Acquisition of Film Material Producers InovisCoat and FilmoTec

[DeletedAcct1]

But I won't argue his ability to test and share intricate details of his results with everyone who wants to see them. Far more reliable than most web based self-claimed testing houses that know it all and can't even spell it right.

That's another story.
I could argue his results about the old debate analog/digital, where he says that Fomapan 100 has a resolving power of 75-90 lp/mm.
Talking bout official datas, the official Foma datasheet https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100 lists for Fomapan 100 110lp/mm so...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

That's another story.
I could argue his results about the old debate analog/digital, where he says that Fomapan 100 has a resolving power of 75-90 lp/mm.
Talking bout official datas, the official Foma datasheet https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100 lists for Fomapan 100 110lp/mm so...

At the same time I would not be going to bed with Foma on their results either. Very common to see optimistic data coming from manufacturers that it appears nobody in real world can come within. Some of it has to do with lack of testing consistency or even applied testing logic. This is common in all industries where numbers are part of the winning game. I don't need to bring up digital imaging to prove the point ... I hope?

 

[DeletedAcct1]

At the same time I would not be going to bed with Foma on their results either. Very common to see optimistic data coming from manufacturers that it appears nobody in real world can come within. Some of it has to do with lack of testing consistency or even applied testing logic. This is common in all industries where numbers are part of the winning game. I don't need to bring up digital imaging to prove the point ... I hope?

Well, nobody puts exaggerated datas on datasheets because datasheets are not an advertisement tool.
It's like drug manufacturers that puts exaggerated datas on their drug leaflets.
Have you ever seen them doing this?

 

[flavio81]

Don't know him.
I rely only on official statement, not third part "they say"...

Henning Serger is Adox's most important customer. In fact the Adox CMS II 100 films is named after him (CMS = Customed for Henning Serger). Thus, he's a voice to trust for news about the film industry.

If you don't know who HS is, you have been living in a rock within the PHOTRIO/APUG world.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Henning Serger is Adox's most important customer. In fact the Adox CMS II 100 films is named after him (CMS = Customed for Henning Serger). Thus, he's a voice to trust for news about the film industry.

If you don't know who HS is, you have been living in a rock within the PHOTRIO/APUG world.

words-in-freedom

 

[Film-Niko]

Henning Serger is Adox's most important customer.

No, he is definitely not. The biggest customers of film manufacturers are always the big(ger) distributors and wholesalers. And never individual photographers. And photo schools and colleges / universities are mostly bigger customers as even lots of professional film photographers.

In fact the Adox CMS II 100 films is named after him (CMS = Customed for Henning Serger).

There is no CMS 100 II Film. There is a CHS 100 II Film. And CHS stands for "Cubiccrystal Heterodispers Single-Layer" if I remember right. It has of course absolutely nothing to do with him.

 

[Film-Niko]

Henning is one of the most consistent and reliable voices I've seen here.

Agreed.
He is an excellent expert. Always correct and trustworthy. A real benefit to this forum.

 

[Film-Niko]

To me it has no meaning. I trust only official sources, official data, genuine datasheets, what the manufacturer says about their products etc...

When you only trust datasheets = manufacturer publications, then you only trust those who want to sell you something.
I trust in tests. In my own, and in tests of independent and trustworthy sources.

Datasheets are mainly marketing tools. The product should look good for the customer, it is an incentive to buy.
I can tell you so much errors in film datasheets. For example in Rollei-Film data sheets are lots of mistakes. For example they use one film - Aviphot Pan 200 - and sell it in three different packagings and names (Superpan 200, Infrared and Retro 400S), and with three different data sheets. Their current Ortho film has a datasheet from a long gone forerunner product, and the current film is about two stops more sensitive than claimed in the outdated datasheet. The values for resolution and grain are also wrong.
Film Ferrania claims that the P30 has a speed of 80. But if you measure it with a densitometer, you immediately find that the real speed is several stops slower.
Just as some examples, there is more.

 

[Film-Niko]

Well, nobody puts exaggerated datas on datasheets because datasheets are not an advertisement tool.
It's like drug manufacturers that puts exaggerated datas on their drug leaflets.
Have you ever seen them doing this?

No, it is not at all like drug manufacturers. Because drug manufactures are forced to follow extremely strict regulations and laws on what they have to publish and are allowed to publish in the drug leaflets.
Such strict regulations does not exist for film products. Manufactures can write in their datasheets what they want. And as explained above, there are enough examples of misleading information by some film manufacturers or suppliers.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

When you only trust datasheets = manufacturer publications, then you only trust those who want to sell you something.

