere I think I have a printout of the second posting on the the storage technique. Perhaps someone else can try their hand at searching google. On a related note, the disappearance of the digital version of this information and the retention of the old-fashioned paper version might have a moral for the debate on the longevity of film vs digital storage of images. On the other hand, I can't find the printout of the second article, for which the electronic version should be easily locatable by searching the database, if it is still in the database. --Michael
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 To: rmonagha@post.smu.edu From: deanwst clubs-mail@yahoo-inc.com> Reply-To: clubs-mail@yahoo-inc.com Sorry for the OT post, but if anyone here has given up on their 126 cameras, you might want to know that Ferrania has a modern 126 200 ISO print film currently available("Solaris"). I got an e-mail back from the North American distributor offering to sell to me by the case of 30. I'm going to see if my local (Canadian) dealer will buy it for me, but if anyone here is interested in buying their own case, e-mail me off list and I will forward the e-mail I received with prices and contact info for the distributor. Dean (deanws@hotmail.com)
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com From: flexaret@sprynet.com Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 Subject: Re: [medium-format] refreezing film The advantage to freezing film is that sometimes you get bargains in film in quantity and you can keep this film a long time and use as needed. (I just sold off a 126 SLR and with it 35 rolls of 126 Fujicolor which the buyer was glad to get). I have found no problem in freezing and refreezing 120 film in its original package sealed in foil inside the boxes. Recently I was testing the focusing and shutters on Kiev 88 cameras and found some rolls of (120) 1979 Ektachrome 400 in my freezer section in the fridge. They had been in there for over 20 years and through two purchases of new refrigerators. I have shot several rolls of this film in doing the camera tests. My local one hour lab can process 120 film in c-41 and they have done a lot of color negative and XP-2 film for me. They have no problem in cross-processing E6 film in the same processor and have each roll done in only 20 minutes. The Ektachrome 400 came out really weird - not orange like a negative- or orange like the usual E6 film cross-processed - but a strange BLUE. This is I believe due to the film itself as nothing else is unusual about it and the film had high contrast (no fog) and was reasonably sharp. Scanning some of this on my Umax Astra 2200 scanner produced a strange Red/Yellow image and very artistic and interesting. Just goes to show you. - Sam Sherman ---------- >From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu> >To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [medium-format] refreezing film >Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2001, >shouldn't be a problem; the key issue is to keep film packed up in >moisture proof packages so moisture doesn't get to the film and cause >expansion in emulsion and other problems etc. You can freeze and unfreeze >them all day long, on some rarely used film types I may put them in and >out of the fridge a dozen times while waiting to need that oddball >emulsion. after years in fridge the base fog will build up a bit from >cosmic ray and local backround radiation buildup, but that take's 5-20 years >and not as bad as a few trips thru the xray machine scanners at airports. >If the film has been removed from moisture proof packaging, it needs to go >into something like that, such as a tupperware container with silica gel >in it or a zip lock baggie etc. HTH bobm >
From: mark.blackman1@btinternet.com Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 discontinued? In the uk, this is the situation: Delta 100 - No Delta 400 - No FP4 - Yes (5 pack) HP5 - No Delta 3200 - No Pan-F - No XP2 Super - No SFX200 - No I cant find any Agfa, Maco, Forte, Macolith, Konica or Bergger B&W; film in 220, can get: Tri-X (5 pack) and Neopan 400 (5 pack) > Hmm... I wonder what all those boxes of 5 in my 'fridge marked: > > Ilford FP4 Plus Black & White film 220 > Ilford HP5 Plus Black & White film 220 are grin> > > some bought only a few days ago. > > Have a look at the data sheets: > > a href="/bti/redirect.html?http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/FP4Plus.pdf" target="t21Link">http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/FP4Plus.pdf/a> > a href="/bti/redirect.html?http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/HP5_Plus.pdf" target="t21Link">http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/HP5_Plus.pdf/a> > > Now 100 Delta and Delta 400 are a different matter ......sigh. > > Bob Parsons. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mark blackman" mark.blackman1@btinternet.com> > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 6:32 AM > Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 discontinued? > > > > I dont see any Ilford film in 220? Or isn't this considered a pro film? > >
From: Rei Shinozuka shino@ubspainewebber.com> Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 discontinued? To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 > From: mark.blackman1@btinternet.com > > In the uk, this is the situation: > > Delta 100 - No > Delta 400 - No > FP4 - Yes (5 pack) > HP5 - No > Delta 3200 - No > Pan-F - No > XP2 Super - No > SFX200 - No > > I cant find any Agfa, Maco, Forte, Macolith, Konica or Bergger B&W; film in 220, can get: > > Tri-X (5 pack) and Neopan 400 (5 pack) i'm a real 220 fan. in the US we can get HP5+ in 220. the "Tri-X" in 220 is TXP (tri-x professional, ASA 320) not TX (400 ASA) Also Portra 400 BW (kodak's chromogenic) is avail in 220. i don't see any fuji B/W in 220 here in the USA. there are quite a few color emulsions available in 220. -rei
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com> Subject: RE: [Rollei] Super Coolscan 8000ED you wrote: > >That depends. Just because you have a wider density range, that doesn't >mean you have more discernable tones, nor does it mean you have an actual >wider image tonal range. The issue of paper is entirely different >though...it depends on how you print it. If your printing process reduces >the number of tones lower than both, and both have the same actual image >tonal range (NOT density range), then they will be very close. If one of >your images has a wider actual tonal range, and/or more tones, and the >printing process can take advantage of that...then you will see a >difference. > > >> Well, if a scanner is sensitive to, and can translate this density range, >> will the difference be visible once the image is on paper, where light >> travels twice (according to some) thru the ink? >> >> pk >> >> > >> >> >> >> You are confusing latitude with tonal range. Slide films have >> >> less latitude >> >> but a greater tonal range, negative films have more latitude but >> >> less tonal >> >> range. >> > >> > I agree that positive film does have less EXPOSURE latitude >> that negative >> > film, but it does not necessarily have a greater tonal range. >> It does have >> > a greater density range. Ability to capture more "discernable" >> tones, or >> > capture darker blacks, or whiter whites is not the same as film density >> > range. The film density range is only the difference between >> the darkest >> > part of the film and the lightest, and since positive film does >> not have a >> > film base, it has a higher density range. >> > >> I agree generally with Austin, but note a couple of things: "Latitude" is defined as the range of exposure which can result in an acceptable image. For most negative films this is a very wide range. The latitude of a film also depends on the range of scene brightnes to be recorded. Obviously, the longer the range of brightness the more accurate the exposure must be to place it within the range of densities of which the film is capable. This disregards factors such as graininess and optimum sharpness, which are also affected by densities. For minimum grain and maximum sharpness densities should be kept low. The "tonal range" of a film must be defined in terms of the subject brightness range or the film density range. The second is a function of the maximum density the film can record. Base density has no effect since we are concerned only with the ratio of maximum to minimum density and any base density adds linearly to all densities. The tonal range in terms of subject brightness range is a matter of both film density range and film contrast. The contrast is the rate of change of density with a change in exposure. A film may have very great density range but extremely high contrast, so be able to record only a very narrow range of subject brightness. This is typcial for process films which are almost binary in response. i.e., the "input" of the film has a very sharp threshold between the amount of exposure which renders the sensitive particles developable and that which leaves them undevelopable. OTOH, a very low contrast film is capable of recording a very large range of relative exposures as different shades of gray. It doesn't necessarily need to have a very long scale of densities to do this although the "noise" will be likely less if the effective density range is larger. Film performs what can be considered a mapping function on its input. The characeristic curve is one way of representing this function. The curve is more informative than a single number for contrst since the mapping function is seldom linear. Since negative film is usually printed onto a positive medium the nature of that medium becomes an equal part of the overall tonal rendition. For pictorial use the usual combination is a rather low contrast negative material with a relatively high contrast positive material. The positive material is what, in most cases, sets the limit on the range of brightness which can be represented. In particular, reflection prints are limited on the highlight side by the maximum brightness of the illumination. A rather wider range of reproduced brightness is had by using back illuminated transparencies or projection prints. In the case of both negative-positive and reversal positives the contrast of the image is tailored to what is acceptable to the eye. While the maximum brightness of a transparency can be substantially greater than a normally illuminated reflection print, its still often limited in comparison with the original scene brighness range. While it is possible to make prints which reproduce a very large original contrast without cutting off at either end, such a print, regardless of type, will look very flat to the eye. Our visual cortex expects a certain contrast and much lower contast is does not look right. Reversal transparency materials for pictorial purposes are tailored in contrast to look good to the eye. Since both sharpness and color saturation tend to be associated with high contrast reversal materials tend to be adjusted to present fairly high contrast images to the eye. Also, the material is intended to deliver as close to original contrast as possible in the mid tones, which is mainly what the eye judges in deciding whether an image looks like the real thing. The same thing is true for black-and-white reproduction. It is possible to make low contrast reversal materials. In fact, Kodak did this for many years with Kodachrome in both motion picture and slide size films. The low contrast stuff was intended for duplication rather than direct viewing. Looked at directly it did not look very good. However, it was tailored to match a duplicating stock so that the duplicates had contrast similar to normal Kodachrome transparencies. Reversal materials have inherantly less latitude than negative materials. The reason is that enough silver must be left for the positive image. Any emulsion may be reversed, however, emulsions intended for reversal may have an excess of very slow silver halide particles to insure a good supply for the final image. The overall density range is not changed by the reversal process. The "tonal" range, i.e., the range of scene brightness which can be recorded, can be as large as a negative material (or at least very large) provided a very low contrast final image is acceptable. Normally, there is some variation in tonal range possible by choice of the contrast of the first development but the range is not as large as with a negative film because a certain range of densities must be achieved for the reversal process to work well. This is also why there is a narrower range of exposure which results in an acceptable reversed image, hense, by definition, less latitude. The contrast expected by the eye is one reason that compressing or expanding orignal contrast (by Zone System methods, for instance) may not result in acceptable prints. Here the idea is to produce a negative whose density range is within the range expected by a printing medium of given contrast. It is quite simple to fit a given scene brightness range (provided its not really extreme) onto the range of densities of which a printing medium is capable. However, especially when a very long brighness range is compressed into the narrow range of a reflection print, the results may not be at all pleasing. The print will look "flat" despite having detail in both shadow and highlight. A note about reflection prints. Despite much discussion comparing papers in terms of Dmax the Dmax of nearly any printing paper is considerably darker than is usable in normal printing. One can prove this by looking at a print with dark areas by transmitted light. There will nearly always be detail visible which is not apparent by reflected light. Further, the actual Dmax of the paper is seldom reached by normal exposures. Again, one can prove this by making a good print and adding to it a spot of very great additional exposure. Expose the paper and put a mask over the print with a hole in it. Expose the uncovered part to plain white light from the enlarger. After developing inspect the print by transmittle light. This very over exposed area will have pretty much the actual maximum density the paper is capable of and it will nearly always be darker than any shadow in the normal image area. This capacity can be used to make a reflection print which looks nearly like a transparency. The key is in special lighting. This prnt must be illuminated with light much brighter than teh ambient viewing illumination. A light box is a good method. The right contrast and exposure for the print must be found experimemtally, it will look very dark under normal illumiation but the highlights must be clear, so it will also be of rather high contrast. When in the light box it will have full scale and "normal" contrast, but will have tremendous tonal range compared to a normal reflection print. This works best with ferrotyped (glazed) glossy paper or glossy RC paper, which have minimum surface scattering of light. As far as scanning and electronic reproduction I think somewhat similar considerations apply. The digital encoding system has some limit on its range, depending on the number of bits and method of encoding. The range of the original must be mapped onto the range of the digital encoding format and the output mapped onto whatever is the limit of the final image medium. For either reflection prints or transparencies the limitations will similar to those produced by chemical printing. Electronic printing offers a much more comprehensive means for modifying the mapping function, meaning both the overall contrast and local contrast, than conventional photogrphic means, but the same criteria of acceptablity to the eye still pertain. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles,Ca. dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 From: Frank van der Pol frank@digitalefotografie.com> Subject: Re: 120 and 220 films To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au AJNECP@aol.com wrote: > Therefore the only logical answer could be just plain part numbers. They are. Most of the answer can be found at http://www.geocities.com/thombell/history.html but there probably will be more sites on this issue. Because of the huge number of different films, in 1895 Kodak decided to number their films in the order in which they were designed, starting with 101. So the number is meaningless with respect to its size. Other film manufacturers probably had to follow the numbering of Kodak. Frank -- Frank van der Pol Digitale Fotografie voor Multimedia Digitale catalogi - Slideshows - VR objects/panorama's/scenes http://www.frankvanderpol.nl info@frankvanderpol.nl
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 From: Les Newcomer lnphoto@ismi.net> Subject: roll film history To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au http://member.aol.com/Chuck02178/film.htm 620 was supposed to be 6 shots on 120 film for the amateur set, but at the last minute they left the lenght the same as 120 The rest of the numbers were either arbitrary or 'next in line' At one time this guy had a nice written history with the table at the end. Les AJNECP@aol.com wrote: > > At the very outset of this question about where the # designations came from, > I pointed out some other Kodak numbers. There was no relationship to number > of film as to its size, only 35mm desgnates size. The numbers merely are > like part numbers assigned to the films. 120, 620, 220, 130 etc. > Why it keeps coming up about exposures, ?????????????, > Let's go on to a better one, I know many of you will know this one - the heck > with the 120/620/220 > Where did George Eastman dream up Eastman Kodak ????? > Who made the first camera? > > AJ > ( Yes, I know the answers) > > In a message dated 9/1/01 4:50:56 AM, dusariez@pano360.org writes: > > To be complete on the hereunder list : on 220 film I take 17 full 360 > degrees pictures ( 15mm lens) on my LARSCAN CAMERA. > > As I remember the initial question is : why somebody give the name of > 120 and 220 to these film ? > And not what is 120 and 220 film, I hope that all of us know what are > theses films ! > > Is somebody who know the real answer to the iunitial question : why > the numbered 120 and 220? > > Michel DUSARIEZ > > >The number of exposures on 120/220 film has more to do with the camera > >than with the length of the film: > > > >120: > >6x4.5 format 16 shots > >6x6 format 12 shots > >6x7 format 10 shots > >6x8/9 format 8-9 shots depending on camera > >6x12 format 6 shots > >6x14 format 5 shots (the Gilde camera introduced this > >format upon my > >request) > >6x17 format 4 shots > >6x24 format 3 shots > >360 cameras up to entire roll, depending on angle of > >coverage chosen and > >focal lenght of lens > > > >220: > >double the above numbers > > > > > >In other words, one could introduce different formats, such as 6x2 > >panoramic format and get about 30 shots on a 120 roll, and 60 on a 220 > >(wow!). That would perhaps be a cheaper way than using an X-pan. > >Advantage: no need to reload so often. > > > >Adri de Groot, Ph.D.
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 From: Matt Parker mattparker@mac.com> Subject: Re: 120/220 film; ideas for enw formats To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au >Let's go on to a better one, I know many of you will know this one - the >heck >with the 120/620/220 >Where did George Eastman dream up Eastman Kodak ????? This page has an explanation of Kodak and other names: http://www.kingsdr.demon.co.uk/riscos/names.htm Matt
From: Ron Andrews randrew1@rochester.rr.com> Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Subject: Re: Composition of film? Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 Andy Ziem wrote: > > What makes up C-41 color film? Isn't it a red, blue and green layer? > And also there are UV-filter layers too? What is this thing that Fuji > has with a special 4th layer for flourescent lights? > > Andy > http://www.geocities.com/nitelitephoto/junk.html A typical color film has a structure something like this: overcoat UV filter layer fast blue sensitivie layer slow blue sensitive layer yellow filter layer fast green sensitive layer mid green sensitive layer slow green sensitive layer interlayer fast red sensitive layer mid red sensitive layer slow red sensitive layer anti-halation undercoat acetate support The blue, green, and red sensitive layers normally produce yellow, magenta, and cyan dyes. There are also masking couplers (they start out as one color and form another color in the developer) and inhibitor releasing couplers. Fuji's first Reala film had a "4th" emulsion layer underneath the blue sensitive layers. It was sensitized to blue-green light. Fuji's literature suggests there were inhibitor releasers in this layer. Effectively, these inhobitors made the film less sensitive to blue-green light. Since there is a lot of blue-green light in fluorescent light, this extra layer makes fluorescent light look more like other light to the film. This is not ther only way to get the film to "see" fluorescent light more like other light. Other manufacturers tailor their spectral sensitizer dyes to avoid the blue-green region. Fuji's current line of "4th' layer films put the extra layer under the green sensitive layers. This makes it easier to apply this technique to high speed films, but it makes the layer much less effective. It improves performance a little and it provides an advertisable claim.
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: [Rollei] No Fuji Acros for me! From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> J Patric Dahl=E9n at jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com wrote: > Fuji makes wonderful color films, and I use them in my Rollei's. But I never > buy Fuji B/W films. I love the skintones I get with Agfa APX 100, and Efke > R100 is a beautiful old style film. When I want a faster film I use Tri-X. I > choose to support this brands, not only since I love the resluts I get from > them, but also to keep them on the market. Noble of you! With Agfa's current problems I wouldn't count on APX 100 being around, or any of their black and white products for that matter. The company has been for sale for some time, and a recent purchase fell through at the last minute. They've discontinued all of their digital products, which is a real shame since they had some great scanners. Looks like they are going to concentrate on color neg films and their line of minilab equipment, which is where their strengths lie. Bob
From: ARTHURWG@aol.com Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Kodak Poly-Toner To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us I've just returned from Adorama, where I went to buy some Poly-Toner. Darkroom manager said he hasn't seen any for over a month, which tends to confirm the rumor that Poly-Toner has been discontinued. He said that many Kodak darkroom chemicals have been recently discontinued, including the old standard Microdol. It's difficult to believe that Poly-Toner is no longer with us as it must be the most popular Kodak toner. It's so easy to use-- dosen't require bleach and dosen't smell -- and gives a wide range of tones depending on dilution and time. (sigh).
From: Gannet gannet@jtel.net> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: bulk film? Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 "Joseph Shark" lambchop@burgerstand.com> wrote: >The attractive part saving the green$, is quite enticing for me personally, >being that I am some what strapped for cash at the moment. I was looking at >some auctions, and came across velvia 50 100' rolls going for $30-35, to me >this sounds to appealing to let it go, considering that velvia costs me 5 >bucks a pop at b&h.; Freestyle is doing outdated Velvia for $30, or $25 if you buy 2 or more. http://www.freestylesalesco.com/clearanc.html I've used Velvia that was -way- outdated (cold-stored, of course) and it was fine. Gannet St. Petersburg, Florida USA gannet@jtel.net
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Date: 17 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: agfa, kodak film/chemical losses Re: huge -36% LF/MF Not sure that AGFA is really out of the digital business .. they may be dropping some of their consumer products but they just finished the accquisition of a large digital imaging company and company press releases seem to indicate that they are moving strongly into specialized, professional imaging markets. There is also no indication at the manufacturers level tha they are dropping out of the black and white film business. While it could be true, whenever I hear this sort of thing I always ask myself if it is really the manufacturer dropping the product or the retailer no longer wanting to stock it in whta he sees as a small market. Often, a call to the company will prove that the product is alive and well and available elsewhere jsut not from the retailer sho so adamently told you thta the product was no longer available. Ted Harris Resource Strategy Henniker, New Hampshire
From: John john@darkroompro.net> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.darkroom Subject: 5X7 films ! They're back ! Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 Received a note the other day from Kodak which states that the following items will be available for the foreseeable future. To put it mildly, I'm shocked ! Black & White Catalog number: 143-0271 100 sheets 5x7 Kodak TRI-X PAN Professional Film 4164 Catalog number: 143-0214 25 sheets 5x7 Kodak TRI-X PAN Professional Film 4164 Catalog number: 144-3118 100 sheets 5x7 Kodak Plus-X Pan Professional Film 4147 Catalog number: 822-6334 50 sheets 5x7 Kodak T-Max 100 Film Color Slide (daylight) Catalog number: 122-5325 10 sheets 5x7 Kodak Ektachrome 64 Professional Film (EPR) Color Print (daylight) Catalog number: 135-5825 50 sheets 5x7 Kodak Portra 160 NC Regards, John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Formulas & facts on the Photographic Process Website ------------ http://www.darkroompro.net
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Fuji Provia 1600 Discontinued From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > From: "Kevin Ramsey" kramsey@trinity.nyc.ny.us> > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 > To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Fuji Provia 1600 Discontinued > > 3) Is this a case of a company cutting a product that it perceives to be > redundant, or something else (I'm counting on our industry insiders here)? I think it is a case of a company cutting back on products that don't sell very well. Slide film as a whole sells only a fraction of the volume of negative film, and specialty slide films like this are a tiny fraction of that. I expect you will see slide film pickings getting slimmer and slimmer in the next few years. Bob
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT cold mirrors in color enlarger heads, DURST you wrote: >In 3C157623.C4107BC1@pacbell.net>, > Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@pacbell.net> said: > >> Personally, I loved Tri-X in that size, >>though most of my prize-winners in those days were on >>Kodak Super Panchro Press. (How many of you guys >>remember that film?). > >Me, Me! > >But of course I am approaching Methusela. >Some days I feel like his daddy. > >les clark / edgewater, nj / usa I remember it and used the ROLL film version Kodak made experimentally for a short time. Kodak made two or three films with nearly the same name (a practice they still indulge) Super Panchro Press, the original, was a Type-C pan film, i.e., high red sensitivity. In addition they made Super Panchro Press-Type B, with "normal" red sensitivity. This is the film most of us remember. The Type-C film was more sensitive but tended to washed out faces when used with flash on the camera. In addition Super Panchro Press - Sports Type was made for a while. This was a very high speed film, I think Kodak's fastest at the time. All of these films tended to shoulder off at fairly low densities. I used to shoot stuff in highschool with a borrowed Crown Graphic and used both Super Panchro Press - Type-B and Super Ortho Press. Ortho films were popular for press work partly because they could be processed by instpection under a red safelight but also because they yielded better facial detail when used with flash on the camera. The combination of flat lighting and the fairly high red content of flash bulbs tended to wash out details when pan films were used. Remember that press photos were all reproduced by very low resolution half tone so details had to be very clear. In fact, heavy retouching was someimes used to bring out details. Some of the photos in the Los Angeles Examiner archives at the Los Angeles City Public Library are more retouching than photographs. Some of these may be seen on-line at http://www.lapl.org Click on Databases and from there on Photo. The key word Examiner should bring up some of them. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Jim Wrobleski" Jim.Wrobleski@Chartermi.net> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Subject: Re: [HUG] OT 127 film processing Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 Or try these guys. They handle "antique" films. Not cheap! http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [HUG] OT 127 film processing KARM40@aol.com wrote: >I was checking out a box of old cameras that I have and found a shot roll of >127 film in it. I know the odds of there being anything on the film are low, >but I would like to at least make the attempt. Any ideas as to where I could >get this processed would be appreciated. In your own darkroom, of course. I recommend XTOL as the developer-of-choice. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Infra Red 120 Film sources... From: "JeffW." elox@HOT.rr.com> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 You might also try: http://www.homestead.com/infrared/ JeffW. > I buy mine from B&H; Photo and the Film Shop. Both are trustworthy and have > never given me problems. However, I don't know of any in Singapore. I use > the Macophot 820 IR film now (B&W;) instead of the 750nm near-IR films. It > comes in 120 for about $5-6 a roll. > > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ > http://www.filmshop.com/ > > Clint O'Connor > > "Pittas Marios" pittas_marios@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3c319a91.39012286@news.singa.pore.net... >> Looking to buy some infra red 120 film. Can anyone recommend any good >> mail order companies to order from? >> >> Also, are there any suppliers of such film in Singapore? >> >> Many thanks >> >> Marios
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 From: "tigerarm2000" tigerarm2000@yahoo.com Subject: OT Luckyfilm website in English Hi everyone, It is off topic but some members of theis forum might be interested to know something about Chinese films and printing papers and the website of luckyfilm has an English version. www.luckyfilm.com.cn Zhang
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: Russian B/W film impression I have Smena 32, 125 and 250 speed films. I use all three now and then, and have no complaints about quality. The 32 is very fine grain but does not come in a cassette. It comes on a 35mm spool with a paper piece around it, so you slide it into a cassette and close it leaving the end of the paper sticking out, then you pull the paper and it pulls the end of the film out of the cassette. Both 125 and 250 come in plastic 35mm cassettes like the old Adox ones. Here in the USA this film is sold by Kiev USA. For Chinese film I have some rolls of Shanghai 100 speed black and white that someone gave me. It comes with English and Chinese instructions. It's packaged in standard metal 35mm film cassettes in clear plastic film cans. Expiration on the batch I have now is November 2003. I only shot one roll, but it looked pretty decent. I've tried sample rolls of Lucky color print film and this stuff was simply awful. My lab told me not to bring them any more since they could not get good prints from it. Bob
From minolta mailing list: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 From: "KAHN, JEREMY H " jeremy.h.kahn@monsanto.com Subject: Film-School WAS:[Your thoughts - FUJI NPH 400] My opinions on some color neg. films. YMMV. Consumer films: Fuji Supera 100-200-400-800: Pretty mild saturation, cheap, and nice color rendition. The 400 and 800 are much improved from the last generation. I recommend the 800, if you have to use 800 speed at all. I'm not much for the 100-200 speeds. Too dull, and a little too neutral for my liking. Skin tones are pretty darn good though. Kodak Gold/Max 100-200-400-800: A little more saturated, and the color rendition is even a little warmer than the Fuji. I'm sure that Uncle Ed is using this in his P&S.; Not real fond of this stuff either, as it seems to have a nasty tendency to get REALLY yellow under incandescent lights, and gets positively SICKLY under fluorescents. Kodak Royal Gold 100-200-400-1000. More saturated still, but funny tendencies. Stay away from the 1000 speed at ALL COSTS. It's arguably the ugliest high speed film on the market. Cheap too, so ISO 100 stays in my P&S.; Agfa HDC (or whatever) 100-200-400-800?-1600??? Again, a little mild in terms of color renditions, with a little cooler skin tones than the Fuji, and a bunch cooler than the Kodak. This is pretty cheap stuff too, and I used it in my P&S; for a while, but I went back to RG for the higher saturation. There are also the C-41 Black and White films. I like the Kodak Portra 400BW, and Kodak T400CN, in that order. Beware these films, 'cause your lab may very well screw the prints up, if you're not careful. The local Wolf Camera made them REALLY green. The local pro-lab had no problem. Pro Films: Kodak Portra: ------------ 160T - Made my top list recently. A little expensive, but it seems to render my 2 y/o niece, and my 2 y/o cat (unrelated, of course) pretty darn well. 160NC/VC - My MINOLTA (see, there's topic in here somewhere) has NC for people pics, and VC for scenery and sports loaded almost exclusively. 'nuff said. 400NC - It's alright, but not great. Again, it's a niece and cat thing... Fuji NPS, NPH, ETC... I don't use Fuji Pro films. Hope this helps, if only a little. -Jeremy
From leica mailing list: Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 From: imx imxputs@knoware.nl Subject: [Leica] Myth and anti-myth It is remarkable that the idea that there is a significant trade-off between high contrast and low resolution still rides high in Leica lore. As far as I know no one who holds his view has ever presented demonstrable evidence or corroboratable measurements to prove this point. Generally a high contrast implies a high resolution and the other way around. It may be that a shift in focus plane may change this relationship to a small degree, but the general correlation is evident. More contrast is higher resolution. And statements to the effect that a "slight" reduction of contrast brings a "slight' improvement of resolution beg, nay scream for evidence. Now to kill two more myths. Sometimes I feel like Buffy the Vampire Killer. I have the Kodachrome films which I used as comparison for the 100 to 400ISO slide film test some weeks ago. Results will kill some preconceived ideas. The King of all slide films is by now the Kodachrome 64, which resolves easily 90 lp/mm, much more than the E100SW and even close to the resolution of TP in normal circumstances. Especially noteworthy is the excellent acutance, the great clarity of detail and the fine grain. A disappointment was the K25 which at best was as good as the K64, with a small gain in grain smallness, but not enough to offset the drop in speed. The fading out of the K25 then is sensible. No added value. Sorry. Big surprise the K200, which showed as expected a tight but visible grain pattern, but a resolution that beats the Provia 400F at 70 to 75 lp/mm. So the idea that fine grain supports high resolution is as false as the idea that low contrasr supports resolution. If you want to test the qulaity of your lenses, there is only one easy way: use K64! and even K200 will show the defects of most lenses. Do some actual testing! I also had the opportunity to test the surfaces of filters on an interferometer. Results will kill another myth. I used four different BW filters in several colours (not relevant for testing, but to show that there must be different batches). Results? Take a deep breath: NO, absolutely NO image degradation by the filter as all surfaces of the four filters were absolutely plane to the highest possible degree. At worst only one interferometer stripe for the experts. Of course secondary reflections are possible. But the commonly held notion that the addition of the filter adds two surfaces and by that fact should degrade the image quality is simply not supported by measurements. A well made filter in front of the lens will NOT make a drop of image quality! These results show that myths are fine if you wish to cling to stories that seem sensible because they are repeated over and over again and even have been 'explained' to some degree. But so the flatness of the earth had its followers and scientifically based stories. But only measurements bring the facts. Erwin
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 From: "J-2" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Back to Kodachrome Hi Bob Jack Coote wrote in his book "The Illustrated History of Colour Photography" (Fountain Press, 1993), Japanese film manufacturers were already making colour reversal films prior to WWII. Konishiroku (now Konica) made a Kodachrome-type colour film in 1940. Fuji made something similar(at least in emulsion make-up and processing) in 1948. When captured Agfa coupler-incorporated technology was released by the Allies for everyone to pick, Oriental Photo Industry used this as basis for their colour films in 1953, Fuji followed suit by 1958, and Konishiroku (aka 'Sakura') by 1959. [ref. pages 149, 156,& 170] No mention was made when the Japanese makers decided to make their films Kodak process compatible. Interestingly, Agfa colour technology in both negative and positive types became the basis of so many colour materials made by other manufacturers. Original Agfa colour or its modification did live to a longer extent in the former east bloc well into the 1990s- as "ORWO" colour. Sound like the Kiev rf, doesn't it?:) Jay >Interesting. I first encountered Fuji slide film in the >late 60s and didn't know it existed before then. > >Bob
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M series cameras? Javier Perez wrote: >I think they may have signed something agreeing to respect >western patents after a certain year. The M mount was patented in the >50s I think >and could not be stolen for war reparations by any of the allies. By definition, "war reparations" are not theft. They are the legal property of the winning powers. Kodak's Ektachrome, for instance, is the result of Agfa's color-film technology as seized in 1945. The M39 mount was patented in 1929, so any patents on it expired in 1949. The M mount was patented in 1949, so any patents on it expired in 1969. I have never heard of a Soviet agreement to respect non-Warsaw Pact patents, and they certainly did not do so even if they agreed to this. Check out the lens diagrams for SPS MF lenses against their Zeiss exemplars! Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M series cameras? Marc James Small at msmall@roanoke.infi.net wrote: > Kodak's Ektachrome, for instance, is the > result of Agfa's color-film technology as seized in 1945. Are you sure? I know that the Ansco (later GAF) color films were derived from Agfa's color technology, but the Kodak films are quite different. Bob
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M seriescameras? Bob Shell wrote: >Are you sure? I know that the Ansco (later GAF) color films were derived >from Agfa's color technology, but the Kodak films are quite different. Yes, I am certain of this. Kodak sent a team to debrief the AGFA techs in 1945 and visited the Wolfen plant before the Soviets locked it up. I am certain that Kodak had known the details of the process before this and that they improved upon it, but Kodak's E-1 process was derived from AGFA technology. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 From: "J-2" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph Subject: Re: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica Mseriescameras? Marc Jack Coote's book, THE ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHY says the same thing too. He lists Ilford, ORWO, Ferrania, Fuji, Konishiroku,and Ansco/GAF as the companies who benefitted from AGFA colour technology. ORWO apparently held on the original Agfacolor until the late 80's. The processing given in a 1980's edition of their book ORWO-FORMULAE is similar to that of early Agfacolor. Konishiroku was said to have a Kodachrome-type colour film in 1940, and Kodak didn't seem to mind. Eastman was even said to have visited their company in the '30s. Fuji had one too after the war, but abandoned it in favour of the AGFA type materials. But did Kodak use the 'long-chain' coupler anchors which AGFA used for their first Ektachrome materials? AGFA was also first to make colour negative/positive materials, using a cine version for "Munchausen". How did Kodak develop their Kodacolor rollfilm in the 1940's? Jay

