I heard you guys were taking all our money and buying bitcoin and counterfeit purses with it.
Kidding. I can't wait until you get some film going. Speaking of, I would love a replacement for my provia 400....
Back in June 2018, the Ferrania Folks hoped to be in continuous production by Fall
-
A
- Thread starter cmacd123
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Two Durst L184 colorhead enlargers with motorized focus and negative carriers
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Kodak HIE BW Infrared film
- Started by romosoho
-
For Sale 90mm f/4.5 Caltar II-N (= Rodenstock Grandagon-N) in Copal 1
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Nikon FM kit
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
Forum statistics
- Status
I heard you guys were taking all our money and buying bitcoin and counterfeit purses with it.
Kidding. I can't wait until you get some film going. Speaking of, I would love a replacement for my provia 400....
As a preface, ultimately I am optimistic that Ferrania will become a reliable producer of film. The size of production or how long it takes to get it going or even how I end up feeling about their emulsions doesn't change that.
Like many others who were original kickstarter backers I am a bit frustrated with the pace and the delays. I do wonder, looking back, if they should have known a bit better what was required to get production going, or how long it would take the Italian government to get the necessary infrastructure connections built. Negligence is too strong a charge, I think, but one certainly wonders if Ferrania did their due diligence before making their timeline estimates. One would imagine that certain delays should have been foreseeable. Any of us who have ever done a big home improvement project, worked in project management or anything related to construction, dealt with the Italian government (most governments, really, are ponderous in their actions), or had to source parts for a rare or old machine could have likely guessed there would be delays.
Even going in knowing that, one is still justified in being a bit disappointed with the length of the delay and a bit concerned that the original slide film, which we were promised in exchange for backing the larger project (and this is an important distinction to saying we /bought/ rolls of film) is slowly slipping further and further into the ether.
I was very excited to try P80. The results from my first few rolls didn't impress me, I think my shooting and developing of this film needs to be adjusted a bit. Note that I didn't do anything weird, I fed it through an F3 with a good meter, two rolls in good light, one in worse conditions, and developed in D76 according to the datasheet. The negs were thin.
This could be fixed by a bit of trial and error - assuming I could get more of the film. Getting an interesting B&W film as a side effect of restarting production is great, genuinely it made me very happy. It's still not a replacement for the E6 we were all hoping for.
Of course, like many things in Italy, something beautiful may just take time. The P80 was like a nice Vermouth or Grappa - enjoyable, a good aperativo, but hopefully only a byproduct of producing the slides, which we all hope will be properly done in good time, like a nice wine.
Aside from the people flaming for one side or the other, I think this is how a lot of us still feel. A little disappointed, but not terribly angry. A little suspicious of the timeline and anxious to see tangible results, but still supportive.
Like many others who were original kickstarter backers I am a bit frustrated with the pace and the delays. I do wonder, looking back, if they should have known a bit better what was required to get production going, or how long it would take the Italian government to get the necessary infrastructure connections built. Negligence is too strong a charge, I think, but one certainly wonders if Ferrania did their due diligence before making their timeline estimates. One would imagine that certain delays should have been foreseeable. Any of us who have ever done a big home improvement project, worked in project management or anything related to construction, dealt with the Italian government (most governments, really, are ponderous in their actions), or had to source parts for a rare or old machine could have likely guessed there would be delays.
Even going in knowing that, one is still justified in being a bit disappointed with the length of the delay and a bit concerned that the original slide film, which we were promised in exchange for backing the larger project (and this is an important distinction to saying we /bought/ rolls of film) is slowly slipping further and further into the ether.
I was very excited to try P80. The results from my first few rolls didn't impress me, I think my shooting and developing of this film needs to be adjusted a bit. Note that I didn't do anything weird, I fed it through an F3 with a good meter, two rolls in good light, one in worse conditions, and developed in D76 according to the datasheet. The negs were thin.
This could be fixed by a bit of trial and error - assuming I could get more of the film. Getting an interesting B&W film as a side effect of restarting production is great, genuinely it made me very happy. It's still not a replacement for the E6 we were all hoping for.
Of course, like many things in Italy, something beautiful may just take time. The P80 was like a nice Vermouth or Grappa - enjoyable, a good aperativo, but hopefully only a byproduct of producing the slides, which we all hope will be properly done in good time, like a nice wine.