Kodak datasheets for example were and are always spot-on, maybe the best made along those of Fuji.
Next comes Ilford and Foma and Agfa.
Don't take Rollei as an example, they don't even manufacture films!
I challenge you to say that Kodak datasheets are for advertising.

 

[Film-Niko]

That's another story.
I could argue his results about the old debate analog/digital, where he says that Fomapan 100 has a resolving power of 75-90 lp/mm.
Talking bout official datas, the official Foma datasheet https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100 lists for Fomapan 100 110lp/mm so...

This post clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge concerning this topic.
H. Serger has always in detail explained the test methods he is using for his sophisticated resolution tests. He is using a lower contrast test target, with an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops). And he is using always the same lens for the tests, a Zeiss Makro-Planar ZF. Therefore his results are the system resolution of the specific tested film-lens combination.

What Foma is doing is completely different: They are testing in direct contact, without a lens, and with high contrast of 1:1000 (10 stops). Therefore they get a higher value, as resolution is dependent on contrast (the higher, the better the resolution) And they exclude the resolution lowering lens.

The tests of H. Serger are therefore much, much more relevant for us photographers, because they are as close as possible to our daily shooting conditions as photographers.
The datasheet values are more lab results, which cannot be achieved in your daily shooting. But they look fine to sell you the film.......

 

[DeletedAcct1]

This post clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge concerning this topic.
H. Serger has always in detail explained the test methods he is using for his sophisticated resolution tests. He is using a lower contrast test target, with an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops). And he is using always the same lens for the tests, a Zeiss Makro-Planar ZF. Therefore his results are the system resolution of the specific tested film-lens combination.

What Foma is doing is completely different: They are testing in direct contact, without a lens, and with high contrast of 1:1000 (10 stops). Therefore they get a higher value, as resolution is dependent on contrast (the higher, the better the resolution) And they exclude the resolution lowering lens.

The tests of H. Serger are therefore much, much more relevant for us photographers, because they are as close as possible to our daily shooting conditions as photographers.
The datasheet values are more lab results, which cannot be achieved in your daily shooting. But they look fine to sell you the film.......

First: Foma doesn't disclose how they calculate the resolving power. Only Kodak and Fuji, and maybe Ilford, do. Kodak even put multiple figures depending on the contrast ratio.
in this case it is you who demonstrated lack of knowledge.
https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100

"Therefore his results are the system resolution of the specific tested film-lens combination."
And it's useless for me and you because we both probably don't shoot pics with Henning's equipment.
Totally useless.

Here's a Fuji example https://asset.fujifilm.com/www/us/f...dd14a9bdfc/films_neopan100acros2_135_01_0.pdf
two contrast ratios 1:6 and 1:1000

 

[Film-Niko]

Kodak datasheets for example were and are always spot-on, maybe the best made along those of Fuji.

How do you know? Have you checked the values by intensive, scientific tests done by yourself? No, you have not.
I have done that concerning some specific values. And I have found that Kodak is sometimes quite optimistic...... In general they are very good, but not always.
For example I was dissappointed with the sharpness results of Ektar, made huge enlargements of it. Then I started long test runs, and found that several other CN films surpass Ektar in sharpness and resolution significantly. And I was not the only one with that results.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

How do you know? Have you checked the values by intensive, scientific tests done by yourself? No, you have not.
I have done that concerning some specific values. And I have found that Kodak is sometimes quite optimistic...... In general they are very good, but not always.
For example I was dissappointed with the sharpness results of Ektar, made huge enlargements of it. Then I started long test runs, and found that several other CN films surpass Ektar in sharpness and resolution significantly. And I was not the only one with that results.

Do you have access to the same equipment Kodak lab has?
I highly doubt it.
But apart from that, if you always see a deception attempt by the manufacturer when he's writing the data sheets, it's your problem.
I trust what Kodad, Fuji, Foma and Ilford write about their products and I live in peace, I use their products without being overwhelmed by the sense of having been screwed up.

 

[Film-Niko]

First: Foma doesn't disclose how they calculate the resolving power.

I have talked to them at Photokina. And they have told me how they do it. They do it as I have described it.

"Therefore his results are the system resolution of the specific tested film-lens combination."
And it's useless for me and you because we both probably don't shoot pics with Henning's equipment.
Totally useless.

You are completely contradicting yourself:
If that is your opinion, then all the datasheets values you are so obsessed with are also completely useless for us. Because no one of us has the identical lab-test equipment the manufacturers are using.
It is even much more useless because both the used contrast and the lack of using a lens has nothing to do with our photography.