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 From: Robert Lilley lilley@eclipse.net To: rollei-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Rollei] Films and soups - The Rip Van Winkle Effect I'm just getting back into photography after a twenty-year absence. These past years have been devoted to computers and the digital revolution in printing and graphic arts. While this has been good for my career, it has not helped my B & W luddite soul. In any event, it would seems that the Great Yellow Father has changed its line of film and chemistry found in the average camera store (NW, New Jersey) if you find much in the way of darkroom stuff at all. Like Rip Van Winkle, I went to sleep with a roll of Panatomic X in my hand and woke up to TMAX (?) and little digital cameras everywhere! I am kind of upset with Kodak as they are losing the graphic arts market. Their last good product was the line of Ultra Tec films and chemistry, which they discontinued. Agfa is becoming the "Great Red Father" with Fugi as a close second in this industry. However, this is not so in the photographic market that I am aware of. I cannot find a roll of Agfapan or Ilford 120 on any shelf here in rural America. As I have to mail order film and chemistry, what do you all recommend I start with, calibrate with and would be happy staying with? Thanks for your time. Rob Lilley with an empty Rollieflex 3.5 F in hand! Belvidere, NJ

From leica mailing list: Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org Subject: [Leica] APS out ? BJP Quote "One of the world's leading camera manufacturers is switching its research and development team away from the Advance Photo System format in favour of digital. The decision by Minolta to stop developing new APS camera models provides the first sign that the 24mm format, introduced just over five years ago, may be entering its first death throws." Jim

from leica mailing list: Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org Subject: [Leica] Re: Film survey. You forgot the medium speed catagories... True favorites are listed first. 1. Slow daylight color print film. - Agfa Portrait 160 & Kodak NC 160 2. Medium daylight color print film. - Kodak VC 400 3. Fast daylight color print film. - Fuji 800 4. Color print film for a combination of daylight & artificial light. - Any Fuji 4-layer film 5. Slow color slide. - Velvia 6. Medium color slide. - Provia 100F 7. Fast color slide. - Provia 400F 8. Slow black and white. - Efke KB 25 9. Medium black and white. - Agfa APX 100, Efke KB 100 10. Fast black and white. - Tri-X 400, Agfa APX 400 Jim

[Ed. note: another favorite Kodak film discontinued by the bean counters...] Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 From: John Lehman al7jj@yahoo.com To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Rollei] Verichrome Pan "steven arterberry" arterberry@mindspring.com wrote >Is Verichrome Pan gone? I tried to find some >yesterday, and it is being hoarded by someone. As mentioned, it is being discontinued this summer. I just bought a five year supply; I suspect other fans have too :-( ===== John Lehman

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku David Seifert wrote: >It >is my understanding that the peculiar frame size was an export restriction >designed to protect the home market. As soon as the restriction was >limited Nikon switched to the standard 24x36. Well, no. Nikon first moved to 24 x 34, THEN to 24 x 36. Big Yaller just would NOT agree to process 35mm Kodachrome in anything other than 24 x 36. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net