Aside from the people flaming for one side or the other, I think this is how a lot of us still feel. A little disappointed, but not terribly angry. A little suspicious of the timeline and anxious to see tangible results, but still supportive.
MattKing
Moderator
I think Ferrannia should turn the photographic world on its ear --- and start making 620 film again!
Or at least 620 spools.
Or at least 620 spools.
I think a reasonable conclusion from what you have said is that in terms of 127 film, the machinery is already there but it will take money and time to attach it and it looks as if you will need to make your own spools and backing paper. Can you indicate how much money and timescale involved? It also sounds as if the base material will also have to be made specifically for 127 which presumably is a further complication.
Can you say exactly what you mean by base material and what might be required and again the timescale involved.
Would I be right in assuming that 127 is much more than a matter of simply connecting up the existing machinery and that fruition is as yet many years away based on the need to get P30 in 35mm up and running as a first priority?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Me neither! People, get a life!
OP
OP
Roll Film does have a different base than 35mm film. I don't think that 127 would need a different base than 120. it would have to be slit to 40 some odd mm rather than just over 60mm like 120 and 620. I am not positive if the base for 126 is different from the other roll film.
I wonder if the 120 machine can be modified to deal with a 620 spool? the only thing different is the spool and of course some adjustments to the tension to accommodate the different diameter. it probably is not too much of a priority as one can just re-roll 120 - Film Photography project has made up 620 spools and will sell some film re-rolled by hand in 620.
the three categories of film base are
THICK - Sheet Film and often on Polyester.
35mm and 16mm Medium thickness and generally on a Grey base. Here Triacetate is slightly preferred as it is less prone to light piping. this is mostly the same for both still and Movie use. Movie use may need extra coatings to act as a lubricant.
Thin - roll film. this can be grey or clear, although if it is clear it needs so sort of Anti-Halo treatment. often seen as a purple or Green dye that disolves in the developer, or become transparent during processing. Polyester is also not a problem as no part of the film gets into the light to cause Light Pipe problems.
OP
OP
since this came up in another post... do 127 and 620 and 126 and 110 all use the same 4 mil "roll film" base as 120?
and I an given to understand that 16mm and regualr 8 as well as Super 8 movie film are all on the same 5 Mil base as 35mm Still film? (although the movie stuff may have a extra layer or two to act as a lubricant when the film is being accelerated to 200 MPH and back to stop every 1/24th of a second.
Ok. But there are a lot others who do buy Lomography or Foma products - which i just wanted to use as an example for that even qualitiy doesn´t matter to everyone, but that it matters that a product is available - which in turn was meant as an argument for most future customers of Ferrania likely not caring about an outdated message on their website, which now has been corrected. As long as there is a product contantly available.
Sorry but our costs and timelines are no longer for public consumption. Especially timelines because people tend to take our speculations as The Word of Law.
As far as I know, the base is not really much of a problem.
I'm not sure I quite understand the question - but by "base material", I'm talking about the triacetate base that we coat with emulsion.
We plan to eventually make triacetate in-house. We own all of Ferrania's old equipment, thanks in large part to our Kickstarter Backers.
Restarting triacetate production, even at a small scale using only a portion of the equipment we have, is by far the most ambitious of our future plans.
"Years", no. At least we hope not. Relative to 120 and especially 135, 127 production is comparatively simple.
I´m not an insider of the business or the technical aspects, but Ektachrome especially is a little strange. Kodak stopped production a few years ago and said "because of demand being too low", but now they brought it back. Because demand suddendly had risen again? And even if so, how do you determine risen demand of a product no longer being available?
So i think there have been other reasons for Ektachrome dissapearing and now reappearing. It looks like a "manager-decision" to me. Like "analog is dead, so drop it". But there also have been rumors that Kodaks production capacity just was too big for current demand. So to meet current demand they might have had to heavily downsize production capacity, which also means modification of machines, which can be very costly and time-consuming - i think i somewhere read that Kodak would have had to invest 20Mio. to downsize a plant to meet current demand.
Also it is possible that Ektachrome had to be reformulated - if you downsize capacity you have to reformulate anyway, because you have to "match" the film to the machine, Photo Enigneer can explain that way better than me - but it also is possible that some of the raw chemicals needed for Ektachrome no longer are available, respectively are forbidden now due to environment protection. So it is possible that they not only had to match the film to a downsized machine, but that they also had to reformulate heavily, because some of the raw chemicals no longer may be available. And some comparisons of old Ekta vs. new Ekta indicate a reformulation, as colors are a little different etc. .
