Back in June 2018, the Ferrania Folks hoped to be in continuous production by Fall

[Henning Serger]

I forgot Polaroid. I remember hearing about InnovisCoat but thought they had stopped. What labels do they sell their film under?

No, they have not stopped. So far they have operated as a contract / OEM manufacturer for other brands like e.g. Lomography and Bergger. Because of changed ownership structure and new cooperation with FilmoTec (see their official announcements) it can be expected that in the future some of their products are also offered under the ORWO brand name (if the development efforts are successful).

I knew Instax was popular. I had no idea it was that popular!

In Fujifilm's fiscal year 2018/19 they sold more than 10 million cameras. That is their record year so far (they sold a bit less after that).
For comparison: The total digital camera production of all Japanese manufacturers combined, for all camera types (fixed lens compacts, DSLR and DSLM) together was 8.7 million units last year.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Agulliver]

Inoviscoat make some of the "funky" colour films for Lomography. I know for sure they make Metropolis, which is genuinely useful in some circumstances and suggests that with more R&D Inoviscoat could make a decent C41 CN film...my reading of the situation is that the funky stuff like Metropolis is a staging post on the way to making regular C41 film with natural colours....something they can't actually do yet.

Regarding Film Ferrania, there's been no news update since summer 2020...but there is also a worldwide plague which has shut down much of Europe for months on end. I am not sure that our American members in particular fully appreciate what a European or Australian style lockdown is....people are literally not permitted by law to go to work and companies are obliged to close. their doors. Film Ferrania is in that part of Italy which was the first European area to be badly affected, several of the people involved are at least middle aged or older and will probably be taking extra precautions. There are only a handful of people working there anyway, and they will face supply chain issues with the pandemic. If Kodak and Fuji can't keep up with demand, how are little Film Ferrania going to continue their small scale R&D etc? But they are working, at least at times....batches of P30 get released onto the market periodically. They will make an update when they have something substantial to say.

 

[Henning Serger]

Could you elaborate on some of these projects/products?

No, not in detail because of NDAs.
But both new film and photo paper product developments are affected by the Pandemic, colour and BW.
And we shouldn't forget that the Pandemic is not over yet, not at all. On a global scale, the infection rates are increasing. Mainly because of the new, more infectious and dangerous mutated virus variants (which have become already the dominant variant in lots of countries, eliminating the former, less dangerous form).
Some countries are already back in the lockdown mode, and several others will probably follow in the coming weeks because of again exponentially increasing infection rates and / or overstrained healthcare systems.
The next 3-4 months will be very difficult and challenging for several countries as the "spreading-speed" of the mutated virus variants is much higher than the vaccination speed.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[twelvetone12]

Who managed to create modern, high-quality slide film with lesser means and experience recently?

 

[Henning Serger]

Who managed to create modern, high-quality slide film with lesser means and experience recently?

To a certain extent Eastman Kodak, with the current E100.
You have to compare E100 with its forerunner E100G: E100G and E100GX, as well as the amateur variant EliteChrome 100 were introduced in 2003. A time at which Eastman Kodak still had its "full strength" in film production and R&D.
They have a significant reduced R&D department today compared to 2003. And they were even completely out of E6 film production from 2010 (that was afaik the last year in which their remaining E6 films were coated; official discontinuation notice was in 2012) until the new E100 coating run.
The introduction of these Ektachrome films in 2003 was Kodak's attempt to keep up with the technology and market leader in colour reversal film Fuji. Fuji surpassed Kodak in reversal film technology and in market share, during the 90ies. That process started especially with the huge success of Velvia (introduced in 1990), and was reinforced later with the Provia, Astia and Sensia product lines.
Kodak underperformend at that time also due to damaging their reputation with their new "Panther" line of transparency films. These were simply bad and not competitive at all and flopped in the market. Kodak had to discontinue them just after three years.
In 1999 Fuji set a new benchmark for natural colour ISO 100/21° films with their Provia 100F. Kodak tried to keep up with the new E100G in 2003. The new E100G was very good and certainly Kodak's best E6 film so far. Kodak came also very close to Provia 100F, but could not surpass it. Provia 100F delivered better sharpness, and a better colour rendition with blues (E100G had a tendency to Cyan, like all the Kodak CN films).

I have tested all these films very intensively, both in my test lab and permanently in my daily photography. Comparing former E100G to new E100:
- same fineness of grain
- same sharpness
- new E100 has a bit less resolution than former E100G (that is a pattern we've seen also with Portra 400 and Ektar having significant lower resolution compared to equivalent forerunners)
- first coating run of E100 had only a real ISO of 80/20°
- E100G was neutral to slightly warm in color rendition, whereas E100 is neutral to slightly cool (E100 is currently Kodak's only color film which tends to have a bit cooler tones)
- significant improvement with E100 concerning blue: no tendency to Cyan anymore, but a real, deep natural blue (like Provia 100F).
So in direct comparison two disadvantages of new E100 compared to one advantage (and we have to monitor whether the speed disadvantage is a permanent one or if Kodak can solve this problem with new batches).
Whether the photographer is preferring a bit warmer or cooler colour rendition is mainly a matter of taste and personal preferences.
Interestingly, whereas former E100G was a bit warmer than Provia 100F, now Provia 100F is a bit warmer than the new E100.