From: bhilton665@aol.com (Bill Hilton) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 23 Feb 2002 Subject: Re: Why doesn't Kodak make Kodachrome in 120 rolls? >From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) >I am also quite sure one of them came in 4x5", or even 8x10"....probably >K64, as so much resolution as K25 offers is overkill in these formats) Kodachrome was available in the late 1940's in 8x10" sheet film (and maybe 4x5" as well), but this was well before K64 and K25 were introduced in the mid-1970's. I think it was an ASA 8 or 12 film back then, with just one flavor. There's a funny story about Eastman Kodak inquiring of Edward Weston "if you would like to make an 8x10 Kodachrome transparency for us of Point Lobos" for Kodak's advertising. Weston turned them down, saying he had no knowledge of (or apparently little interest in) color photography technique. Kodak sent him 24 8x10 Kodachromes anyway so he shot them in one session and returned them to Kodak for processing. Kodak decided to use seven of them for advertising, paying $250 each. After receiving this much money (a nice sum in those days) Weston said "I decided I like color" after all (grin). Bill

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Polaroid collection. Bill Bresler at bigwilly@elvis.com wrote: > It's interesting... I do Polaroid SX-70 manipulations every now and then. A > year ago the SX-70 Time-Zero film was becoming very scarce around here. > (Southeastern Michigan) Since the bankrupcy announcment the film has become > almost plentiful, even in drugstores, and a lot fresher than before. What's up > with that? I'm still stockpiling. > Bill Bresler I don't have a clue about that one! I suspect SX-70 film will disappear in the not too distant future. Bob

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 From: speedgraphic2000 speedgraphic2000@yahoo.com To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com Subject: [medium-format] Re: 120 vs 620 film --- In medium-format@y..., metcalf@a... wrote: > Thanks for tracking down a website for the Honeoye Falls NY firm whose ad I > couldn't find in Shutterbug. I long ago got rid of my 130 and 122 cameras or > I might be tempted to try them out. > Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO > > loslosbaby wrote: > > > --- In medium-format@y..., metcalf@a... wrote: > > > There were some folders made that had spring-loaded segmented lugs > > so > > > > http://www.filmforclassics.com > > > > Looks like they have all the goodies, and even weirder ones. > > > > G. Here's another one for you: Central Camera Company in Chicago. There e-mail address is and they have every conceivable extinct format. I have not used their service, but it looks good. Good luck. Thom

From Rollei mailing list: Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com Subject: [Rollei] Efke in the U.S. If Efke films are hard to find, it can be good to know that they also are sold as Macophot UP 25c and UP 64c. I think www.onecachet.com sells Maco films. Efke R100 in 127-film is sold by B&H; as Maco UP100 /Patric

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Polaroid collection. Richard Knoppow at dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > My understanding is that many Polaroid photographic materials are > actually made for them by Kodak and/or others. That could be helpful since > there is no overhead in the form of maintaining a physical plant and payroll. > I think Polaroid may be more vulnerable than conventional materials to > the inroads of digital photograpy because digital offers instant > gratification, or at least rapid access images, and of potentially higher > quality. Digital is killing Polaroid's instant picture market. Fuji makes the instant film that they outsource, not Kodak. Agfa makes the 35mm C-41 film they sell. SX-70 and other non-peel-apart films are made by Polaroid in their own facilities. Bob

From: David Littlewood david@demon.co.uk Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: out of date film Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 Bill B bburgeso@optonline.net writes >I noticed that B&H; has a few specials on out of date film. The dates range >anywhere from 9/00 for 4x5 Ektachrome (about US$30 cheaper than fresh film) >to 10/01 for 35mm Velvia (about US$1.50 cheaper than fresh film). > >I tend to shoot a lot of Velvia for a non-pro (5 to 10 rolls/wk). The 4x5 >Ektachrome is attractive since I just rediscovered my dad's old Busch field >camera and have begun to use it (well, experiment with it). > >My questions are: >1) is it OK to use out of date film? >2) if it is OK, is there a rule of thumb as to when the film is just too >old? (My assumption hear is that B&H; stores it in the correct environment) > >Any advise/opinions are greatly appreciated. We discussed this a week or two ago ("Using Film Past Expiration Date", IIRC); you may be able to find it in google. To save you time, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the NG police, here was my contribution: QUOTE Kept normally, I doubt if any kind of film will be measurably different two months later. For *unexposed* film, the deterioration past the "expiry" date would be minuscule, probably for years. I have used b&w; and reversal film several years past its expiry date with no visible effect. However, the temperature the film is kept at will make a difference. The type of chemical reaction involved in film deterioration will approximately double in rate with every 10 degree (C, of course) temperature rise. Thus film which might start showing fog after 1 year in a hot room may last 4 or more years in a fridge, or 10-20 in a freezer. However, thermal reactions are not the only cause of deterioration, fogging from cosmic rays will also occur. This will be proportional to film speed and unaffected by temperature. It should be negligible for most practical purposes though. In the case of the film I used after 5 years or so, it had been in a fridge. B&W; film will show an increase in base fog over the years, and maybe a small loss in film speed. Colour film will show these effects and also some colour shifting as different dye layers age at different rates. However, as I say, kept well the film should be good for quite a long time after its expiry date. The position is however markedly different for *exposed* film. Here the latent image can deteriorate quite quickly, and the film should where possible be processed within a few weeks of exposure. Again, this is directly affected by the temperature at which the exposed film is stored, so if you have to keep it for more than a week pr two, try to refrigerate it (in a sealed container to keep out damp). The simple answer to your question, I am quite sure, is that any weird results are down to photographer error, unless the film has been stored in a sauna. END QUOTE Bottom line: the film you mention should be OK, certainly for non-critical work. The colour balance may have shifted a bit, but if that mattered a lot to you, you probably wouldn't be asking the question here anyway. -- David Littlewood

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 From: Alan Magayne-Roshak amr3@csd.uwm.edu To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #178 ... Kodak just announced that Verichrome Pan will be discontinued this July. 8^( Alan Magayne-Roshak (also a Bergheil user)

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #178 ... I don't think the original Verichrome was _that_ awful. I used lots of it and have printed negatives made on it fairly recently. They look very good. It was fairly fine grain for the time. The speed was ASA-50 daylight. Since the ASA speeds of the time had a 2.5x safety factor Verichrome would be about an ISO-100 or 125 film now. The green sensitivity was quite high. Ortho films resulted in sharper pictures when used in simple box cameras since they eliminated the worst fringing from the non-color-corected simple lenses. All of the film manufacturers made box camera film. Ansco/Agfa's equivalent to Verichrome was Plenachrome. Verichrome was available in roll sizes and in film packs. Verichrome was replaced by Verichrome-Pan in, I think, 1958. Its actually a very modern film, quite fine grain with good resolution and very good exposure latitude. Too bad its going. Its one of the few films, maybe the only film, available in rolls for Cirkut cameras. Maybe Kodak could be convinced to put Plus-X up in its place. The roll film version of Plus-X is similar to Verichrome Pan. ... >> >>The old films must have a thicker film base, I think. Try a test roll >> >>in your film holder to see how flat the film is before you use it! >> > >> >Verichrome Pan is still available. Isn't it quite similar to the films >> >that were around when that roll film back was made? ... Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fridge or Freezer ? Pablo Kolodny at pablokolodny@mac.com wrote: > I got a lot of Scala 120 to feed my Rollei. > Since in Buenos Aires we're "enjoying" our summer temperatures (almost 100 > of yours Fahrenheit ) I wanted to keep rolls off hot. > What would you suggest, fridge or freezer to better preserve film ? > I know that they keep in the fridge but what about keeping film in the > freezer ? is it better or what ? > > very WARM regards to all from this terrible summer. It doesn't hurt film to freeze it. Just leave it in the sealed packaging and let it completely thaw and come to room temperature before opening it. The only exception is Polaroid film, which should not be frozen because it can mess up the developing gel. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 From: Marc Attinasi marc@attinasi.org Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fridge or Freezer ? I seal them in ziplock sotrage bags because modern freezers, with auto-defrost, tend to dry out terribly, and with 35mm at least, there is no moisture barrier in the packaging. Also, I use the middle of the freezer as the walls are often heated up to remove the frost, and I don't want my slide film getting colled and warmed every day ;) FWIW: I stored some K25 Pro (35mm) that way and it still went bad within a half-year of the expiration date. It was still usable, but tended to be really warm-toned (too much red and orange). Too bad, I lost 10 rolls of a very nice film that will never come back :( - marc

From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Stupid 501CM questions Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com writes >I was very surprised when shopping around today to discover that there >are apparently no film canisters for 120 film. You'd think that someone >would manufacture plastic canisters to hold exposed and unexposed film. >I can't believe that I'm expected to walk around with an open spool of >exposed film in my pocket. What protects it from light and dust? Once you've shot it, you stick it down with the sticky stuff (best to remember to fold the very end back underneath to make it easier for the lab). It's not really a problem (certainly never caused me any problem). If you really feel the need for better protection, there's a few solutions: 1) The 'Mini M&M;' tubes (available in most good sweet shops) hold a roll of 120, made out of plastic and seal quite well. 2) I think you can buy dedicated 120 roll canisters from http://www.mx2.com or a place called '7daysshop' (they probably have a website, but I'm not sure what it is). At least they used to be available about 1UKP each. 3) I have a couple of muti-purpose film containers that are designed to hold 6x 35mm or 3x 120 that were free with photo magazines. These are bright yellow, and I've seen one with a Nikon logo somewhere else. A bit of work with a sharp knife, allows an extra 120 roll across the tops of the other three. -- John Preston, Lancs, UK. Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk

From: Sam Reeves webmaster@sysresearchassoc.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 Largformat wrote: > My reasons for questioning the demise of sheet film is looking at the number of > films that are currently available. Not only from my list last Fall but in the > fact that Kodak recently revivied several more sheet films in the last month or > so. What in the world did they revive? Please enlighten me. > Yes, digital is having a major impact on image capture but I just don't see any > facts supporting these conspiracy theories obout sheet film going away. IMHO > this is just armchair pontification. The recent history of Kodak is they make a film difficult to get or it's in one quantity before they end production. It's happened to Kodachrome 25, Pro 100, Pro 400, High Speed Infrared sheets, Ektar 25, Recording Film 2475 and Ektachrome Lumeire. Going to the 50 sheet boxes for Tri-X as your only option is a warning flag to me, and what's not to say they'll try to pull TXT off the market too? As for the film business, here's how bad it's getting. There are only two Kodak reps for the whole state of California, handling that film and processing business. My dealer is lucky if he sees the rep, and plus they recently annulled his account which he held for the better part of 30 years. Does that sound like they really want that film business? The unfortunate facts are that film is dying with Kodak. Believe the conspiracy, and have a big freezer while you're at it! Sam Reeves armchair pontiff -- Sam Reeves Photography - http://www.sysresearchassoc.com/srphoto/

[Ed. note: Oh no, not Plus-X ;-( aaaarggghhhh!!!!] From: kaliushkin@att.net (Dan Kalish) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again Date: 24 Mar 2002 tpole1@aol.com (T Pole 1) wrote ... > sam i think you'll find that they also upped the price Isn't Kodak discontinuing Plus-X in all sheet film formats? PXT. Aren't they stopping shipments March 31 and hope supplies will be totally depleted by October? http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f8/f8.jhtml http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103bf/e103bf.pdf Dan

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com Subject: [Rollei] Oh, forgot about ORWO Maybe someone here knows if the old ORWO films were made after the old Agfa Isopan recipes? ORWO stood for "Original Wolfen", and was the original Agfa factory that ended up in the east zone. There are films sold under the ORWO name today, but I don't think they are the old films. /Patric

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Isopan F >From: Richard Knoppow > Orthopanchromatic or Orthochromatic? Two different things orthochromatic >means sensitive to blue and green but not sensitive to red. >OrthoPANchromatic is an old term for what Kodak called Type-B panchromatic >film, sensitive to all visible colors without excessive sensitivity to red. >Nearly all current pan films fall into this catagory. Technical Pan is >about the only exception; it has extended red sensitivity, both in >bandwidth and amplitude. > If these films are actually orthochromatic they are the only normal >contrast ortho films on the market. >---- OrtoPANchromatic. They are less sensitive to red than ordinary panchromatic films, and more sensitive to blue and green. But they are not red-blind! Efke low speed films are great to use with lamps in the studio as no filters are needed to compensate the yellow-red light. Technical Pan is what is called "Ultra-Panfilm", at least in older german books, as this film is more sensitive to red. Macophot ORT25 is an ortho film that can be used for "everyday" photos if it's developed in a low contrast developer like diluted Catechol developers, in my case Mimosa No. 3. There's also Ilford Ortho. /Patric

From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Lens testing realities - a bit shrill, but a good read. Date: 20 Mar 2002 Robert Monaghan, rmonagha@smu.edu writes: > actually, on my hasselblad backs, there are tiny "Vees" > put there by hasselblad so art directors can tell by > looking at the slides rim whether or not you were > using a hasselblad back Bet you didn't know that Kodak made a black and white version of Kodachrome 200, and in 120 format too. Proof here: http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/renbint.jpg Struan PS: more cheap eyepieces: Pentax Auto 110 lenses.

[Ed. note: Note Kodak SO-132 duplicating film is now an endangered film too ;-( ] Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: [HUG] Re: whither film? where polaroid goes... I can see that freezer sales will be brisk over the next few years. I have a two year stock of APX-25 (35mm & 120) and it might last much longer as I have been using Efke 25 instead of APX-25 lately. Lovely film. I even have a brick (no pun intended) of 120 Agfa Isopan IFF in my freezer. Each film is contained in a screw top aluminum tube rather than that dreadful plastic foil that takes two men and a small dog to tear off of the film! Well, a brick -1 as I used a roll a couple of months ago. Still perfect after 50 years in a freezer. So if there ever is an announcement that Velvia, Provia 100F & 400F are going to be discontinued, I guess I'll have to buy yet another freezer for 120, 220, and 4x5 Quickloads. Color neg? ...nah The same with Cibachrome (Ilfochrome.) I use this stuff like crazy and would be lost without it. If it were going to go the way of the Dodo bird, I truly would buy an enormous amount of 20x24 and 11x14 paper and freeze it. And enough P3 chemistry to process it all. P3 chemistry has a phenomenal shelf life. I would build a room and keep it at optimum temperature for chemistry storage. Like wine... :) 20x24 paper cuts easily down to 16x20 & 8x10 sizes. 11x14 is wasteful. So I currently buy 20x24 and 11x14 sizes. This covers everything without waste without having a zillion boxes of different sizes. So, as long as we know in advance of a film's or paper's demise, we can plan ahead. For instance, if you go to: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f11/f11.shtml you will see that Kodak has announced the demise of SO-132 duplicating film. If you are a heavy user of SO-132, now's the time to pack your "new" film freezer. Jim Robert Monaghan wrote: >well, there sure are an awful lot of cameras you can't buy film for now, >including zillions they just sold us a few years or decades ago. When >polaroid stops making SX70 film, don't expect anyone to jump into this >market either. If fuji drops out, that's it for polaroid film stocks right? > >Nobody is making slow 120 kodachromes either. Lots of film stocks have been >dropped, including some favorite slow films in MF lately too. Most LF and >many MF films are only done on a once a year production run now (not just >IR stuff either). they are only economic because they already make the film >stocks, and have the tooling, but when it wears out (as with 620 etc.)? > >Prof. film sales at kodak are only 5%, total consumer color slide and B&W; >films are only 1% of sales volume, versus 16% of medical/specialty films. >How much of that 1% do you think was 120 film? Duh!? ;-) I'll bet kodak's >ad budget for digital cameras is bigger than their sales from 120 films, >not to mention tiny profits from 120 sales, if not a "loss leader" already? > >Maybe we will be able to buy 120 film from Croatia or Guangzhou, but it might >not be color film or slide film, and if black and white will be 1950s >technology (vs Tmax etc.). Then again, they may blow off the market as too >costly to service for low volumes (cf glass quarter plates) ;-) > >could be worse; at least you can easily adapt a 'blad to a digital back ;-)

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 From: Byron Rakitzis byron@rakitzis.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; films >Which b&w; films do you use? What with Kodak playing games (discontinuing >Verichrome and Plus-X Professional, substituting Professional Plus-X), I >wonder what more experienced photographers are doing. It looks grimmer than that on the Kodak web site: the replacement for Plus-X is supposed to be Tmax 100. (!!!!) I have a brick or so of VP in my film cupboard, but when it's gone I guess that's it. I've been using a lot of Ilford HP5 for everything these days, including 35mm. I suppose I'd like to continue supporting Ilford given that they are a specialty player and if my support means anything it means more to a company that makes nothing but film and paper. But of the other doomed films (i.e., from the big-name manufacturers), I like Agfa APX100, especially in 4x5. But I can't see it lasting much longer, either, given how Agfa has decimated its product line. It's very encouraging to see Fuji Acros in sheet film as well as 120 and 35mm, but to get the sheet film you have to mail order it from England or get it from Badger Graphic Sales. Still to see a new emulsion introduced by Fuji is a very nice thing. I hope it means a lasting commitment to B&W.; Byron.