This could explain why it took someone like Kodak so long to bring back an emulsion. Now Ferrania intended to make a last run of Scotchchrome on a testcoater they have the formulas for. They know how to "match" the emulsion to the existing coater, so they won´t have to do trial and error about this aspect.
So they should have less R&D to do than Kodak had to bring back Ektachrome - and this also goes for the other emulsions like the 400+ ASA film. These emulsions have been formulated on the coater Ferrania is intending to use (and have used for P30), so brinning those films back should be easier than it was for Kodak to bring back Ektachrome.
Also i think the Scotchrome 100 at least is a relative new formula, meaning it might have been developed under stricter environmental regulations than Ektachrome, so the problem of raw chemicals no longer being available could be non-existent - so heavy reformulation was not needed to bring this film back.
About the "new boy on the block":
When Kodak announced to bring back Ektachrome, some started to worry whether there would be an interest for Ferraniachrome at all once Ektachrome would be back - and back then i said that in europe Ferraniachrome could be cheaper than Ektachrome, because of taxes and shipping to Europe.
Today one can see that a 100ft roll of Ektachrome in 16mm format is offered by Kodak for 60$. One had to directly buy from Kodak, but 60$ is the price if Kodak has a factory-outlet, i don´t know if they do.
Now in europe this 100ft roll of 16mm Ektachrome does about 83€, which is about 93$, while 1€ being about 1.12$ at the moment. This does exclude shipment to you.
So Ektachrome, in 16mm at least, is about 50% pricier in europe than in the US - and this would help Ferraniachrome in europe. Even if Ferrania had to charge like 80$ for one 100ft roll of chrome in 16mm, they still would be cheaper than Ektachrome, so in europe Ferrania could be an alternative to Kodak (and in the Kickstarter they estimated the price for 100ft 16mm to be 75$, assuming that price can be reduced a little once the coater has been maxed out). The Scotchchrome of course would have a bigger grain, but it could be cheaper in europe and therefore could be competitive.
And some still would buy Ferraniachrome because of its "flavour", not looking at the price tag, because there always are people who buy a film because of its look.
I'm not precisely sure about the thicknesses we need for our machinery - but your numbers sound right to me.
I can understand the frustration and i´d also like to be able to buy Ferrania products now, but i`m afraid you might be misremembering a point. The Kickstarter-plan was to make a limited batch of Scotchchrome with the existing infrastructure. The power plant, providing electricity and steam, still was present and operating at that time and the LRF building itsself was meant to be updated after the slide film was produced.
So it was not like they had to wait for being connected to electricity supply and had no access to the building due to maintenance works, no, they had access to a fully working mini-factory at the time of the Kickstarter - so i`m not sure if they really were bound to forsee that during tear down of the campus accidentally a water pipeline would be destroyed, keeping them from preparing for slide film. And then asbestos to be found inside the LRF. But frustrating it surely was/is for everyone.
(Now i am whispering in your ear, so no-one else can hear it: The B&W is called P30, not P80. Really, i´m not trying to attack you, just correcting.)
Maybe the thin results you got with your P30 might have had to do with quality control. I mean they were not able to convert the film theirselfes, but had to sent to a third party doing the finishing and maybe a problem occured during packing or shipment, so the film maybe was exposed to fumes which produced the thin results of yours. At least not everbody did have this problem of thin negatives and i think once Ferrania has the production in-house, such a problem is less likely to occur, respectively will be easier to trace down - and i´m sure they want to rule out such things.
MattKing
Moderator
Here is what I've been told about the changes Eastman Kodak had to bring about in order to satisfy their desire to bring back the Ektachrome motion picture film, and Kodak Alaris' desire to bring back the 35mm still film:
"With the 135 version, two entire color layer structures (6 emulsion layers) required complete rebuilding because the present chemical companies that could supply Eastman Kodak had differences that were not there in the 1999-2012 version of E100G. Once Eastman Kodak knew a rebuild was necessary, actual improvements were “fit in” to make the film a wee bit sharper, have more stability in keeping, and for both Kodaks, improve cold store keeping of the emulsions. Eastman Kodak also adjusted the film’s sensitometric position so that the whites were whiter, and the colors more accurate."