But an object contrast of only two stops, as H. Serger is using, and a good quality lens, is something about 90% of us are facing in our photography (two stops object contrast are in about details in almost every picture), and lots of us are using good quality glass, too.
By the way, he has also often published values for other lenses, too.

 

[Film-Niko]

I trust what Kodad, Fuji, Foma and Ilford write about their products and I live in peace, I use their products without being overwhelmed by the sense of having been screwed up.

Fine for you.
I am not so naive to believe all what companies say, no matter what product. Do you remember Volkswagen and the Diesel scandal? Or Contergan?
I made the mistake to trust Ilford's data sheet for developing times for DD-X: With Delta 3200 i've got totally underdeveloped results (you will find lots of others here on photrio with the same experience, too), and with Delta 100 significantly overdeveloped results.
Lesson learned: Always do your individual tests first, evaluate the characteristic curve and find the perfect values for individual needs.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Well, nobody puts exaggerated datas on datasheets because datasheets are not an advertisement tool.
It's like drug manufacturers that puts exaggerated datas on their drug leaflets.
Have you ever seen them doing this?

Data sheets are actually MAINLY advertising sheets. That's were product search starts with large scale customers ... and individuals who can't see past them.

Problem here is that you seem to question quality of Hennig's work, and that is baseless. Almost as baseless is any claim that manufacturers are so overflowing with data integrity, no matter what they publish is the sole truth. And we know the latter is true from hybrid car testing, battery capacity testing, health benefits of drinking Coke Zero etc.

 

[flavio81]

No, he is definitely not. The biggest customers of film manufacturers are always the big(ger) distributors and wholesalers. And never individual photographers. And photo schools and colleges / universities are mostly bigger customers as even lots of professional film photographers.

There is no CMS 100 II Film. There is a CHS 100 II Film. And CHS stands for "Cubiccrystal Heterodispers Single-Layer" if I remember right. It has of course absolutely nothing to do with him.

I should have wrote "CHS" (Customed for Henning Serger).

This was a joke, as many would have realized. A joke I made previously on the Adox CHS II topic.

I agree with your statement that Henning Serger's tests are more relevant for us, and that medical leaflets can't be considered in the same way as film datasheets.

 

[flavio81]

Data sheets are actually MAINLY advertising sheets. That's were product search starts with large scale customers ... and individuals who can't see past them.

Problem here is that you seem to question quality of Hennig's work, and that is baseless. Almost as baseless is any claim that manufacturers are so overflowing with data integrity, no matter what they publish is the sole truth. And we know the latter is true from hybrid car testing, battery capacity testing, health benefits of drinking Coke Zero etc.

Exactly.

Looking at other posts by Alessandro Serrao, shows more of the same bad attitude:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-ferrania-p30.146259/page-36#post-2345162

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I have talked to them at Photokina. And they have told me how they do it. They do it as I have described it.



You are completely contradicting yourself:
If that is your opinion, then all the datasheets values you are so obsessed with are also completely useless for us. Because no one of us has the identical lab-test equipment the manufacturers are using.
It is even much more useless because both the used contrast and the lack of using a lens has nothing to do with our photography.

But an object contrast of only two stops, as H. Serger is using, and a good quality lens, is something about 90% of us are facing in our photography (two stops object contrast are in about details in almost every picture), and lots of us are using good quality glass, too.
By the way, he has also often published values for other lenses, too.

A datasheet does not claim to be useful in the sense of helping you take better photos, the absolute values in it are of relative utility.as in that of Henning.
So I don't understand where all this supremacy of Hennin's findings comes from.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Exactly.

Looking at other posts by Alessandro Serrao, shows more of the same bad attitude:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-ferrania-p30.146259/page-36#post-2345162

Do yourself a favor and give it up

 

[flavio81]

I did myself a favor and added A. Serrao to my ignore list.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Data sheets are actually MAINLY advertising sheets. That's were product search starts with large scale customers ... and individuals who can't see past them.

Problem here is that you seem to question quality of Hennig's work, and that is baseless. Almost as baseless is any claim that manufacturers are so overflowing with data integrity, no matter what they publish is the sole truth. And we know the latter is true from hybrid car testing, battery capacity testing, health benefits of drinking Coke Zero etc.

I don't want to disappoint you but the Kodak laboratories are much more proficient at calculating values about the film characteristics that anybody else here and also not here on Photrio...

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I did myself a favor and added A. Serrao to my ignore list.

you finally will not piss me off anymore

 

[dutchsteammachine]

I suspect Henning mentioned a lower lp/m on Foma's film than that companies' data sheet because he tested a good amount of film himself and the results were as such.