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; films you wrote: >Which b&w; films do you use? What with Kodak playing games (discontinuing >Verichrome and Plus-X Professional, substituting Professional Plus-X), I >wonder what more experienced photographers are doing. > >I just came back from B&H.; Its even more confusing because they sell grey >market, made in USA and sold in USA, made in USA for export and then >imported. > >However, they're out of Verichrome. There may never be another roll of >unexposed Verichrome in North America. >Dan Kalish kaliushkin@att.net Here is the story. Kodak has discontinued Verichrome Pan. They have also discontinued the very long toe version of Plus-X, which carried the codes PXP and PXT. This is the Plus-X which was available as sheet film. The normal toe version of Plus-X, which has been available as 35mm film and 120 rolls, will continue to be made. This film carries the code PX and will continue to carry it. Its available in 24 and 36 exposure cassettes, 100 foot long rolls, and in 120 and 220 roll film. Kodak's notice says that its B&W; films are being made in a new factory and that the characteristics may be slightly different than previous stock. There is currently a new data sheet for the "new" Plus-X roll film available on the Kodak web site as F-4018. I suspect this film is very similar to Verichrome Pan, at lease worth a try for those who like V-Pan (like me). There are probably some other sheet film users here. There really is nothing else quite like Plus-X sheet film, although Tri-X sheet is close. The very long toe is IMHO not suitable for general use but is useful for some special circumstances. T-Max 100 has a shorter toe and straighter mid curve area than Plus-X. The difference in tonal rendition is likely subtle but some may like one better than the other. Kodak has discontinued Verichrome Pan, Plus-X sheet, Ektapan (very similar to Plus-X Pan sheet film). It would appear that they have taken the moving to a new facility as an opportunity to discontinue low volume products. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: bigler@ens2m.fr Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic B&W; 120 films > Which b&w; films do you use? What with Kodak playing games ... I'm using Agfapan APX 100 developed in classical recipes like ID11 1+1. And yes, I am conservative. The fact that Agfa has discontinued Agfapan 25 has boosted independant European film manufacturers to (re?-)introduce classical "low-tech" B&W; films like Efke 25, rumored to be not as good as APX 25. But as fas ar FTM is concerned, Kodak T-max is supposed to be better than APX 25 !! a very controversial subject... and also a good reason to discontinue low-tech films by Agfa. So in Europe (translate : in Germany ;-);-) the choice of B&W; films is comfortable: Ilford, Agfa, Kodak, Bergger (=Forte for some films), Forte, Foma (Czech), Efke, Maco and Gigabit (135 and 4"x5", not in 120). So I'm not really anxious about B&W; film vanishing in the next few years. -- Emmanuel BIGLER bigler@ens2m.fr

From: Mike Farrell farrell3200@yahoo.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Fuji Film Names Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 Transparency films: RVP - Velvia 50 Professional RTP - Fujichrome 64 Professional Tungsten RA - Sensia II 100 RDP III - Provia 100F Professional RM - Sensia II 200 RH - Sensia II 400 RHP - Provia 400F Professional (or is it RHP II?) RSP - Provia 1600 Professional CDU II - Duplicating Film Type II Recently discontinued RMS - Multispeed 100/1000 Professional Print films: CS - Reala 100 CN - Super G 100 NPS - Professional 160 NPL - Professional 160 Tungsten CA - Super G 200 NPH - Professional 400 CH - Super G 400 NHG II - Professional 800 CZ - Super G 800 CU - Super HG 1600 I don't know the code for Fujicolor Internegative Film. -- Mike Farrell --
From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Polyester (was: Acetate film base) I'd like to add something to this. Acetate film base will change dimensions when wet and died. Polyestar base film is stable as far as dimensions are concerned. This makes it desireable when physical stablity is needed, such as when making color separations or measurement tasks. Estar is Kodak's name for Mylar (polyestar). The 72 exposure Ilford film attempt some years back made use of Polyestar thin-base to get the 72 exposure roll into a standard 35mm magazine. It died. Ed Bob Shell wrote: > J Patric Dahl�n at jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com wrote: > > > It's said that Polyester as film base is more stable than acetate. Is this > > really true, and why aren't PE used with more conventional films than Tech > > Pan and such? Sheet film have polyester base, and some odd 135-films, but no > > 120-films. Why? > > Polyester film base is very tough. Basically it's Mylar. Cutting films on > this base can be a hassle, and you can forget trying to tear it. Personally > I'm glad most films are not on polyester base. > > Bob

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Polyester (was: Acetate film base) ...(quoting above query) I'm not sure why this is. Polyester supports are used on some motion picture films and on sheet films. This is the stuff Kodak calls Estar and DuPont calls Mylar. Its very dimentionally stable and is supposed to be very chemically stable. The acetate base used on current roll films is a much more stable form than the tri-acetate which has caused the vinegar syndrome trouble. Early acetate was a di-acetate, which has turned out to be more stable than the later tri-acetate, which was _supposed_ to be better. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: scholt9060@yahoo.com (Scott) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again Date: 27 Mar 2002 I think, at best, you can say their renewed commitment to sheet film is ambiguous. What information Kodak is providing today could certainly lead someone to certain negative, if possibly incorrect, conclusions. Its true - they are *not* wholesale discontinuing Plus-X - they are replacing it with what appears to be a similar film coded 125PX... but read the data sheet for this film carefully and you'll see that its not available in sheet sizes. Its also true that they are replacing the Tri-X Pan 400 and Tri-X Pan Professional 320 with new emulsions. The datasheets for these films are not yet available on the Kodak site, so its not clear whether they will provide them in sheet film sizes. Clearly they are not *discontinuing* Tri-X Pan 400... but then, that point is kind of irrelevant to the sheet film user as that Tri-X Pan 400 isn't currently available in sheets anyway. The information on TMAX is a little better as at least the literature on their site still references sheet film sizes. Is this cause for concern? Yes... wholesale chicken little type panic? No. It would be nice if someone from Kodak or someone with better connections there than I could clear up some of these apparent ambiguities. - Scott John john@darkroompro.net wrote > "sweep" sweep@netdoor.com > wrote: > > >It looks like Kodak is killing Plus-X period. Tri-X 400 is being replaced > >by Tri-X 320 and the Tmax films are being changed somewhat since they will > >have new developing times. I noticed that some other > >older films are getting the ax also. > > > >I just came from the Kodak web site. looking for tech info, and saw the > >notices. > > > >Ira > > No they aren't. The whole deal is that they are moving the > film production to a new building. This mandates that the films > be completely re-evaluated. I checked with ProProducts about this > the other day and they are NOT discontinuing any B&W; films other > than Verichrome Pan and Ektapan . > > In point of fact they just recently renewed their > commitment to B-&-W films as they are moving the production into > a new facility. read the story at ; > > > http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020224-01.shtml > > Regards > > John S. Douglas, Photographer > http://www.darkroompro.net

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format From: Andrew Koenig ark@research.att.com Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again sweep> The Plus -X page on the Kodak website that I visited had the following note sweep> attached to it. sweep> "Notice of discontinuence. Kodak Plus-X and Plus-X Pan Professional films sweep> will be discontinued in October, 2002 when stocks are expected to be sweep> depleted. As a recomended alternative, we suggest Kodak Professional sweep> T-Max/100TMX." sweep> If I mis-understand the above notice, my apology to everyone. On the other hand, look at http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?section=&cc;=US&lc;=en&product;=KODAK+PR OFESSIONAL+PLUS-X+125+Film+/+125PX in which you will find this: KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film / 125PX --Notice-- Replaces KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films. Modernized film with characteristics similar to PLUS X Pan and Pan Professional Films except slightly different developing time. So perhaps there is a communication problem... -- Andrew Koenig, ark@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Plus-X or not Plus-X, that is the question Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com wrote: >Silly us. Getting confused between "Plus-X Professional" >and "Professional Plus-X", not to mention "Plus-X". > >The same only different. Or they were different and now they >are all the same... Or for a short period of time there will >be three different Plus-X's on the market and then there will >be only one (or none), which will be the same.... > >I can just envision the marketing dweebs coming up with >this solution - designed, I am sure, to minimize customer >confusion and keep the brand name intact. > >OTOH, they are getting a lot of freebie name placement out >of this snafu. Hey, maybe the guy who thought up 'New Coke' >works for Kodak now. > > >The only one getting screwed here is Kodak. > >-- >Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com >Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > I've never understood why Kodak decided to use virtually identical names for very different products. There are two completely different emulsions being sold under the general names of Plus-X and Tri-X. One is a normal, medium-toe film, the other is a special very long toe film intended for mainly studio product photography. The medium toe version of both films is available as roll film and 35mm film, the long toe version as sheet film. The tonal rendition of the two types is substantially different. Kodak made a third film (now discontinued) called Ektapan, with virtually the same sensitometric characteristics as long toe Plus-X but of ISO-100 speed rather than ISO-125. Why couldn't Plus-X have been called something else? Don't know. It appears from data sheets of sixty years ago that even then sheet films and roll films sold under the same name had different sensitometric characteristics. Not as extreme as the difference between modern Plus-X roll and Plus-X sheet, but different nonetheless. In any case, Plus-X in 35mm and roll film is being continued and is very good general purpose film, especially for those who don't get along with T-Max too well. Plus-X roll film looks enough like Verichrome Pan to be a satisfactory replacement. In any case, closer than FP-4 or Agfapan 100, both of which are are also good film. Kodak management is stuck with trying to maintain a reasonably competitive return on investment for its stockholders, not easy and a legal obligation, without dismembering the company. I don't envy them. Both Henry Ford II and William Paley (founder of CBS) said at various times that thier greatest mistake was taking their companies public. Once you do that the performance of the stock becomes paramount and return must be maintained even if it winds up killing off the company. There have been major law suits by stockholders which establish this obligation as the highest management has. I don't want to start a political discussion but think that this policy winds up doing damage to the over all economy and needs some modification. In any case, Kodak's management is walking a high-wire and doing the best it can in a changing marketplace. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA. dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 "sweep" sweep@netdoor.com wrote: >It looks like Kodak is killing Plus-X period. Tri-X 400 is being replaced >by Tri-X 320 and the Tmax films are being changed somewhat since they will >have new developing times. I noticed that some other >older films are getting the ax also. > >I just came from the Kodak web site. looking for tech info, and saw the >notices. > >Ira I just checked the Kodak site. There is NO notice of either form of Tri-X being dicontniued.
Discontinued films are:
Plus-X Pan Professional, long toe film in sheet and roll sizes. Plus-X Pan medium toe film in 35mm and roll sizes will continue to be made. Ektapan is being discontinued. Kodak High Speed Infrared film in sheet sizes and roll film is being discontinued, 35mm film will continue to be made. Verichrome Pan is being discontinued. (Plus-X roll film is similar and may be satisfactory to V-Pan users). Some specialty films have been discontinued. Plus-X sheet film must have had a very small market share. It was really a special purpose film with a very up-swept curve. This sort of characteristic is desirable for some types of photography but not for most general purpose work. Tri-X 320 has a similar curve, although not as extreme. Ektapan was similar to Plus-X sheet film but with ISO-100 speed to make it compatible with color film on the same shoots. It probably has a very small market. Film is made using production line methods. Obviously, Kodak's production facilities were both old and built for larger capacity than is being used now. That means machinery standing idle, very undesirable. Also, film is perishable. In fact, it may be more perishable now than in the recent past because of restrictions on some ingredients for environmental protection purposes. This means that its very uneconomical to make film which is not going to be sold within some specified time. Otherwise it just gets dumped. The market must be both large enough and steady enough to justify making the product. While some companies can make once-a-year special runs, such as Konica's IR film, this is in general not a very economical way to run a factory. Konica usually sells its film out in a short time. Kodak is set up for mass producing films with steady sales, even to some special purpose films. These are just business facts of life. Many applications of chemical photography are now done electronically. I don't think electronic (or digital) photography will ever completely replace chemical photogrphy but the fact is that its already cut into it substantially and has virtually supplanted it in certain areas such as photomechanical reproduction. Kodak isn't screwing us, they are trying not to kill off chemical photography products while not dying themselves. The fact is that they chose to build a more efficient plant for these products rather than killing them off altogether. The new plant and machinery suggests they do have a long term commitment to B&W; as well as color chemical photography. I think they should be lauded for this rather than bashed. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA. dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: steve - film sales stats, up or down?? Re: Kodak Screws Us Again Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 ..... For what its worth here is a listing of standard type films available from Kodak c.1945. These are films for still cameras and doesn't include special purpose films or motion picture films. Note that this is black and white. There is no question that there are more color films available now than in the past. Kodak Films c.194 Rolls and Film packs Verichrome Plus-X Super-XX Super Ortho Press Packs 35mm and Bantam Plus-X Panatomic-X Super-XX Infrared Direct Positive Panchromatic Positive High Contrast film Micro-File Sheet Films Super Panchro Press Sports Type Tri-X Super Panchro Press Type-B Super-XX Portrait Panchromatic Panatomic-X Ortho-X Super Ortho-Press Super Speed Ortho Portrait Infrared Commercial Contrast Process A number of the sheet film emulsions were also offered as glass plates. Ansco offered a similar selection of films and plates. There were also a smaller, but still substantial, selection of sheet films and plates from Defender. DuPont offered three speeds of 35mm negative film under the name Superior, microfilm, infrared and positive films. Mostly DuPont catered to the motion picture industry. OTOH, the only real color films available were Kodachrome and Kodacolor. There were some additive screen type plates and films available, such as Dufycolor, but they were inferior to the Kodak products. Agfa never introduced its color film to the US. Ansco's early color film was essentially the late 1930's Agfa stuff. Kodak introduced Ektachrome and Ektacolor in the late 1940's and discontinued Kodachrome in large sizes at the same time. None of the early intregal coupler films was very good although Kodak's were better than Ansco's. Kodachrome continued to be the film of choice for professional work until it was no longer available. I suspect that many of the B&W; films available would not be acceptable today. The faster ones were pretty grainy and some had pretty definite shoulders, making for blocked highlights. From the published curves the 35mm, roll film, and sheet film emulsions from Kodak bearing the same names were not the identical emulsions. The famous Super-XX with very straight line characteristic was the sheet film stuff. Roll and 35mm film was something else although it had the same speed. The same for Plus-X. Obviously many of these films were continued because there was a large enough market for them despite probably being obsolete at the time. Around 1958 (not sure of the date without doing some searching) Kodak made a lot of changes in its emulsions and coating. This is when they introduced Verichrome Pan. I think they went to thinner coatings for many films. Certainly the sharpness of the films was improved. I am speaking from experience here. Kodak adjusted its resolution numbers upward in the late 1940s or early 1950s because they discoved an error in the measurements. Namely, the lens used for exposing the film had aberrations which were previously unsuspected. A new and very much better lens was designed and built and about doubled the resolution numbers for many of the films. The change in emulsion was something else. Kodak also introduced new versions of their color films at about the same time. Kodak's current black and white line seems to rely on T-Max and Tri-X for sheet films and T-Max, Plus-X, Tri-X and Technical Pan for roll and 35mm sizes. Ilford and Agfa also have few films in their repertory, concentrating on those with continuing fairly high volume sales. My guess is that Kodak makes their color films in another factory which is newer and more efficient than the one which has been used for B&W; up until now, so there will not be mass layoffs of color films. In the past Kodak has discontinued film simply because they were inferior to a later product. This may also be part of what is happening now. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA. dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Verichrome Pan you wrote: >Is Verichrome Pan gone? I tried to find some yesterday, and it is being >hoarded by someone. Kodak announced a short time ago that V-Pan was being discontinued. When current stocks are exhausted it will be gone. Plus-X roll film is similar, although not the same emulsion. It may be close enough to be satisfactory. Note that Plus-X sheet film has a completely different emulsion with different tonal rendition. If you have used it you will find the roll version looks quite different. The curves for the _roll_ version are quite similar to Verichrome Pan. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com Subject: RE: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued No, ALL Plus-X films. See Kodak's inormation: "KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films will be discontinued in October, 2002 when stocks are expected to be depleted. As a recommended alternative, we suggest KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 Film / 100TMX. For technical information, see KODAK Publication F-4016, KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Films." /Patric

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 From: Philippe Tempel ptempel2000@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued I gather you're not a big fan of TMX or TMY, eh? I can't say boo about them since I've never used either film. Chris Johnson who wrote "The Practical Zone System" book (I highly recommend it, BTW) talks about TMX and T-Max developer being a good combination for fine grain, shadow detail and contrast. The only caveat he mentions about T-Max developer is that you can't use it with TMX sheet film. It will fog the film, so Kodak came out with T-Max RS developer for that. Has anyone used TMX and is happy with it? What's your preferred soup with it?

[Ed. note: the key point here is how Kodak's miscommunications leave us wondering what's going on...] From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued This is just not correct. Plus-X films will continue in production in 35mm, 120, and some sheet film sizes. I will happily send you the latest information on Kodak black and white films as PDF files which I just got from Kodak. They just built a new manufacturing plant for black and white films, and Plus-X continues in the line. Bob

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued Here's Kodak's latest black and white press release in toto: February 24, 2002 Kodak Investment in State-of-the-Art Film Manufacturing Facility Improves, Extends Venerable Kodak Professional Black-and-White Films 21st Century T-Max, Plus-X, Tri-X Films Shoot the Same, Minimize Problems With Dust Kodak Professional today ensured quality black-and-white photography well into the 21st century by announcing that its T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X films are now being produced in a state-of-the-art facility utilizing modern manufacturing and emulsion processes that maintain the familiar, fundamental characteristics of the films while improving the physical characteristics of the negative. Kodak�s venerable professional black-and-white films are being produced at Kodak�s most technically advanced manufacturing facility in Rochester. The modern processes in use also improve the film negative so it is cleaner and much less susceptible to attracting dust. The only difference photographers are likely to encounter is a slight adjustment in development times. "These next-generation black-and-white films from Kodak shoot the same as before and maintain the high quality our customers have come to expect," said Bob Shanebrook, Worldwide Product Line Manager, Negative Films, Kodak Professional. "Photographers might see minor differences in development times, but they'll enjoy the same exceptional results in their prints in 2002 and for years to come. This investment is solid proof of Kodak�s long-term commitment to quality black-and-white photography." Kodak Professional T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X films from the new facility are clearly identified through new packaging, a new catalog number and new notch sheet codes. This new packaging adopts the naming conventions of Kodak Professional color negative and the latest reversal films, listing the film�s speed followed by a description (e.g., 125 PX film). T-Max and Plus-X films will be shipped to dealers in April, while Tri-X film will be shipped in October. All three films will be available from dealers on a stock-turnover basis. The original T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X films will stop shipping to dealers in March. The new films will be priced similar to the black-and-white films they replace. Introduction of the films coincides with Kodak�s worldwide film-price adjustments that occurred January 1 in the U.S. and February 1 in Europe. Kodak Professional T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X black-and-white films are available from authorized dealers of Kodak Professional products, and directly from Kodak Professional via the Kodak web site. # Editor�s Note: For information about Kodak Professional and its photographic films, customers may call: 1-800-235-6325, or visit our web site at: www.kodak.com/go/professional. (Note: Kodak, Kodak Professional, T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X are trademarks of Eastman Kodak Company.) 2002 Improved Kodak Professional Black-and-White Films / page PAGE 2 KODAK PROFESSIONAL ( EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY ( 343 STATE STREET ( ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14650-0412

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 From: Byron Rakitzis byron@rakitzis.com Subject: RE: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued >No, ALL Plus-X films. See Kodak's inormation: >"KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films will be discontinued in >October, 2002 when stocks are expected to be depleted. As a recommended >alternative, we suggest KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 Film / 100TMX. For >technical information, see KODAK Publication F-4016, KODAK PROFESSIONAL >T-MAX Films." That comment notwithstanding, there is going to be a newly-formulated Plus-X in 35mm and 120. Check out this: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.jhtml KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film is a medium-speed, continuous-tone panchromatic film that is a good choice for general-purpose outdoor or studio photography. It features extremely fine grain and excellent sharpness. KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X Film is available in 135 size and 35 mm long rolls on a 5-mil gray acetate base, and in 120 and 220 size on a 3.6-mil acetate base. The 120 and 220 sizes have a retouching surface on the emulsion side. Notice the new name "Professional Plus-X 125" and the new film code: 125PX. Also, you can look at Publication F-33, which describes the changeover a little more, and which has photos of the new film boxes for Tmax, Tri-X and Plus-X: http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f33/f33.jht ml Some clips: >Kodak Professional Plus-X 125 film / 125PX > > --Notice: Replaces Kodak Plus-X pan and Plus-X pan professional > films on a stock-turnover basis.-- > and > Kodak Plus-X pan film / PX > Kodak Plus-X pan professional film / PXP, PXT > > --Notice: Will be replaced by Kodak Professional Plus-X film / > 125PX on a stock turnover basis in 2002. Sheet sizes (PXT) will > be discontinued. Recommended alternative is Kodak Professional > T-Max 100 film.-- Byron.