The market realities changed between 2012 and 2017/8, which motivated the efforts to down size the minimum production quantities. With the possibility of smaller runs being economic, the change in the markets meant that bringing the film back was a viable option.
As I understand it, Eastman Kodak has been so busy meeting the higher than projected demand for the 135 film that they haven't been able to make as quick progress as they had hoped bringing 120 and sheet film on stream as well - their human resources are limited, and everything takes a fair bit of time.
They also aren't in a position to stockpile components - they need to project future needs and order materials carefully. Apparently, some of the chemical components they require take their suppliers as much as 6 months to manufacture.
I understand that you are genuinely asking questions in good faith. But it's hard to formulate an answer because the questions assume a lot that isn't necessary relevant.
To your question - "Is there a reason to believe..."
No - there is no reason for anyone to believe anything beyond what you see in front of your face. And various philosophers would have you doubt that as well.
We believe what we say. Obviously.
As for Kodak:
We are clearly not in any way on par with Kodak - thus framing a question about FILM Ferrania in "Kodak terms" is problematic at best.
But the biggest assumption you seem to be making is that there can only be one E6 emulsion on the market - and it's a winner-take-all game. I see this kind strange "absolutism" a lot - especially in the film community, for some odd reason.
I don't get this kind of reasoning, personally. The market supports dozens of brands of B&W film - and B&W film is only the tiniest portion of the overall film market. It's absurd to me that people think the color film market can't support more new entries. Especially ones that are actually new - and not a rehash of some Agfa product, or dead-stock that has been marketed as new.
Again, one of the core principals of our business model is that we will retain an inherent flexibility that will allow for small-batch production of some formats that are less popular, but still viable.
As for evidence, we have all that we think we need considering our extremely modest ambitions for 127 specifically, and maybe, eventually, 126.
Thank you very much for the information.
I have not informed myself a lot why Ektachrome was discontinued, but i recall an outcry everywhere i looked when Ektachrome was discontinued, leaving the impression to me that there still was an acceptable demand of Ektachrome. And a few years later they brought it back, so discontinuation seemed a little odd to me.
Yes - entirely accurate!
You describe just the tip of the iceberg here. It was a cascading series of problems that began when the asbestos was discovered. These problems ate up the remaining time we had before the government stepped in for their massive refurb project.
In fact there were far fewer problems than we had expected.
This is because the vast majority of the film we coated in 2017 never left the building.
And our finishing partner actually helped reduce defective rolls even further.
P30 Alpha was tricky to use, plain and simple, and it will remain so even as the overall quality of our production improves.
I see. So maybe the thin negatives some users got have to do with other factors like water hardness for example. Is it known whether the use of purified water or maybe pre-soak can help to reduce this problem?
MattKing
Moderator
The real problem in 2012 was that while there was demand, it didn't come close to what constituted economic supply.
If there are 10,000 customers clamouring for product, but the smallest quantity you can economically produce is enough to meet the needs of 40,000 customers, you cannot afford to satisfy the 10,000 customers that want the product.
At its heyday, Building 38 was making enough Kodak still print film each day to create 3.4 million rolls of film. Its production facilities for that film, as well as all the other films manufactured by it, were scaled accordingly.
I was not questioning the intention(s) of Ferrania which at this moment is to make all the products it has mentioned. I was simply trying to find out if everything has been completely or as nearly as is ever possible to completely costed out such that unless there are unexpected changes you know 127 film will be produced and at a price which will create enough demand to not be a drain on Ferrania's resources to the extent to that it has to abandon 127 after a short run
I have presumed that you know the cost of setting the 127 machinery in motion and have worked out what price you need to charge and your belief is that it will be viable at that price.
The backers are already converted and retain faith in Ferrania but unless they are a big enough market to sustain Ferrania then others may need to be converted to the "Ferrania Faith" I may be in the minority in my response anything less than being given something solid to hold on to but I detected a rising tide of discontent about not being given something to hold on to. You have gone some way in producing something solid and it may be enough for the time being but time is ebbing away
As an exaggerated example of what I am referring to in my questions on viability, Kodak may have the ability to bring back HIE and there are those who will buy it at say even $40 a roll but to continue this as an example there may not be enough of them and should it turn our that Kodak has to charge $60 a roll to be viable then even those die-hards may "disappear and "die"
pentaxuser
I have presumed that you know the cost of setting the 127 machinery in motion and have worked out what price you need to charge and your belief is that it will be viable at that price.
