Anyone know who's coating Silberra color films?

[wahiba]

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 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.

 

[brbo]

I did no say anything about a "clear/invisible mask".

?! You said that all aerial films have clear base whether they are masked or not. That implies that there are masked films with clear base. Clear base means no colour couplers. What removed all the colour couplers in the unexposed parts of the film?!

Hence my question, how exactly does a masked film with a clear base work?

 

[flavio81]

It is very likely that Silberra is using the same film material for their Silberra 50, 100 and 160 labelled films.

Yes, this is a new technology called Silverra Universal Color Keying, more widely known by its acronym

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.

It is really embarrasing, to be honest.

 

[flavio81]

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.

I recall shooting a Vericolor 160 film that was about 25 years expired, and seemingly 10 of those years were at room temp. I had to shoot it at EI 25 to get good densities. The color was acceptable.

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 There's also the possiblitiy of simply being outdated film now sold as a lower-than-originally-intended sensitivity film.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.

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[brbo]

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.

I've read books on colour masking, that's why I'm asking.

But, if you are above that petty matter that I'm interested in... no problem, have a good day.

 

[AgX]

Yes, on this matter I am sure to be knowledgewise above any book where would be written, what you stated above..

 

[brbo]

Well, my erroneous statements kinda ask to be corrected. Maybe some other time? A dedicated thread?

 

[Truzi]

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.

 

[Ten301]

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.

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.

 

[lantau]

In 2016 I took pictures with Rollei CN200 (I think that is the name) . It's the maskless Agfa colour aerial film. I liked the results. Of course the colours are technically not as good as proper Pro C41 films. But I really liked the results, in particular the greens of vegetation. I'm not one, who likes experimental films, but this one is good. I ordered ten more rolls in 120, but they've been frozen ever since... I'm behind on everything C41.

I did print the negatives on RA4 paper, btw. No problem there.

 

[brbo]

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.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake that was just too obvious for me to realise. So the catch is that I was sloppy with the term "base". Of course, the mask can't be integrated into the supporting material, how could it be (it could be a tint/stain but not a mask).

 

[AgX]

Actually even before that I explicitely stated that it is about couplers which make the mask, and that they make part of the emulsion and that the base is not related to this all: And at your disbelief I advised to read literally what I said. Sometimes reading helps... But for who to say, I myself read over things.

Concerning the base:
It is always "clear" as otherwise image forming in transmission (printing or projecting) would be hamperd.
"Dyeing" of the base makes in first instance sence as means to limit lightpiping at loading, which typically is no issue at loading aerial film, lesser as means against halation. Concerning the latter, moreover at aerial surveying image contrast is typically low, though there may be specular reflections of the sun, at water or manmade surfaces, that can be nasty.

 

[AgX]

Concerning the topic of this thread, we presented so far most probable explanations.
Anything more, at best, could be achieved at critical examination of these Silberra films.

 

[Henning Serger]

In 2016 I took pictures with Rollei CN200 (I think that is the name) . It's the maskless Agfa colour aerial film.

Yupp, CN 200 was the correct name. It was re-packaged Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium) Aviphot Color 400 colour negative film.
I've tested it intensively at the time when it was introduced, both in C41 and in E6 processing, and in my standard scientific film test programme. As a colour negative film in C41 the results were inferior compared to all ISO 200/24° and 400/27° films from Kodak and Fujifilm. Neither in detail rendition (resolution, sharpness, fineness of grain), nor in colour reproduction the CN 200 could compete with Kodak and Fujifilm.
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.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[flavio81]

I 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.

+1
Thanks for this clarification.

 

[flavio81]

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.

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.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

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.

 

[AgX]

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.

Agfa had 5 colour aerial films on offer, amongst them 1 reversal film. You mean the Aviphot "Chrome" 200.
That film was based on a consumer film from the early 90's

This thread though is about colour negative films. Out of which were some specially designed for aerial use.

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

Flavio,
you are mixing things: The film you are referring to is a different film: Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Chrome 200. A real colour reversal film intended for E6 process.
This film was then used by both Lomography and Maco Photo Products for their repackaged products: Lomography XPro 200, Rollei CR 200 and Rollei Crossbird.
You are right: This film could not compete at all with the Fujichrome and Ektachrome films. Neither in detail rendition (resolution, sharpness, grain), nor in colour precision and colour brillance.
The weakness concerning colour reproduction was made even worse by the facts that
- the last coating run of this film was already in 2005
- 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.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

Thank you very much for your appreciation, Tom.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Ten301]

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.

+1

 

[flavio81]

Flavio,
you are mixing things: The film you are referring to is a different film: Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Chrome 200.

Yes, sorry...

 

[Romanko]

I don’t know how it’s been finding its way to Russia and their fascination with it, but there it is.

"
KODAK AEROCOLOR IV Negative Film 2460 is for general
use in medium- to high-altitude aerial-mapping and
aerial-reconnaissance photography. It is suited for
geological, pollution, archeological, crop and forestry
studies; traffic control; city planning; railway, highway, and
hydraulic engineering; oceanography; and remote sensing,
as well as other areas where photogrammetry is used.
"
Obviously Russia is doing a lot of the above so surplus film should be easily available. They also have capacity for cutting and perforating from wide rolls. I am not surprised if they spool it manually.
Sreda Photo Labs (SFL) is another Russian company that sells the same film but they are less secretive about it:
https://decisivemoment.com.au/kodak-aerocolor-125-120-film-sfl/
According to our local Australian supplier the film is fresh (produced in 2021).

I'll pay $14/roll for 120 that I can choose at processing time to make negatives or positives

https://sreda.photo/goods/aerocolor_120
At ~$9 per roll (when converted from Rubles) plus delivery this might be within your budget. The site says they have 182 rolls available. The film is manufactured in 2020 and the expiry date is December 2021. They ship internationally and accept PayPal.

It is very likely that Silberra is using the same film material for their Silberra 50, 100 and 160 labelled films.

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.

Kodak Aerocolor is supposed to be developed using AN-6 process but can be processed in C-41:
https://www.kodak.com/content/produ...ls/KODAK-AEROCOLOR-III-Negative-Film-2460.pdf
Is anyone familiar with AN-6? How close is it to C-41? Does processing in C-41 affect colors, saturation, contrast and archival properties? Can C-41 film be cross-processed in AN-6?

 

[twelvetone12]

- 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.

Ah-ha, that's why. I brought some rolls in 2017 of the Wittner flavour of it. I liked the results for the first couple ones, not the same quality as Fuji reversal but nice. Then all the other films were YELLOW. All my film is kept in the freezer and they were yellow long before the expiry date in 2018. Absolutely unusable. I still have a couple rolls and processing is not worth wasting on them.