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued I believe Bob Shell is correct. Kodak posted the following on March 13th: http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018 .jhtml Note that this is the *NEW* data sheet for Plus-X, F-4018, and it does NOT have the discontinuance notice. The link you posted is the *OLD* data sheet for Plus-X, F-8. This is consistent with what Bob Shell posted earlier from Kodak about the new production plant. It would make sense that Kodak would create the new data sheet prior to updating the old one with the discontinuance notice. I believe that discontinuance notice you're reading *only* refers to the Plus-X being made using the old manufacturing methods. -- John

From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: What is the likely de-volution of film due to digital Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca wrote: > I believe that was implied in the original post. > Can you dig a bit deeper: Which particular films... As usual my thoughts are headed in a different direction than everybody else... It is a bit hard to predict what's going to happen with which films because of the irrationality of Kodak. They discontinue some of their best products (Ektar 25, PRN, Kodachrome 25, Royal Gold 100) and introduce other products with questionable application and/or implementation (B+W 400, Portra 160VC and 400VC, Max 400). Good technology remains, as in products like Supra 400/800. On the other hand, Fujifilm has introduced a number of intriguing products of late. NPC kind of replaces PRN, Provia 400F finally brings 400 to slide films, and Superia Reala approaches Ektar 25 in resolution and exceeds it in grain. With the Vista line, Agfa has really set a new standard for portrait films. Although we have heard about many discontinued products, I believe the current selection exceeds that of 10 years ago in variety. So what will happen? I think we'll eventually see the disappearance of orange-mask print film. Slide film emulsions will be introduced to optimize scanning and digital printing. Really all that's needed are portrait and commercial/landscape/sport films, with high and low contrast variants. Saturation can be tweaked digitally, so films just need wide-spectrum color accuracy and fidelity of detail.

From: Dominic-Luc Webb molmed Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Polaroid 35mm Instant Slide Film Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 DM wrote: > I know that this isn't really the newsgroup for this query, but since a lot > of Pros hang out here, I thought I'd ask it anyway. I hope you don't mind. I am getting in on this discussion rather late, but here goes... Polaroid instant 35 mm slide, both color and B&W; are alive and well. Even the Polaroid dealers here in Sweden refuse to sell it. No wonder Polaroid shares have performed so poorly. This is a decent product with very poor distribution. The grain size is very small, like under 10 microns, and by my own measurements, usually smaller than 5. The developer is straightforward to use, but you need to be careful about your camera to make sure the film doesn't get wound all the way into the case because you need a little bit of film sticking out to load the autodeveloper. Yes, I recommend this film. I use it for making Ronchi gratings for making my own optics and this works at least as well, if not better than, the expensive glass ones sold by optics suppliers. Sources can be found in Shutterbug magazine. The cost is about 12 USD for a roll of 12 exposures, which includes the developer cartridge. If you don't have a machine, you can put the developer and film against each other in a darkroom for the time indicated on the box. > Is it easy to use? Yes, easy. Cheers, Dominic

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 From: martin tai norpinal@yahoo.ca To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke in the U.S. --- J Patric Dahl�n jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com wrote: > If Efke films are hard to find, it can be good to > know that they also are > sold as Macophot UP 25c and UP 64c. I think > www.onecachet.com sells Maco > films. Efke R100 in 127-film is sold by B&H; as Maco > UP100 > > /Patric http://www.freestylesalesco.com/ sell Efke film martin

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: OT: Anyone have experience with Agfa Scala in 120? you wrote: >Richard Knoppow wrote: >> Most 35mm B&W; >> negative film is coated on a support with an anti-light-piping pigment >> included > >Richard - > >What does this do? >Eric Goldstein Its there mainly because one end of 35mm film is often exposed to the light. The support material can conduct the light longitudinally fogging nearby film. It also acts as an additional anti-halation layer. The pigment is used mainly in B&W; negative films. Color film usually has an anti-halation coating just under the emulsion which acts to prevent both halation and light-piping. I don't know why it isn't used on B&W; film. The anti-halation coating on most B&W; film is really a dye which is included in the anti-curl gelatin back coating. It isn't removed in processing but, rather, decolored by the developer. Anti-light-piping pigment, AFAIK is used only in the support for 35mm B&W; film for still cameras. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 From: "Fox, Robert" RFox@aarp.org Subject: RE: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective re Velvia I would agree with Bob on this about ISO settings and Velvia. There's an interesting analysis of this here: http://www.peternorquist.com/technotes/meter_calibration.html R.J.

From rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at peterk@avaya.com wrote: > Sorry Bob but I disagree. Fuji has always calimed ISO50 but the film > underexposes > terribly at this setting. > When I set my camera it shows ISO40 on the display. You may refer to it as EI, > but for simplicity sake I avoide semantics and opted to use what is show on > the > display atop my camera. Call it what you like but the point is at ISO50 > Velvia underexposes, the same with other ISO50 films do not, so this is > why I say it is not a "true" ISO50 film. While you may think > otherwise, ISO32 is my setting of choice for this film. The problem is that ISO speeds are determined in the lab using very strict protocols established by the ISO. They don't always transfer to real world shooting, but that's not Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, etc.'s fault. Most of us have personal EI speeds we use for certain films to get the results we want. That doesn't change the laboratory established ISO one whit, though. I'm not quibbling over semantics but suggesting technical accuracy when discussing technical subjects. BTW, I personally expose Velvia at EI 50 because with my cameras, meter, and personal preferences that works best. I tell my students to do a set of bracketed tests with any film that is new to them and use the EI that produces the results they want. Bob

from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: bigler@ens2m.fr Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic B&W; 120 films > Which b&w; films do you use? What with Kodak playing games ... I'm using Agfapan APX 100 developed in classical recipes like ID11 1+1. And yes, I am conservative. The fact that Agfa has discontinued Agfapan 25 has boosted independant European film manufacturers to (re?-)introduce classical "low-tech" B&W; films like Efke 25, rumored to be not as good as APX 25. But as fas ar FTM is concerned, Kodak T-max is supposed to be better than APX 25 !! a very controversial subject... and also a good reason to discontinue low-tech films by Agfa. So in Europe (translate : in Germany ;-);-) the choice of B&W; films is comfortable: Ilford, Agfa, Kodak, Bergger (=Forte for some films), Forte, Foma (Czech), Efke, Maco and Gigabit (135 and 4"x5", not in 120). So I'm not really anxious about B&W; film vanishing in the next few years. -- Emmanuel BIGLER bigler@ens2m.fr

from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; films Richard Knoppow at dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Kodak has discontinued Verichrome Pan, Plus-X sheet, Ektapan (very > similar to Plus-X Pan sheet film). > It would appear that they have taken the moving to a new facility as an > opportunity to discontinue low volume products. At PMA I had a long chat with Bob Shanebrook, one of the few old-timers left at Kodak. Bob is in charge of professional films these days. We discussed the changes in their black and white line. One of the things they have done is to make the surface coating of all films consistent, which was not the case in the past. The new films will come in completely new packaging so you can easily distinguish them from the old ones. You may have to change processing times on the new films, so testing is advised. It is possible, although this is a personal speculation and nothing Bob said, that some films are being discontinued because they were incompatible with the new surface coating for which the new coating lines were designed. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; films ...(quote above posting) Have you any more detailed idea of what the "surface coating" is all about? Virtually all films and papers have a final coating of gelatin as an anti-abrasion coating. It is also reported that Kodak uses different thicknesses of anti-abrasion coating on T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 to make development times nearly identical for them. I no longer remember where I read this and don't know if its true. Kodak mentions something about anti-static and other desirable qualities in the new versions of these films suggesting at least some change in over-coating, or, perhaps, some new over-coating in addition to the gelatin. The new packaging for Plus-X is illustrated in color on the PDF data sheet I mentioned. I suspect that Kodak would have gone through some trouble to maintain films which sold well enough. Kodak has been very strong in their recent statements vowing to continue film, and especially, B&W; film. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:59:34 -0500 From: Bob Shell Reply to: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; films on 3/21/02 9:59 AM, Richard Knoppow at dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Have you any more detailed idea of what the "surface coating" is all > about? Virtually all films and papers have a final coating of gelatin as an > anti-abrasion coating. It is also reported that Kodak uses different > thicknesses of anti-abrasion coating on T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 to make > development times nearly identical for them. I no longer remember where I > read this and don't know if its true. I don't have any more info yet. I was promised film samples and more detailed information, and will expect that in the near future. Apparently they have simplified their emulsion coating process by using the same final coating on all of them, which may cause some changes in developing times for some films, processed some times, in some developers. > Kodak mentions something about anti-static and other desirable qualities > in the new versions of these films suggesting at least some change in > over-coating, or, perhaps, some new over-coating in addition to the gelatin. > The new packaging for Plus-X is illustrated in color on the PDF data > sheet I mentioned. I don't know if this is something in addition to the usual gelatin top coat. Specific details like this were not supplied and specific questions were not answered in detail. Also, I should add that my meeting on this was peripheral since I was not covering film for anyone this year and when I sat down with Bob I made it clear this was just for my own personal information, and not for any specific publication. My reason for visiting the folks at Kodak was to see the new DCS 645 Pro Back. > I suspect that Kodak would have gone through some trouble to maintain > films which sold well enough. Kodak has been very strong in their recent > statements vowing to continue film, and especially, B&W; film. More power to them! In an industry which is increasingly pronouncing that film is dead it is nice to hear a counterpoint. At least one camera company has said they don't expect to produce any more new film cameras, and the rest of the companies are very nervous about the future of film cameras. I wish I knew where this industry will be in five years. Bob

From rollei mailing list: from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; films Byron Rakitzis at byron@rakitzis.com wrote: > But of the other doomed films (i.e., from the big-name manufacturers), > I like Agfa APX100, especially in 4x5. But I can't see it lasting much > longer, either, given how Agfa has decimated its product line. Agfa has completely dropped out of digital to concentrate on their core business of film and paper. To me this makes it likely that they will work hard now not to discontinue any more of their products. The company is for sale, though, and the last buyers deal fell apart literally at the last minute. Most of their future will depend on who ends up buying them. There is a strong rumor in the industry that they might themselves be buying Polaroid so there would be a more attractive package to sell. But that is just a rumor so far as I know. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for them. Bob

from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic : Bergger 200 film >From: bigler@ens2m.fr > > RUGers I just read about a film named Bergger 200. Claimed to be > > like an old favorite of mine; Super XX. Where can I obtain any of > > that? > >Rumored to be identical to Fortepan 200. Bergger products are >available at certain retail stores in France but Bergger has a >distributor in the US. So you can certainly mail order those films. > >Well, in fact I believed in the Forte rumor ;-);-) and I just bought >10 rolls of Fortepan 200 from foto-brenner, germany by mail order. Bergger 200 = Forte 200 = Efke 100 Made by Fotokemika in Croatia, Efke that is. /Patric

from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Isopan F you wrote: >>From: Robert Marvin - Jerry Lehrer wrote: >>>I also really liked Agfa Isopan F. Do any of you know if >>>any equivalent of that is made? >> >>-- >>Try Efke R25. Its the same as the old Adox R14 which is a >>contemporary of Agfa Isopan F. > > >Another vote for Efke films. R50 is a good choise too. However, the Efke low >speed films are ortopanchromatic. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >/Patric Orthopanchromatic or Orthochromatic? Two different things orthochromatic means sensitive to blue and green but not sensitive to red. OrthoPANchromatic is an old term for what Kodak called Type-B panchromatic film, sensitive to all visible colors without excessive sensitivity to red. Nearly all current pan films fall into this catagory. Technical Pan is about the only exception; it has extended red sensitivity, both in bandwidth and amplitude. If these films are actually orthochromatic they are the only normal contrast ortho films on the market. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

from rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W; films you wrote: >Richard Knoppow wrote: > >> Here is the story. [...] >> [...] >> It would appear that they have taken the moving to a new facility as an >> opportunity to discontinue low volume products. > >Here's a bit more of the story. > >"Kodak planning push on b&w; film market > >Kodak will deliver significant improvements to the quality of its b&w; >film in a move that it says demonstrates its commitment to continued >development in the market." I think this is a bit of gloss to cover up the fact that they are discontinuing product and probably reducing manufacturing capacity. At least they are staying in the business. Another aspect is that if the present users of chemical photography should be driven to electronic photography by lack of materials they would not necessarily (or even probably) remain customers of Kodak. The on-goin change from one technology to another here is not quite like any similar change in the past. Its moved pretty fast and affects _very_ large companies, who have had a rather stable market for over a century. The new technology is also not incompatible with the old and is not necessarily superior to it in all ways, so there is a strong possibility (say I) that digital will not supplant chemical. An example of a new technology which supplanted an old one because the two were not compatible was the change from steam engine locomotives to Diesel-electric on U.S. railways. Once railroads started changing to Diesel about 1950 the change was very rapid and no steam locomotives were to be found in mainline service within ten years. The reason? Steam, especially coal burning locomotives, require a lot of trackside support not needed by Diesel, plus maintenance is completely different for the two types, and Diesels eliminated certain kinds of track damage inherent in steam locos. So, if the economic benefits of Diesel were to be fully gained steam had to go completely. The first US steam locomotive was built in 1839 (Baldwin) and the last for domestic use, in 1949 (by Baldwin). By about 1960 there was not a steamer to be found in service on a major railroad. (I think the Norfolk and Western, who built their own locos, may have operated coal fired steam after this date.) I hope this is not the pattern for chemical photography. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

[Ed. note: attention fellow fuji film fans...] From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Exposure Indexes, First Developers, and dark slides Paul Kollas at pkkollas@gorge.net wrote: > This brings up another factor: JOBO Fototechnic, both in their E-6 Handbook > and in their instruction sheet accompanying their Tetenal E-6 3-Bath Plus, > recommend either increasing the first developer time, or increasing exposure > time by 1/3, for Fuji films (E-6). I have found this recommendation to be > valid. I asked a friend who has a commercial film processing store if he > made separate runs for Fuji film, and he said 'no'. As it happens, he is the > very person who originally pointed out the JOBO recommmendation to me. So I > am left to puzzle over how widespread is this conundrum? Fuji E-6 films are incompatible with others, particularly Kodak, and must not be run in the same batch in dip-n-dunk processors. If processed alongside Kodak the Fuji will come out with density and color shifts. My lab knows this, and never runs the two together, and always runs the Fuji first thing in the day after the regular daily replenishment of the chemicals. The lab owner has tested Agfa, Ferrania, Konica, E-6 films and all "get along" fine with Kodak. It is only Fuji that doesn't. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] EI & ISO Rick Huber at rhuber@qualcomm.com wrote: > Hi guys, > > What is the best procedure to test the above? I understand the > difference between the two (EI and ISO), but have never heard of a method > of determining a personal EI for color or using EI for development times in > B&W.; > > Thanks! > Rick > > PS. Sorry for asking another freakin' question! :) With slide film you just shoot a roll, bracketing each shot around the official ISO and keeping notes. Get the film back uncut so you can tell what order the frames are in and look at them on a pro lightbox. With black and white it is more complex, but if you shoot a bracketed test roll as above and process at the manufacturer's specified time and temperature you will be able to establish a basic EI for any given film. There are complex ways to do this with densitometers and graphs, and simpler ways by just picking the negative which prints best. Bob

From Leica mailing list: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org Subject: Re: color film recommendations If you want blue and red, you want Kodak. If you want green, you want Fuji. If you want G-R-E-E-N, you want Fuji Velvia and a polarizer. It will knock you socks off! Jim

from rollei mailing list: Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 From: David Seifert dseifert@absolute.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Skandanavia Geir, Are you sure you want to get involved with 126 film? To my knowledge there is only one maker of the film at the moment, Ferrania, who makes only a single emulsion, a ISO 200 color print film. That is not much choice. While the film is probably fine the problem of film flatness remains. There is no pressure plate in a 126 system and film flatness has always plagued the system. If you are intent on getting into this format the Rollei SL26 or Kodak Instamatic Reflex are the ones to get. For finding lenses the Kodak may have the edge since all the later Retina Reflex Schneider lenses fit the camera. These lenses were very good and are available on eBay at very attractive prices. The Rollei SL26 lenses are not truly interchangeable. They use a front component interchange system very much like the Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex system. In fact it looks very like they may be the same lens sets in a different mount. Finding these are going to be more challenging due to much smaller production runs. Hope this helps. Best Regards, David Seifert ...