The backers are already converted and retain faith in Ferrania but unless they are a big enough market to sustain Ferrania then others may need to be converted to the "Ferrania Faith" I may be in the minority in my response anything less than being given something solid to hold on to but I detected a rising tide of discontent about not being given something to hold on to. You have gone some way in producing something solid and it may be enough for the time being but time is ebbing away
As an exaggerated example of what I am referring to in my questions on viability, Kodak may have the ability to bring back HIE and there are those who will buy it at say even $40 a roll but to continue this as an example there may not be enough of them and should it turn our that Kodak has to charge $60 a roll to be viable then even those die-hards may "disappear and "die"
pentaxuser
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
"As an exaggerated example of what I am referring to in my questions on viability, Kodak may have the ability to bring back HIE and there are those who will buy it at say even $40 a roll but to continue this as an example there may not be enough of them and should it turn our that Kodak has to charge $60 a roll to be viable then even those die-hards may "disappear and "die""
I'm hoping to one day again see HIE sheet film. But if it only came back as 35mm, I would buy it. Even 120 would be cool, but maybe not possible due to IR penetrating backing paper...
I'm hoping to one day again see HIE sheet film. But if it only came back as 35mm, I would buy it. Even 120 would be cool, but maybe not possible due to IR penetrating backing paper...
Yes I too would buy HIE and would be prepared to pay a premium to an extent but only because it would be a very occasional purchase and certainly my purchase and that of people of my ilk would not be enough to sustain its production.
My purchases of 127 would be even more of an occasional "novelty" value purchase. Clearly unless Ferrania can switch on and off 127 production at a minimal marginal cost and also charge only a very reasonable premium then I scratch my head to work out how 127 production is possible on even a break-even basis unless there is much larger market for 127 film than i can envisage.
I do wonder how many ex-127 film users there are out there who have working 127 cameras that they desire to use at sufficient frequency to make the whole thing viable. It might even be that Ferrania is prepared to launch 127 on a "hobbyist" basis. By that I mean that they are prepared to make a loss. However unless they are very rich men in their own right then I'd have thought that even a small loss would be seriously damaging for such a small company. It may even be that if they can make a success of slide and P30 then a philanthropic approach to loss making lines is possible. However to get to that stage I cannot see how the lead time can be measured in less than years.
In the meantime I can only assume that there is a sufficient flow of money from whatever sources that enables the Ferrania staff to "live" and more importantly enables them to finance the forthcoming investment that presumably is still required.
pentaxuser
My purchases of 127 would be even more of an occasional "novelty" value purchase. Clearly unless Ferrania can switch on and off 127 production at a minimal marginal cost and also charge only a very reasonable premium then I scratch my head to work out how 127 production is possible on even a break-even basis unless there is much larger market for 127 film than i can envisage.
I do wonder how many ex-127 film users there are out there who have working 127 cameras that they desire to use at sufficient frequency to make the whole thing viable. It might even be that Ferrania is prepared to launch 127 on a "hobbyist" basis. By that I mean that they are prepared to make a loss. However unless they are very rich men in their own right then I'd have thought that even a small loss would be seriously damaging for such a small company. It may even be that if they can make a success of slide and P30 then a philanthropic approach to loss making lines is possible. However to get to that stage I cannot see how the lead time can be measured in less than years.
In the meantime I can only assume that there is a sufficient flow of money from whatever sources that enables the Ferrania staff to "live" and more importantly enables them to finance the forthcoming investment that presumably is still required.
pentaxuser
It is refreshing to know, since I have extremely different results with this film, but when I asked here on the forum people jumped at my throat saying that this is what I should expect when I disregard the best practices and use beer to develop the film (spoiler: I did not).
Yes difficult film, if that is what it is( I don't know as I have never tried it) , will always be a challenge for enthusiasts here on Photrio and other forums and overcoming any difficulties associated with such film will produce a level of satisfaction but frankly those enthusiasts who wish to "master" a film and any foibles it may have and are prepared to spend time and money so doing are in the minority and as I see things will never be a big enough group to make the film viable.
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
That's why, at least for me, it is not my bag of tea and I will not buy more. I really got p30 in the first place because I wanted to support ferrania further with the hope of also getting some nice images. I got chastised quite badly for that too. I guess one can never do right.
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |