I have some 100 and 160 in 35mm for when the sun comes out again. Bought some Lomochrome Metropolis at the same time and working through that. Will be interesting to compare; but looks good to me.
I have some 100 and 160 in 35mm for when the sun comes out again. Bought some Lomochrome Metropolis at the same time and working through that. Will be interesting to compare; but looks good to me.It doesn't matter who makes it. I don't want to know
I will consider that whoever manufactures it is (Lucifer), the accursed Satan himself.
Anyway, welcome to this product
I did no say anything about a "clear/invisible mask".
It is very likely that Silberra is using the same film material for their Silberra 50, 100 and 160 labelled films.
I
Unfortunately all current repackaging companies are trying to fool their customers in one way or the other. Some are very aggressive in that by telling marketing lies, some are more cautious using more defensive or indirect ways.
It is very sad. More honesty would be much better for the film community.
The Silberra color films are either newly manufactured, or old master rolls that were kept very well, and I mean extremely, almost unbelievably well. I believe the latter possibility is rather unlikely.
Please read all what I wrote above on this, literallly, and take it for granted, or ignore it and make again erroneous assumptions as this one, or search Apug. I repeatedly explained masking in detail. This is a topic for a one hour lecture. Which I am not giving here.Clear base means no colour couplers.
Please read all what I wrote above on this, literallly, and take it for granted, or ignore it and make again erroneous assumptions as this one, or search Apug. I repeatedly explained masking in detail. This is a topic for a one hour lecture. Which I am not giving here.
Of course, what you say is certainly a possibility, and only Silberra knows the truth. As for the color, keep in mind that if it is Kodak Aerocolor, it was never designed for general photography applications, so the color may not be ‘tuned’ (for lack of a better term) for that, fresh film or not. I agree the color rendition is a bit odd, but the films have also been very consistent in that oddity, with no signs of age that often creep into expired emulsions.I see the color in those Silverra films being just ok, not amazing. There's also the possiblitiy of simply being outdated film now sold as a lower-than-originally-intended sensitivity film. Yeah, maybe aerial film. But old stock that wasn't really kept amazingly well, just old.
It's simple, the base can be clear or not clear. This is what the emulsion is coated on.
The mask, if present, is not part of the base - it's part of the coating.
And if I got it wrong, then it's apparently not simple, lol.
In 2016 I took pictures with Rollei CN200 (I think that is the name) . It's the maskless Agfa colour aerial film.
+1I did no say anything about a "clear/invisible mask". At any masked negative the mask is basically visible except for highest densities.
Here at this forum constantly base and mask are mixed up. They are completely different and not related to each other at all.
In E6 the results have been very mixed: The difference in quality compared to real colour reversal films from Fujifilm and Kodak was much bigger than in C41 (results being worse). Sometimes the results were usable, sometimes just bad, and sometimes they had a specific look that could have an appeal to those who love "weird, experimental" films. Results have been very dependent on subjects and shooting conditions.
Unfortunately all current repackaging companies are trying to fool their customers in one way or the other. Some are very aggressive in that by telling marketing lies, some are more cautious using more defensive or indirect ways.
It is very sad. More honesty would be much better for the film community.
My limited and simple empirical experience with Aviphot 200 (repackaged as "lomography xpro 200") was similar to your controlled tests: Compared to the best of Kodak/Fuji E6 films it was grainier and with less detail, plus colors were a bit weird.
My limited and simple empirical experience with Aviphot 200 (repackaged as "lomography xpro 200") was similar to your controlled tests: Compared to the best of Kodak/Fuji E6 films it was grainier and with less detail, plus colors were a bit weird.
Henning,
You are doing a great service by posting this publicly. It seems to be increasingly difficult to avoid coming across these superfluous and misleading products.
+1Henning,
You are doing a great service by posting this publicly. It seems to be increasingly difficult to avoid coming across these superfluous and misleading products.
Flavio,
you are mixing things: The film you are referring to is a different film: Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Chrome 200.
"I don’t know how it’s been finding its way to Russia and their fascination with it, but there it is.
https://sreda.photo/goods/aerocolor_120I'll pay $14/roll for 120 that I can choose at processing time to make negatives or positives
I am waiting for someone to run tests and confirm this. I am almost certain that if you shoot the same scene on Silbera 50,100 and 160 exposing three frame at EI 50, 100 and 160, develop the negatives together and compare the results you would not be able to tell the difference between the three films. Extra bonus if Kodak Aerocolor 125 from SFL is also included in the tests.It is very likely that Silberra is using the same film material for their Silberra 50, 100 and 160 labelled films.
- Maco sold for quite a long time material that was not properly stored (not cold stored) by their confectioning partner of that time, resulting in a strong yellowish colour cast.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?