From rollei mailing list: Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued you wrote: > >>From: Bob Shell Yes, I am correct, and Plus-X has not been discontinued. > > >Phew, I think you're right. The recommendation for T-Max instead of the new >Plus-X must be a misprint. > >This can be read on another page: > >KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film / 125PX >--Notice-- >Replaces KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films. > >http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?section=&cc;=US&lc;=en&product;=KOD AK+PROFESSIONAL+PLUS-X+125+Film+/+125PX > >/Patric Its not a misprint. T-Max 100 SHEET FILM is the closest KODAK film to Plus-X Pan SHEET FILM. Its about the same speed. Otherwise its not very much like Plus-X. T-Max is a fairly short toe film with a very long straight line portion. Plus-X Pan Sheet Film is almost all toe, that is, the contrast rises continuously with density all through the curve. The result is a depression of mid gray tones when the same highlight and shadow densities are chosen for printing. Plus-X Pan sheet film was designed to exagerate highlight brightness in certain kinds of studio pictures. T-Max is a better gereral use film but can't duplicate the peculiar look of Plus-X. Tri-X Pan Professional sheet film, the ISO-320 stuff, is much closer in characteristic to Plus-X pan sheet film. It was designed to have the same sort of characteristic, but is not as extreme. Ektapan, also discontinued, also has a similar long toe characteristic. Tri-X 35mm and roll film, ISO-400, is, like its Plus-X counterpart, a completely different emulsion from Tri-X sheet film. Again like Plus-X 35mm and roll film, its a medium toe, general purpose film with good latitude. Plus-X in roll film and 35mm film is a completely different emulsion. It is a medium toe general purpose film with very good latitude. Its similar to the late, lamented Verichrome Pan in this respect. Plus-X 35mm and roll film has been renamed because there will be some differenced between it and the old stuff. The data sheet indicates the differences are minor but present. Plus-X will NOT be offered in any sheet sizes, only in 35mm, roll film and some long rolls. For the person who reports Plus-X to be dull, I wonder which Plus-X you are refering to. The sheet film can look quite low contrast under some circumstances. Plus-X roll film has excellent tonal rendition, so I suspect, if its the film being talked about, something is wrong with the processing. I've used Plus-X, Verichrome Pan, FP-4, Agfa APX-100, and T-Max 100 in 120 size and gotten excellent images with all. Agfa films tend to be grainier than other makes of the same speed. Plus-X is probably the finest grain of the above other than T-Max. I like T-Max 100 a lot but prefer the tonal rendition of T-Max 400. 120 is large enough so that grain is not a problem. We have far fewer films to choose from now than in the past. I made up a list of films available c.1945 which I posted, I think, to the rec.photo.darkroom list. Its quite extensive. Probably most of the films listed would not be acceptable today due to graininess, etc., but there were lots of them. I am afraid film is a shrinking market now, although I don't think it will disappear anytime soon. Film and paper are parishables so a manufacturer can't make up more at a time than he can expect to sell during the shelf life. That confines products to those with a large enough and steady enough market to justify the mass production methods needed to make the products economically. A unhappy fact of life. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued I have asked my contact at Kodak for a clarification on this. He was not aware of the March 15 posting on their web site until I called it to his attention. He said he will get back to me shortly with the accurate info. But Plus-X is definitely NOT being discontinued. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: [Rollei] Latest on Kodak black and white Forwarded from my press contact at Kodak. Bob ---------- I guess timing really is everything. Our web site for B&W; films has been under re-construction (what with all the recent changes ...) and went live at the end of the day yesterday ... too bad it wasn't the end of the day three weeks ago. Anyway, references under the Plus-X, Tri-X and T-Max sections note that the current films are going away and the updated films are taking their place. The URL is intuitive: www.kodak.com/go/bwfilms. If you get into another conversation about these films, you can direct folks there ... that's what I'm doing, starting with you. Thanks ...

From leica mailing list: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 From: "Mike Durling" durling@widomaker.com Subject: Re: [Leica] Kodak film codes Here is a link to Kodak motion picture date codes, http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/identificationP.shtml I haven't seen anything like this on my old B&W; negatives but maybe something similar showed up on some other films. Mike D

from rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 From: Jens Dahlen jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com Subject: [Rollei] Ilford bubbles again I looked at a piece of the Ilford film base in a microcope today, at x200 magnification. Wow! Millions and millions of bubbles! I also checked Efke's and kodak's film material, and they had almost no bubbles at all. /Patric

from russian camera mailing list: From: "Roman J. Rohleder" rjrohleder@web.de Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 Subject: [Russiancamera] Slightly OT: From Agfa to Orwo Hallo Jay! >Hello Roman >The ORWO company sent me, gratis, in the mid-1980s a formula book as well > (friends from the STASI? :). Sure, they tried to get you for their service. Maybe you don�t know, but sure you are listed as "IM Kameramann" in the archives. Check http://www.bstu.de/englisch/index.htm , there you can get your files. ;-) > Many of the developer and other photographic recipes >printed there are "real" AGFA brews - number designations are the same- >eg. "Orwo 15" is the same as "Agfa 15" (and Ansco 15 in the US). Orwo is Agfa. In fact, the real Agfa. it is a similar story as Zeiss Oberkochen and Zeiss Jena. Orwo means "Original Wolfen", which has been the brand name since the early 60s when the copyright questions were a current problem. Orwo used the production line of prewar Agfa, they shared the recipes, the products - Agfa Leverkusen /Agfa Gevaert and Orwo started on the same ground after the war. In 1990 the area around Wolfen (Sachsen-Anhalt) had been devastated - it has been the centre of the chemical industry in the GDR - they still try to clean the ground and remove the old production lines (some still from the 1920/30/40s. One "famous landmark" had been the "Wolfener Silbersee" ("Silver lake", a title taken from the Karl May Western novels) - a lake consisting not of water, but of liquid chemical waste from the ORWO factory. Very toxic. The collapse of the industry resulted in extreme high rates of unemployment, the country of Sachsen-Anhalt still suffers from this, they have the highest rate of all german countries: around 20 %! Last week they held elections in Sachsen-Anhalt - the former-SED, now PDS, the dark red socialist went away with nearly 21%! The current Orwo limits itself to services (like prints) and rebadging films (I think, from Ilford). Today you can get the original Agfa recipes from Calbe Fotochemie, another exGDR-company. The Rodinal they sell is even the Original Rodinal (recipe from 1891), Agfa changed theirs. What is this "Ansco"? >The book also contains detailed explanation on photographic emulsion theory. It also has an extensive section on ORWOColor/ORWOChrom colour >process chemistry, which I suspect would be Agfacolor compatible (before Agfa decided to embrace C41 and E6 like the rest of the world :). As they shared the same production history, I would say so,too. ... Gruss, Roman

from russian camera mailing list: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 From: "Jay Y Javier" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Slightly OT: From Agfa to Orwo Hi Roman russiancamera-user@beststuff.com wrote: >What is this "Ansco"? Ansco was an old American photographic manufacturer. Started doing business around shortly after the daguerrotype was introduced, making silvered copper plates for the process. Name was contraction of "Anthony & Scovill". For a time, Ansco was a stiff competitor to Kodak, producing film, paper, colour materials, cameras, etc. It joined with Agfa to form "Agfa-Ansco" so for sometime, there were such things as Ansco Brovira bromide paper or an Agfa-Ansco Speedex folding camera. The union was split during WWII, for obvious reasons. Around this time it developed its Ansco Color materials to compete with Kodak's growing Kodachrome, Kodacolor, and Ektachrome lines. Ansco's colour films were based on Agfa's colour coupler incorporated emulsions, but were quite different. Among the noteworthy products were Anscochrome, its high speed version Super Anscochrome, Printon colour print (among the first materials used for high speed mass consumer colour printing), and Anscocolor motion picture film. The company apparently started declining by the 60s, then merged with GAF (of the ASA 500 GAF slide film fame), and then shortly went pfffft. The Ansco name still pops up now and then on rebadged plastic cameras from Hongkong or Taiwan. Jay

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Velvia RHaigh5748@aol.com at RHaigh5748@aol.com wrote: > I have always heard and read that Velvia should be rated at 40. I use it > there and like the results. If you get perfect results rating it at 40, then of course that's what you should do. If you got perfect results rating it at 10, that would be what you should do. It doesn't matter. This is why you should never just take the film maker's word and set everything at the ISO speed on the film box. Different people like different levels of density and saturation in their slides. I happen to rate Velvia at 50 using my hand held incident meters, and I get results which are perfect in my eyes. I've shot Velvia in 35mm, 120, 4 X 5 and 8 X 10, in all cases using 50. But all this means is that 50 is the right speed for ME, not that it is right for anyone else. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 From: Jim Noel jimsphoto@cox.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] EI & ISO Rick, Establishing a personal EI with B&W; can be done using a densitometer, OR using the paper on which you like to print. I'll give you the quickest methods here. The quickest method which gives you at one time EI and developing time is the "Nine Negative Test". It takes longer to explain than it does to carry it out. I'll be happy to attach a copy of it in a direct e-mail. The two methods begin similarly: Basically, light a gray card and take a reading of it with you r meter set on the ISO. then make a chart for a group of exposures, each of which will be alternated with a blank frame.(If you are doing this with your Rollei, don't have blank frames.) The reading of you gray card is for Zone V, what you are looking for to estagblish an EI is Zone I, which is 4 stops darker than Zone V. So the shooting chart will look something like this: Zone V exposure 4 stops less light than Zone V (Zone I for the ISO) 3 2/3 stops less light than Zone V 3 1/3 stops less light than Zone V 3 stops less than Zone V and so forth. The fim is developed for your normal time, then printed for the least time to produce paper black. The first frame which is lighter than paper black indicates your EI. Obviously this explanation can get very lengthy and is better done directly. Once you read the complete directions, I am sure you will have little trouble understanding and carrying out the testing. Upon completion of the EI test, a test for development time is done which will now reallyhave some value. The two work together, thus one isno good without the other. I do a similar type of test for chromes,but most people simplyu shot a series of bracketed exposures and choose theone which looks the best to them. Jim

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 From: Philippe Tempel ptempel2000@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] EI & ISO --- Rick Huber rhuber@qualcomm.com wrote: > Cool, another use for the 2 densitometers I got for > a bargin! :) This > above also makes sense to me. I guess I just never > thought about doing it > for B&W.; I was always wrapped up in improving my > poor B&W; picture quality. You're all set with the demsitometers. For B&W; film with a normal developer (well, one that doesn't stain like Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechin based ones) you want an exposure for Zone I to come out about 0.10 - 0.12 above base + fog. In simpler terms that means you want to be able to shoot a frame 4 stops less than what the meter says and have it come out to about 1/3 stop more than a blank frame. If you can do that, then you can "expose for the shadows" correctly. The "develop for the highlights" part comes after this is nailed down and will determine your development time (and temp). Shoot a single color poster board with no shadows on it. Meter it. That's Zone V. Decrease the value by 4 stops (or EV values). That's Zone I. Now expose 4 less, that value, and 4 more. Write down what you did. Process the film with the recommended time and temp for your developer. Now, with your B&W; densitometer, measure an unexposed part of the film. That's base+fog. Finally, measure all of the frames you shot and subtract them from the base+fog number. Your EI is the one that comes closest to 0.10 - 0.12. This website has a lot of good Zone System info: http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/ After you know your EI, you can find your development time. Shoot another roll like last time but expose for Zone VIII. You want to get 1.20 - 1.25 above base+fog for a condenser or 1.30 - 1.35 for a diffusion enlarger. During this part of the test, you will only vary the development time. One rule of thumb I've heard is to use about +/- 30% for old style emulsion films and +/- 10% for newer technology T-grain films. Reiterate the test until you can process the Zone VIII frame to be in the recommended range. Whatever time to took is your development time for normal contrast (n). > Whenever I need a good laugh I tell a friend that I > am spending the weekend > working on my B&W; technique. His response is always > the same, "Dude, how > hard can it be? There are only two colors!" Keeps me > in good humor for days... Mmm. I'm sure we all wish that it was that easy... ;-)

From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: First rolls of MF: Results and questions Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 Tony Terlecki usenet@mrps.demon.co.uk writes >Have you considered developing colour film yourself? I've just gone >this route mainly for quality control reasons. Ignoring equipment >setup costs, I'm developing a roll of 120 (E6 process) for about 2 >Euro. There are quite a few used Jobo processors around nowadays. I remember an E6 developer kit test in a UK magazine. They took the approach of being inexperienced darkroom workers and followed the instructions with each kit to the letter. The end result showed most of the kits produced very poor or inconsistent results. Not something that really encouraged me to do it myself. -- John Preston, Lancs, UK. Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk

From rollei mailing list: Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke film: Du Pont? Guido wrote: >- on the cardboard box it says "Made in Croatia under licence - Du Pont de >Nemours Deutschland gmbh". Eh!? Du Pont? is Du Pont into film making? Du Pont has a long and proud history of making film and photo chemistry, though their direct involvement ended in the 1960's. Before this, however, they had bought out Dr Schleussner GMBH (which claimed to be the world's oldest manufacturer of photographic film and chemistry); Schleussner made ADOX film, the miracle emulsion of the 1950's. Du Pont then licensed the manufacture of the ADOX formulations to Fotokemika Zagreb. Marc msmall@infi.net

From rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke film: Du Pont? you wrote: >You wrote: >> Unfortunately, Defender acetate support seems to >> have been the most unstable of all. Many negatives on safety base from the >> 1940s and 1950s on Defender film have been lost because of the >> decomposition of the support, known in the movie industry as "Vinegar >> Syndrome" because it is often accompanied by an acetic acid odor. > >I have many old sheet negatives that are afflicted with pox-like blisters, >and altho I've never associated the acetic acid odor directly with these >negatives (vs non-afflicted negatives), the odor is unmistakeable when >browsing thru my 'shoe-box' collections of old negs. Does the decomposition >manifest itself in blistering? > > pk It can. There are a lot of symptoms including regeneration of the anti-halation dye to a colored form, which shows up as a blotchy stain. The support can sort of shrivel, edge frilling is common. Some of the products of decomposition attack the image. I suspect a Google search for "Vinegar Syndrome" will turn up much more. There are a couple of web sites with the details. It was thought that when safety base film was introduced it would be stable, unlike cellulose nitrate. It turns out that while it does not have the explosion hazard of decomposing nitrate its not much more stable. This has been a serious blow to the motion picture industry who switched completely to acetate base film about 1951. I think _Sunset Boulevard_ was the last feature picture to be photogrphed on nitrate. There are several variations of Acetate or safety base. Some are much more stable than others. The original safety base, introduced in the late 1920s is evidently more stable than other, later, forms. Kodak made no nitrate base still film after some very early date, probably c.1930, but Agfa and DuPont/Defender made it up to 1950. Because the motion picture industry finally woke up to the fact that old movies are valuable property the problems with both kinds of film base have been researched pretty thoroughly. Much of this information is available on line. I think Allan Zak or Eric Goldstein may have the URLs. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Acetate film base you wrote: >Are you sure about the explosion stuff? I was under the impression that >the dangerous stuff was nitrate based not acetate. I think we are talking >about acetate based safety film which was calles safety film because it >wasn't explosive when degraded. > >David Acetate does not present an explosion hazard either in good condition or when decomposing. Decomposing acetate may burn better than intact stuff but is not like nitrate base. Nitrate evolves oxygen when it burns so it self-sustaining. It will burn under water and under sand. About the only way to extinguish a nitrate fire is to eliminate the fuel. Decomposing nitrate can also spontaneously ignite if the ambient temperature exceeds 100F. Concentrated gasses evolved from decomposing nitrate can be explosive. Its vital that containers and storage facilities be well ventillated. Generally smalll collections of still film do not present a fire hazard but large amounts of stored motion picture film can be very hazardous. The decomposition process of nitrate is well known and details can be found in the technical literature. The decomposition of Acetate (safety base) film was discovered fairly recently. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done to stop the decomposition of either kind of base other than freezing it. Valuable negatives should be copied and those on Nitrate destroyed. All nitrate will eventually decompose but, like Acetate, there is a larger difference between manufacturers. There is nitrate film which is now nearly a century old which is still stable. The difference stems from the exact method of manufacture and formulas used when the film was made. There was great resistance in the movie industry to changing to safety base since it was inferior both optically and mechanically to nitrate. Current film base is very stable and has good properties. you wrote: >>pkkollas@gorge.net writes: >> >> >>>Does the decomposition >>>manifest itself in blistering? >> >> >>Yes, before it explodes!! Inform yourself about that stuff.

From nikon mailing list: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com Subject: Re: ASA100 Print Film you wrote: > Bricks are 20 rolls to a box. They are in their plastic canisters, >without the individual cardboard boxes, so if you use the box ends as a >reminder save an old one to put in the back of the camera. Not always. Some Kodak bricks are shrink-wrapped packages with 20 rolls, each in individual cardboard boxes. Pro-Packs (usually 50 rolls of 35mm) are not in individual cardboard boxes, although each roll is in its individual plastic cannister. Some Ilford bricks are ten rolls, each in cardboard boxes. As I said, it varies. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 From: "Fox, Robert" RFox@aarp.org Subject: RE: [Rollei] Efke 25 film See this link to the dr5 website re Efke 25: http://www.dr5.com/efke25.html This lab in NY may begin to carry Efke film. R.J.

From rollei mailing list: Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Agfa Scala (was Nathan's PAW 17 substitute - Londonsnaps) you wrote: > John A. Lind at jlind@spitfire.net wrote: > >> Someone may have come up with a kit that processes the film, but AFIK it's >> not Agfa. I purchase mine with mailers for Color Reflections in Miami, >> Florida that is licensed for Agfa's process (used to be CLM). > >Tetenal makes a kit to do it at home, but they aren't available in the USA. > >Bob Agfa has a list of labs processing Scala hiding on their web site somewhere: http://www.agfa.com The official process is proprietary but see below: Kodak makes or made (one is never sure these days) a reversal kit for T-Max which should work on Scala. However you will have to discover the right first development time experimentally. Scala appears to be a conventional reversal film. One would have to experiment with developing times but I suspect the old formulas for processing Agfa reversal motion picture film would work. Reversal processing is not difficult but the developing time for the first development is quite critical. Official Scala processing probably uses newer chemistry than the 1940's stuff for the motion picture film. The MSDS for the T-Max kit and for reversal color films indicate that some rather exotic chemicals are used, especially in the bleach and for fogging during development. The use of a fogging second developer may have advantages beyond simply eliminating the light flashing step, perhaps they result in more complete conversion of the remaining halide to metallic silver. In any case, I have the Agfa formulas if anyone is interested. I've posted these before, but of course didn't save the text. I am now saving all this stuff to avoid bloody fingers (a, la the Beatles "I've got blisters on me fingers". FWIW, nearly any B&W; film or paper can be reversed. The process is not complicated although it does have several steps. As mentioned above, only the first development is critical, the other steps are carried out to completion. Films intended for reversal differ from ordinary negative films in that they have enough very slow halide particals in the emulsion to make sure of having enough for the final image. This makes exposure and first development somewhat less critical than otherwise. Reversal color development is very much the same except the second development includes the necessary chemicals to react with the couplers to produce dye, and that all the silver is removed in a final step. While many like to think of Agfa B&W; film as "old fashioned" the structure shown on their data sheets indicates its not so. APX films are single coated and have the anti-halation coating under the emulsion next to the subbing (or, perhaps, combined with it)like color film, rather than being a dye on the back coating. So, probably Scale is also not just an old emulsion being coated again but a modern type of reversal emulsion. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From BJP Equipment News 4 May 2002 - Polaroid is discontinuing sundry 35mm instant slide film products... Stock life can be extended by a few years by refrigerating...

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 From: Jim Hemenway jim@hemenway.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrome 25 discontinued > > > > I wonder why they don't offer Kodachrome 64 in 120 format? It > > would be nice to see how it performs in my 'cord. ;-) > > they used to. i think i have one roll in a freezer in the basement. > hardly seems worth shooting at this point. > > -rei You might want to shoot it sooner rather than later... I received the following from Kodak. This might be the only place left on the planet to get your remaining Kodachrome 120 processed. ----------------------- Due to continuing declines in Kodachrome film sales, the Kodak Wimbledon-London England Laboratory has discontinued its Kodachrome Processing operations as of March 30, 2001. However, one final film processing "run" will be made on 1 October 2001 at the address listed below. Kodak Processing Companies, Ltd. 29 Deer Park Road Wimbledon SW19 3UG ENGLAND Tel: 020 8544 0055 Fax: 020 8540 0794 The cost is 5.30 pounds, payable by credit card. Kodak will no longer be able to process 120 format Kodachrome film after this final processing run on 1 October 2001. Kodak announced in February 1996 that Kodachrome film in the 120 format will be discontinued. Processing was discontinued in the USA in 1998/1999 once the last batch of films expiration date was reached. Thank you for visiting our Kodak web site. If you should have any questions on Kodak products or services, please be sure to revisit our site as we are continually adding information to enhance our service. Sincerely, Peter Vimislik Kodak Information Center (USA) Kodak Professional 800 Lee Road Door C Rochester, NY 14650-3109 1-800-242-2424 ext. 19 (Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm EST) http://www.kodak.com/go/professional

From rollei mailing list: Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Gold in Efke films? you wrote: >I read in a commercial add in an old photo magazine that Adox R 17(Efke R >50) has the thinnest gold emulsion in the World. Does it really contain gold >compounds? Maybe Mr. Knoppow can something about this? > >/Patric Gold is a well known sensitizer. Its use was discovered at Agfa about 1936, by Koslovsky. Mees states that the mechanism isn't well understood (1951). I haven't checked later books but much of what was puzzeling at that time is no longer. Gold sensitzing seems to be very widely used for high speed emulsions, I suspect that nearly all film emulsions have some Gold in them. I have no idea what Adox meant by refering to the "thinnest" gold emulsion. Certainly, the film had very thin emulsion compared to other films of the time. The effect of a thin emulsion is to reduce scattering of light in the emulsion thus improving its sharpness and resolution. Films of today have thinner emulsions than those of the 1950's so I would suspect the statement might not be true if the comparison was against these films. Perhaps they meant that some very slow special purpose emulsions were thinner. Also, printing paper emulsions are very thin and are not usually specially sensitized (the exception is variable contrast paper). The necessity of coating many very thin layers of emulsion on color films has resulted in a lot of improvement in coating techniques and machinery in the last fifty years. The story (I don't remember anymore where I read it) is that Agfa's discovery of Gold sensitizing allowed them to nearly double their film speeds without any change in grain size. This caught Kodak with their pants down and it took a while for them to catch up. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Wooden spools? Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 "Stephe" ms_stephe@excite.com wrote... > OK this is an odd question but when did they stop using wooden centers for > the spools on 120 film? I bought an old zeiss tengor box camera and just > wondering when this guy was used last, mostly out of plain curiosity. It probably depends where. Anecdotally, I did see wooden rods in 120 film spools as recently as early 70s in some countries. Michael

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: fate of polaroid Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 tcarney@fcb-research.com (Todd F. Carney) wrote: >Speedy2 speedy2@btinternet.com wrote >> Serve 'em right! They did the dirty on Kodak and its attempt to market its own >> instant film > >Kodak has done the dirty plenty of times in its corporate history, >too. The best example was when they tried to monopolize processing >for the Kodachrome >process. They were ultimately forced to license third-party >processors, but they wanted to protect their patents. > >I might add that the courts agreed that Kodak had infringed Polaroid >patents in making their own instant process. Kodak wanted to use its >superior marketing position to take over an innovation someone else >created. Sounds like Microsoft, huh? > >> (at a time when I believe that Kodak were making the Polaroid film >> FOR Polaroid!) and dumped a lot of Kodak instant film users with useless >> filmless cameras. > >Somehow I doubt Kodak was making stuff for Polaroid. If they were, it >must have been good evidence that they had access to Polaroids process >secrets and tried to make illegal use of them. > >Todd Carney The history of the process used for Polaroid "instant" film goes back to the early 1930s. Simultaneous and independant work had been done by several investigators including Edith Wyde of Agfa. Land managed to get patents partly because some earlier work was simply unknown. As far as the patent infringment action againts Kodak, the courts didn't decide anything, Kodak gave up. There are several patent law experts who think Kodak whould have untimately prevailed if they had continued to defend themselves. Kodak's version of the instant process was by all reports superior to Polaroid's. Polaroid had been sitting on its hands for some time. Kodachrome was an entirely proprietary process. Kodak's reasons for wanting to continue control of processing had mainly to do with maintaining the quality of the process. The suit was really about including processing in the cost of the film. This was really an extension of Kodak's early dedication to push-button photography. Kodachrome was sold as an entire process which would return finished color transparencies to the customer rather than just film. The Kodachrome process is a complex and difficult one, I rather doubt that Kodak ever made much money from it. Kodak's earlier history is filled with attempts to create a complete monopoly of photographic products. These were business practices which were considered quite legal at the time. George Eastman makes Bill Gates look like a piker and was a lot smarter. Kodak engaged in both vertical and lateral integration. Eventually, they came a cropper by trying to control retail sales completely. Their only real competition was Anthony and Scoville (later to become Ansco and Agfa-Ansco) whose products were the ones mainly affected by Kodak retailing practices. This company fought Kodak tooth and nail at the time but Kodak was too big and had been very smart in their technique of dominating retail sales to be easily fought. All this was ended by the anti-trust actions of the Teddy Roosevelt administration. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA. dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From leica topica mailing list: Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org Subject: FYI Polaroid to leave 35mm market completely. The news comes after the company's withdrawal from the 35mm film scanner market. A spokesperson for the company said that the decision to drop the 35mm instant slide film range had been taken for commercial reasons. Originally developed for business slide presentations, the films were also taken up widely for creative use because of their unique aesthetic qualities. However, the Polaroid spokesperson said new digital technologies have eroded the market for business applications and that, as a consequence, the numbers of creative users have dwindled.

From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 From: daniel taylor lightsmythe@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [HUG] 70mm stock choices Kodak 2424 Aerographic is available in 70mm. The emulsion is identical to HIE Infrared film in 135. If you enjoy IR photography you are on your way to IR Nirvana. check the Kodak site for other 70mm films. Daniel Taylor Lightsmythe Studios Oregon, USA

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films? (Other than Kodak's) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 TW406 wrote: >> T-Max 100 is all toe, no shoulder. > > Not being a film scientist, could someone describe what that means? The characteristic curve of a fil describes how density increases with increasing exposure. Typically, density increases little at first, then the rate of increase picks up for a bit (which is in the "toe" of the curve), next it becomes constant for a while (the "straight line" portion of the curve), and finally, when the limit of the amount of silver available in a film is reached, increase in density will slow down and stop (the "shoulder" part of the curve). In practice a film that's "all toe, no shoulder" does have better detail in highlight areas, the areas getting the most exposure, and thus handles overexposure better, whereas a film with a pronounced shoulder in the curve suffers from blocked highlights.

From: "Jeremy 1952" jeremy@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Status of Kodachrome Slide Films Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 I thought I might have read that Kodachrome 25 has been discontinued. Can someone tell me if that is true? I just located about 1,000 slides that were stored in my attic for almost 30 years. I had used 3 emulsions: Kodachrome 25, Ectachrome 64 and Eastmancolor 5254/5247 (a cult film from the 70s--Hollywood 35mm color negative film that was developed and printed into color-corrected slides be a handful of labs around the country). The Eastmancolor stuff was junk. Some of the slides had lost almost ALL of their images. The slides were virtually clear! What a mistake I made, using that stuff! The Ectachromes were pretty good, after 3 decades in the attic. A little bit of color loss, but not bad. The Kodachromes were magnificent! Clear, sharp, with colors that jumped right out at you! Scenes that were so razor-sharp that it almost hurt my eyes just focusing on them. After 20+ years of shooting print films, I'd like to return to doind some Kodachromes--if they're still out there. Can someone fill me in?

From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films? (Other than Kodak's) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 Gordon Moat wrote: > I hope that at least APX 100 will continue. They already dumped APX 25. APX 25 was my main B&W; film and was sad when I found they had dumped it. Their other B&W; films never seemed very good to me compared to what other people sell. -- stephe http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: "35mm frame sized sensor" Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 Mxsmanic wrote: > That's why only amateurs buy Technical Pan, Kodachrome, and Velvia. By the way: i've just unearthed an old post from my files in which Zeiss' Kornelius Fleischer mentioned that testing at Carl Zeiss, in search for a replacement for the Kodak Ektar 25 film they used at Zeiss as test film (200 lpmm), showed that Velvia (exposed at ISO 40) reaches 160 lpmm. Very good. However, Kodak Portra VC, rated at ISO 160, is showing the same 160 lpmm! I know, i know, one is a reversal film, the other isn't. But it illustrates that the "slow = high resolution" dictum is rapidly losing validity.

From: Joseph Chen jctchen@netscape.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Film versus Digital Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 NY Times May 23, 2002 Tapping Into Its Strengths, the Empire of Film Strikes Back By IAN AUSTEN WHEREVER he goes, Chip Simons usually takes a compact digital camera along in case he needs to grab a quick snapshot. But when it comes time for real work, Mr. Simons, a magazine and advertising photographer who lives in Bosque Farms, N.M., reverts to film. While that is partly a response to his clients' wishes, he said, film still has a substantial edge over digital photography in capturing details and in overall quality. "There's probably a gigabyte's worth of information on this little piece of film," Mr. Simons said of the 6-by-6-centimeter transparencies produced by most of his film cameras. "There's no way any scanner can even get it all. There's not much of a substitute for a piece of film." While the world's three major makers of conventional film -- Eastman Kodak, Fuji Photo Film and Agfa-Gevaert -- are all heavily involved in digital imaging, they have not given up on their traditional products. Investing in film research and development in the early 21st century may seem a bit like trying to design a better steam locomotive. But Steven Hammond, a senior photographic engineer in the professional products division of Fuji, said that there was still a lot of room for improvement. "Even though film has been around for 100 years, we're still only using 18 to 20 percent of what's theoretically possible in the emulsion," he said. Even customers who are less discerning than professional photographers may continue to stick with film cameras for some time to come, Mr. Hammond said. He credited improvements over the last five years in film technology for a steady increase in the use of disposable film cameras, which Fuji estimates now account for 25 percent of the United States photographic market. "We joke around here that film will only be in trouble when someone comes out with a $6.95 digital camera," he said. Much of the research at Kodak and Fuji is aimed at finding ways to improve the light sensitivity, or speed, of film without producing images that are grainy or lack sharpness. To do so, researchers are getting down to the atomic level. Mr. Hammond said that such improvements were a priority because light sensitivity would probably remain a weak point for digital cameras. When the light sensors in digital cameras, usually charge-coupled devices, or C.C.D.'s, are set to a sensitivity higher than the equivalent of a film with an I.S.O. rating of 800, Mr. Hammond said, they usually generate distortions in images known as noise. Because film is such a mature technology, he added, it is potentially much easier to improve its sensitivity than it is to improve digital sensors. "High speed is where film has its greatest potential," he said. Common photographic film, whether color or black-and-white, uses an emulsion containing extremely fine crystals of silver halide. When the camera's shutter opens, photons hit the crystals and begin to transform them into elemental silver. This is known as the latent image, and developing the film completes the transformation of the exposed silver halide crystals into silver. In its most basic form, color film has three layers of silver halide, each sensitive to red, green or blue light. (Modern color film has as many as 13 layers performing a variety of jobs.) Development of color film also involves extra steps. After the silver images are developed, color dyes couple to the metallic silver specks. Special bleach is then used to dissolve the silver image, leaving only the color dye record behind. The easiest way to make film more sensitive is to add more silver halide to its coating. But in the past, that also meant that the resulting pictures suffered from a coarse pattern of silver grains. About 15 years ago, a group of researchers at Kodak led by Terry Taber introduced a process that makes silver grains thinner and less obvious in images. Traditional grains are roughly cube-shaped. The thinner grains are shaped like flat tabs and are known as tabular grains (Kodak calls them T-Max). Despite their smaller overall volume, the tabular grains have the same capturing ability of traditional grains because they cover roughly the same area on the film's surface. The improvements resulting from the development of tabular grains and other technologies have been striking, at least in the view of the people who did the work. Mary Jane Hellyar, a Kodak vice president and general manager who is also the company's chief technical officer for consumer imaging, said that 800-speed film today, for example, has the grain, resolution, contrast and other characteristics of a much slower film of a decade ago. Most film companies, including Fuji, have introduced their own thin-grain technologies. Now, said Dr. Taber, Kodak's associate director of research, scientists are boosting the ability of individual silver halide grains to capture photons. "We're going after this fundamental aspect of efficiency," he said. Normally, every photon that strikes the silver halide in film is converted into an electron to form the latent image. But two years ago Kodak researchers announced a way to double the number of electrons produced by each photon. This process, known as two-electron sensitization, takes advantage of the fact that in color film, photons are first converted to electrons in the surrounding dye and then move to the silver halide to create the latent image. The Kodak researchers developed dye molecules that after being hit by one photon give up two electrons to the silver halide. By getting two electrons from every photon, the process should make it possible to double the light sensitivity of film without adding any more image-distorting silver grains. Late last year, Kodak relied on the double-electron technology to introduce a specialized film that is used in the creation of final movie prints. Dr. Hellyar suggested that it would gradually be introduced into more common types of film. But greater sharpness isn't to everyone's taste. Mr. Simons prefers Fuji's film to Kodak's products for his work, which includes portraits of animals illuminated in strange colors. And while he does not plan to shift to digital photography anytime soon, he also longs for the film of the past. "New films are too sharp," he said. "There's nothing soft about them. They don't glow anymore."

From: norpinal@yahoo.ca (norpinal) Newsgroups:rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films? (Other than Kodak's) Date: 29 May 2002 There are two interesting developments 1) High resolution Gigabitfilm from germany There are great numbers of discussion in Minox group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minox-FAQ/messagesearch?query=gigabitfilm 2) The company which does research on high resolution developers has developed several high resolution developer to use on microfilm and normal BW film with stunning results. There are a number of discussions and sample pictures taken with Agfa Copex Rapid at ASA 25 and develope with SPUR developer from Minox camera in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minox-FAQ

[Ed. note: a handy tip for those wanting to homebrew their own glass plates...] From camera makers mailing list: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 From: mmagid3005@aol.com Subject: Making glass negatives I can't remember which list it was on, but a few days ago someone was asking about making their own glass plate negatives. The Arno Press "Encyclopedia of Photography," published in 1911 and reprinted by Arno in 1974 has several relevant entries, especially at "coating," "dry plates" and "emulsion." Marty

From: T.P. t.p@No-mail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Hexar AF Lens too Contrasty ?? Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 Subhash Tiwari stiwari@tampabay.rr.com wrote: >Recently bought a silver Konica Hexar AF camera on Ebay. Very ergonomic, >sharp lens etc., but notice that on both rolls used so far (Kodak 200 and >Agfa Optima 100) there appears to be too much contrast. Whereas there was >loss of shadow detail in some darker areas, the whites were washed out. This >is not SO obvious on the negatives. The prints for the 2 rolls were made at >2 different labs, weeks apart. Granted these were outdoor pics taken on >bright sunny days in Florida, I have never had this happen before. So here >is the question- > >Can one have too much of the much desired lens contrast , and is that true >of the 35/2 lens on the Konica Hexar AF camera ?? You can *never* have too much contrast in a lens. Everyone desires greater "sharpness", or so it seems. Sharpness is a combination of resolution (the ability to reproduce fine detail) and contrast. Cheaper lenses than your 35mm f/2 produce lower contrast. Film manufacturers compensate for this by making high contrast emulsions which give the appearance of high contrast when using cheap, low contrast lenses. With your excellent Konica lens, you can use films which have not had their contrast artificially enhanced. Try Fujicolor NPS ISO 160 or NPH ISO 400. These are low contrast professional emulsions and will be ideally suited to your lens(es). Also, have them processed at a pro lab rather than a minilab at the supermarket or the mall, and you will see a *massive* improvement. HTH.

From rollei mailing list: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: [Rollei] Infrared filter inside Rollei TLR? ... >that, then why not just buy HIE in 70mm and cut it >down? The only extra work seems to be making the wood >u-shaped film slitter which doesn't sound that hard. > In fact someone is doing just this. I am forwarding this from the Pure-Silver list. ---- List members, I'm very excited to announce that I am now offering Kodak Infrared film in 120 size. The film is Black and White Infrared Aerographic film 2424 from Kodak. It is identical in every way to Kodak HIE. I buy it in 70 mm wide rolls, 150 ft long. I have been working on this project for almost a year now. I have built 2 machines that cut and roll the film, so neither process is done by hand. This makes it much more precise and minimizes defects, transport problems and light leaks. It also allows me to cut the film down BOTH edges. Although I must leave perforations along 1 edge, I have precisely cut the film along the area BETWEEN the edge of the film and the sprocket holes. The area is normally 2 mm, but I have removed about 1.5 mm of that, minimizing the intrusion of sprocket holes into the image area. In fact, unless you are using a filed out negative carrier, you will virtually never see the sprocket holes in your prints, no extra cropping necessary. This will save money for those of you who don't have your own darkrooms and don't want to pay extra for custom printing at the photo lab. LIGHT TIGHTNESS! This film is extremely light tight, I have even loaded it in full daylight! (with the sun to my back of course) Going even to subdued lighting is not necessary. The machine rolling allows me to wind the film very tightly onto the spool. This provides the extra protection from fogging. IT CAN BE UNLOADED even in a very bright room, though if you unload it under full daylight, I would recommend you putting a dark cloth over the camera. The reason is that the camera back doesn't roll the film as tightly as I do, so it is less light safe when unloading. Normal indoor lighting levels, or even open shade should be dark enough though. If you have doubts, feel free to test it yourself. One user successfully unloaded it under full daylight, your results may vary. In the past, Kodak had problems with pinholes. I have been over this issue with them several times and have a good relationship with the Aerial Film folks at Kodak. Back around November 2001, they even advised me not to buy any film until January 2002 when they would have the problems fixed. I buy directly from Kodak and test each batch of film I receive from them for pinholes. If I find pinholes, I return it to Kodak for replacement. If not, I cut the film down and roll it. I cannot not offer a guarantee beyond this. Currently I am only offering 120 size. I do not have any plans to offer 220 size. I have priced the film very attractively at $12.50! That makes it very comparable to HIE 35 mm rolls. I am offering 120 size film canisters to store the film in before and after exposure at a price of $1.00 extra, so you have a choice to buy them or not. PayPal or money order only. Personal checks are not accepted There is a 3 roll minimum. Shipping is a flat rate of $5.00. US addresses only Also at this time I am not shipping international orders because of the hassles involved with customs and fear of airport X-rays. This is the first announcement of the film though and I may offer international shipments in the future. Here is the link to my web site describing the film and ordering information. There are tips for loading and unloading the film, frequently asked questions and a host of other good info on shooting and metering IR film, even a page on how to build your own IR meter. http://www.DavidRomano.com Questions? email me at David@DavidRomano.com Thanks! David Romano ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From koni omega mailing list: Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul R." Subject: Re: [KOML] Re: Before I spend $300 (film recommend'ns) To: koml@koni-omega.org Reply-To: koml@koni-omega.org --- Joe Sjostrom wrote: > � �Yesterday I dropped a check in the mail for > purchase of a nice clean model 200 with a 90 lens, > and hopefully within a week I will be unpacking the > camera and loading a roll of film. I paid $200 for > it, not $300, which is good, but I guess I still > need to buy a flash cord. > � �Thanks to Craig, Nancy, Paul, Tom, Eve, Jason, > Jack, for your comments and suggestions. Time and > thought was obvious in your messages. > � So here's another question: can you recommend a > film that has good Koni compatability? � � > Your messages have mentioned these films: > Ilford XP2 (b&w;, process C41, according to Ilford's > website) > Ilford Delta 400 (b&w;, conventional b&w; chemistry, > according to Ilford's website) > Fuji Velvia and Provia 100F (color transparency, > process E6, according to Fuji's website) > � On a light table, photo quality is easier (for > me) to judge from a positive transparency than from > a negative. But it's not really practical to project > slides bigger than 35mm, and I've always heard you > get better prints from negatives than from > positives. � > � Am I the only one who still uses Kodak film? For > the last 15 years I've been shooting Kodak 200 print > film in 35mm, with no grounds for complaint. > � Any suggestions? Somebody please tell me what to > do! > Thanks again, > Joe Sjostrom > Joe, I'll take the bait again. And I'll echo Clive's sentiments about the rewards of shooting transparencies. Even if you don't have a MF projector, just looking at trannies (even 35mm) on a light table is fantastic, a real joy. And I've had some great prints made from slides. They also scan just fine, for digital processing and output. But I shoot negatives as well -- for b&w;, for a certain look, or for more exposure latitude in challenging or rapidly-changing conditions. (Though I'm Photoshop-friendly, I still don't think you can achieve everything digitally. And even getting close sometimes takes inordinate amounts of work.) Each film has its own look and response characteristics, and only you can judge whether one fits your style and looks "good" to you in your final application. I suggest you take some of the 'consensus picks' you get from this group and other sources, and try them out on your favorite subjects under various conditions -- using cheaper 35mm film! Then, narrow it down to a half dozen or fewer (depending on your tolerance for stocking different films), and stick to those for a while. You'll get used to how each one 'behaves', and you'll get good at getting the results you're after. Now, a few of my own favorites: Velvia: For scenics. Supersaturated, outstanding greens & blues. Provia: For scenics when I need a little more speed, & 'all purpose' travel shooting. Very fine-grained, and still very good saturation. Astia: For people. Good skin tones, not too contrasty. Portra NC: For people. More latitude and lower contrast than Astia. Ilford Delta 400: b&w; scenics. Plus X: b&w; people. TMAX 100: b&w; for a softer, lower-contrast look. And yes, I do have a sizable portion of one refrigrator shelf devoted to film! (What a sacrifice -- less beer space.) Good luck, and congrats on the 200 purchase! -Paul Reese

From koni omega mailing list: From: "Beaver, John" jbeaver@uwc.edu Subject: RE: [KOML] Curiouser and curiouser Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 Jon, I think I'm the only one doing it quite this way -- I'm using cyanotype as "film", directly in the camera, instead of as a printing technique. Since it's literally millions of times less sensitive than silver-based film (and sensitive only to ultraviolet), pretty much everything has to be approached differently. I have a brief description of the technique at: www.photo.net/users/Godoggo/Cyano/cyano.html Anyone who is interested in this can contact me directly, rather than cluttering the Koni-omega list, since you're certainly not going to do this with a Koni! (email is jbeaver@uwc.edu) I have, however, been having fun simply contacting printing the 6x7 negs onto homemade cyanotype paper. Once you have the chemicals, it's easy as pie, and you can do interesting things by altering how you brush the chemicals on the paper. 6x7 negatives are big enough to at least be interesting as "miniatures," and it can be intersting to scan the print at high resolution. Here's an example of a Koni 6x7 negative contact printed in this way: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=792232 Congrats on getting your first Koni! --John

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Portrait film choices? C41 films all have a very high tolerance to blocking up highlights because the final image is a dye replacement of the silver. I tend to prefer XP2 Super for overexposure/lower contrast exposure methodology, but T400CN works well too. Godfrey > I am a little dense, it's true, but what Martin and others are saying seems > to be the case. I will try a roll at 160 and tell you how good it works. > PS, I've always shot these ISO 400 stocks at 320 with good results, but > lower speeds will certainly increase "richness" if they don't lose highlight > detail.

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Idle speculation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 info@ellisvener.com (Ellis Vener) wrote: >I just read something in the past day or so that leads me to believe >that bergger does indeed make their own film and paper, or at least >has it made to their specifications. John Horoway, the distributor, says Bergger stuff is manufactured for them to their specs, they don't have a factory. Now one can speculate just what "to their specs" means but it is only speculation without some substantiation. So, no, they don't have a factory, but their stuff might still be unique to the brand if made according to formulas and methods specified by them, or even to meet some sensitometric requirement different from the manufacturer's stock product. Sensitometry or even odor might tell a lot. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA. dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Future of color sheet film (8x10)? I read an article recently that Playboy shoots all of its centerfold pictures with 8x10 transparency film. Nothing else produces the same quality. (I guess they do not have to enlarge much for the printed image!) Francis A. Miniter Johnny Zasada wrote: > Every once in a while it itches me to get into 8x10 large format > photography. I keep hearing the equipment is easy and cheap to get now > - due to digital - though I have not found this to be true, yet. > > Anyway, I'm wondering how well support by the film manufacturers for > 8x10 and large format in general will be in the furture. If the three > major companies quit making B&W; sheet film, you could probably switch > to some east-european or asian company, but what about color trannie > and negative material? > > Are their any rumours about color sheet film being discontinued by > Kodak or Fuji? > > Thanks in advance > > Johnny

From rollei mailing list: Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Rollei]: I screwed up... you wrote: >Having taken a few nice-ish shots of my cricket team a couple of weeks >back, www.ingenium.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dodgers/page_01.htm has a few rough >scans of them up, I thought I'd repeat the trick last night. > >Unfortunately, having taken 3 for 9 off three overs (meaningless, i know, >to those of you stateside, but it did get me the man of the match award), I >shot off a roll of what I thought was FP5 125ASA film. Course, when I >opened the back, turns out I was shooting Tri-X 400. > >I guess this sort of thing is kind of save-able in the developing tank, as >under-exposure is way better than over-exposure. But its not the sort of >thing I've yet graduated to - so far I've not deviated from the >instructions on the reverse of the label. Can anybody help? The >developers on my shelf are Jessops Econodev Universal 2 and Ilford Ilfosol. > >Cheers in advance > > >Matt > Most modern films have at least a ten stop _latitude_ for overexposure. If you want to lose about one stop of speed develop in full strength Ilford Perceptol or Kodak Microdol-X. That will give you full shadow detail and extremely fine grain but not super dense negatives. Pulling development time about 30% will lose another stop of speed but also lower contrast about one paper grade. BTW, underexposure is a far more difficult problem. If the speed is measured by the ISO method (Ilford claims they do something else but don't specify what) the exposure is the very minimum which will result in adequate shadow detail, there is simply no latitude for underexposure. Overdevelopment can "push" the toe region up in contrast, appearing to raise film speed, but there will still be a loss of shadow detail. Overexposure by two stops is really within the "normal" exposure range of the film. Most film is astonishingly tollerant of overesposure. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com

[ed. note: Mr. Brick is a noted photographer and photobook author, as well as a digital camera systems designer!] from hasselblad mailing list: Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Portrait film choices? Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video wrote: >First, Portra B&W400; is available in 120 and 220. Second, that's not >helping the fellow who began this thread who needs 100-160 ISO film. >Unfortunately Portra B&W; is not available in any ISO other than 400. > >Kodak offers three chromogenic B&W; films (Portra400, B&WPlus;, and TCN). >Ilford offers one (XP-2) As far as I know there is no chromogenic film in >any ISO other than 400, so the individual who began this thread is limited >to shooting with ND filters or using a traditional b&w; film like Plus-X or >FP-4 or TMax 100 or Delta 100. Both Kodak TCN & Portra B&W; are very very happy when used at 100-200. I, after much testing, generally use T400CN B&W; film at 200. If it is very bright, I go to 100, or even 50. T400CN does not block up. It is very happy at these ASAs. It actually produces better images at slower speeds than at 400. I reserve 400 for foggy days. Here are the words from the Kodak site: "However you capture or print your image, T400 CN Film has the versatility you need. Wide exposure latitude gives you high-quality prints from negatives exposed at speeds from EI 25 to 1600." You can shoot T400CN at 100-160 with impunity and the results will be stellar. Jim

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Why Transparency? A transparency lit from behind or projected looks a lot better than a print from a negative. It's a question of dynamic range, mostly. Transparencies, properly lit, have a much larger range than a print on paper can ever have. I shoot mostly transparency film, for this reason. The results just look better. "DarrenH" orgo@dh.com a �crit > I read this line today on Luminous Landscape: > > "...The pro and the serious fine-art photographer typically shoots colour > transparency material..." > > My question is: why? I went to my local photography museum and I saw > prints, on paper. I go to the mall and I see ads in light boxes lit from > behind. When and where are transparencies appropriate? > > Thanks for your time, > D

From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera? Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote: > > Some recent Nikon documentation I have still refers to 120 format as > "Brownie film." Yes. Buro-ni (where "-" means hold the sound a bit longer, and "ni" is pronounced "knee") is the standard Japanese term for MF film (MF cameras are usually referred to as chuuban) in current Japanese. It's completely normal usage, and no Japanese speaker would find it strange/quaint/antiquated in the slightest. So to translate buro-ni as Brownie is a horrible mistranslation, and means Nikon's too cheap to pay my rates. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan

From: "Tom" seaskate@attbi.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera? Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 mnahkola@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com wrote > for7 wrote: > > >>MF isn't for snapshots; without sounding snooty, > > > I use my Fuji GA645 for snapshots all the time. Awesome snapshots too :) > > Actually ... MF _was_ originally designed for snapshots, unless I'm badly > mistaken... back when Real Photographers used glass plates and such. > > Why, it seems that MF was more the "snapshot" type medium all the way to > the 50s or 60s around here. That's about when the cheap 35mm cameras > started to appear and until then, Kodak Brownie, Agfa Box, Agfa Clack, > cheap folders... Leicas weren't for snapshots and very few people had > ever heard of such a thing as "Argus". Nikon produces what they laughingly call a "User's Manual" for the LS8000ED scanner I bought. It is pathetic. Further, in all the references to 120 film in that ridiculous book they call it (and I am not kidding) "Brownie Film". That is correct. Nikon officially refers to 120/220 film as "Brownie Film". The original "snap shot" format. Tom

from hasselblad mailing list: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 From: John Youmans jmy1@usa.net Subject: Re: [Re: [HUG] Filters?] http://www.cambridgeworld.com/kodak_120_film.htm Daniel Lee Daniel@DKLImages.com wrote: Can someone rec a place to buy it mail order other than bh? Theire "imported" is out of stock...

from hasselblad mailing list: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Kodak versus Portra Portra color neg film and Portra 400 B&W; film are aimed at the wedding photographers. A wedding photographer can shoot both color and B&W;, have it processed together and proofed together and end up with great color and great B&W; photographs. Kodak T400CN is another chromogenic B&W; film but it doesn't print on color paper very well as does Portra B&W.; T400CN is for C41 processing and printing on any normal B&W; paper. single grade, multi-grade, whatever. It's a good film with gobs of latitude. You can shoot Kodak cromogenic B&W; films from ASA 50 up to 800 with no processing change. It doesn't block highlights or lose shadows. Jim ...

from hasselblad mailing list: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 From: Christopher Williams LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Kodak is Portra Portra 400 B&W; is Kodak's 3rd(yes, third) attempt at a B&W; C-41 process film. Funny how Ilford still has XP2 around, but why change the best? Okay, now I know Portra B&W; is for printing on color paper, but XP2 is still the best C-41 B&W; for darkroom work. My opinion anyway. Kodak still has the orange base that makes for much longer exposure times. Ilford's Delta films cannot be compared because it would be silver base vs. dye films. Delta is sort of like Kodak's Tmax T-grain B&W; films. I find Delta to have much better grain and smoother tones. 35mm format or 6x6 format. Yes, all these Portra films get confusing. Chris Williams New Orleans ...

[Ed. note: at the time, this was the same price at B&H; Photo Video...] From: jge@cs.unc.edu (John Eyles) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Best price on Velvia 120 Date: 7 Aug 2002 Universal Film Distributors www.unidiscountfilm.com 800-872-3456 Exactly $2.89 a roll ! I only dealt with them once, seemed ok. My brother uses them all the time and seems happy. John P.S. Have you tried Provia 100F and E100VS ? >does anyone know of a reliable place I can >purchase Velvia 120 at around $2.89 a roll?

Medium Format 120 Rollfilms
Film	ISO	1000:1 lpm	1.6:1 lpm	Type
Agfachrome Pro RSX 50	50	125	55	color slide
Agfachrome Pro RSX 100	100	125	50	color slide
Agfachrome Pro RSX 200	200	110	50	color slide
Fujichrome Velvia	50	160	80	color slide
Fujichrome Astia 100	100	135	55	color slide
Fujichrome Provia 100	100	140	60	color slide
Fujichrome Provia 400	400	125	40	color slide
Fujichrome 64T (tungsten)	64	125	50	color slide
Fujichrome MS 100/1000	100-1000	135	55	color slide

Agfacolor Ultra 50	50	140	50	color print
Agfacolor Optima 100	100	140	50	color print
Agfacolor Portrait 160	160	150	60	color print
Agfacolor Optima 200	200	130	45	color print
Agfacolor Optima 400	400	100	50	color print
Fujicolor NPS 160	160	125	63	color print
Fujicolor NPL 160 (tungsten)	160	125	63	color print
Fujicolor Prof 400 NPH	400	100	50	color print
Fujicolor NHGII 800	800	100	50	color print
Konica Impresa 50	50	130	80	color print
Konica SR-G 160	160	100	50	color print

Agfapan APX 25	25	200	n/a	B&W
Agfapan APX 100	100	150	n/a	B&W
Agfapan APX 400	400	110	n/a	B&W
Agfa Scala 200X (slides)	200	120	55	B&W
Agfa Ortho 25 (no red..)	25	350	n/a	B&W
Kodak T-Max 100	100	200	63	B&W
Kodak T-max 400	400	125	50	B&W
Kodak Tech Pan 6415	25	320	100	B&W