Provia 100F can keep its benchmark position compared to the new E100 mainly because of better sharpness, higher resolution, real ISO 100/21°, lower price (especially in 120) and the best and perfect confectioning quality, especially in 120 with the unique easy-loading -, easy end-seal - and barcode system.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[twelvetone12]

Well yes but I imagine the "lesser means" was referred to people making film with lesser means than Ferrania, I'm not sure Kodak qualifies as "lesser means" in this case, even it if is surely "reduced means" from 2003.

 

[Henning Serger]

Well yes but I imagine the "lesser means" was referred to people making film with lesser means than Ferrania, I'm not sure Kodak qualifies as "lesser means" in this case, even it if is surely "reduced means" from 2003.

Ah o.k., I see what you mean.
There is no company with "lesser means" than Film Ferrania which could produce a colour film (no matter whether negative or positive film).
Besides Kodak and Fujifilm, InovisCoat and Film Ferrania have the general capability of producing a standard (non instant) colour photo film (and IC even doing it for some years now). And maybe still Lucky as well (they are producing silver-halide RA-4 photo paper, and have produced colour negative film even a little bit longer than Ferrania).
And Film Ferrania is definitely the smallest scale operation in this regard compared to all others.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Helge]

- new E100 has a bit less resolution than former E100G (that is a pattern we've seen also with Portra 400 and Ektar having significant lower resolution compared to equivalent forerunners)

Really‽ Significantly? What are you comparing to? Royal, Gold Ektar 25?
Looking in a pretty good microscope I'd say Ektar is not very far off from TMax 100.
What exactly would you say the difference is? Why is it? Is there good reasons? IE was it done as a tradeoff, getting other things in return?

 

[Henning Serger]

Really‽ Significantly? What are you comparing to? Royal, Gold Ektar 25?
Looking in a pretty good microscope I'd say Ektar is not very far off from TMax 100.
What exactly would you say the difference is? Why is it? Is there good reasons? IE was it done as a tradeoff, getting other things in return?

Even Kodak themselves have advertised Ektar 100 only as "finest grain ISO 100/21° color negative film". But never as highest resolution or sharpest ISO 100/21° negative film.
They know why: Because Ektar 100 was designed with focus on grain, but not with priority for resolution and sharpness.
Here are the results for Ektar and other ISO 100/21° CN films from my standardized resolution tests (you know my procedure, so I don't repeat it here again):

- CineStill 50D: 105 – 115 lp/mm
- Kodak Ektar 100: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Kodak Farbwelt 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm (Gold 100 for the German speaking market)
- Fujicolor 100: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 NC-2: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 VC-2: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 New: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

And for your opinion that "Ektar is not very far off from T-Max 100": My test results demonstrate a completely different result, as TMX has achieved 135 - 150 Lp/mm in my test. Ektar cannot compete at all concerning resolution and sharpness with TMX. TMX has the highest resolution of all ISO 100/21° BW films (but Delta 100 coming close).
Same is valid for ISO 100/21° colour reversal films: Former E100G, Elitechrome 100, Provia 100F, Sensia 100, Astia 100F , the Velvias, all are in the 120-135 Lp/mm range, surpassing Ektar significantly. Also new E100, with about 110-120 Lp/mm.
Resolution is the weak spot of Ektar compared to all other colour films in that class. To be absolutely sure I have done the Ektar tests 6x, all with different batches. Always the same result.

As for Portra 400:
- Kodak Portra 400 NC-3: 100 – 110 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 400 (new): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

Why have these three newer / younger Kodak films finer grain than their forerunners, but worse resolution (and sometimes also less sharpness)?
I don't know for sure, but that may be a possible reason:
All these films were advertised as "optimized for scanning". Generally I don't care much for marketing statements. Especially if it is not further underlined with details as in this case.
But Kodak is well aware that most of the films, especially CN films, are scanned nowadays. But they of course also know that all current scanners fail concerning higher resolution. None of it is capable to fully resolve all the detail which is really on the film (I have tested that several times over the years, too). Even the highest resolving scanners - drum scanners - cannot fully resolve all details on the film, and have lower resolution capacity than classic optical enlarging and slide projection.
So maybe Kodak decided "if the majority of photographers destroy the high resolution on film anyway by using the lower resolving imaging chain scanning, then we don't need to care for high resolution anyway."
But finer grain is even seen on 'bad scanners'. Even on the very low resolution flatbed scanners.
So they decided to concentrate on finer grain, and 'sacrificed' resolution. Well, again as said above, that is a hypothesis, a possible reason why they went that way.

I am not a fan of this approach, and prefer those films in Kodak's film programme which combine excellent fineness of grain with excellent resolution and sharpness, like TMX, TMY-2, TMZ and Portra 160. Because I like larger prints.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[warden]

Even Kodak themselves have advertised Ektar 100 only as "finest grain ISO 100/21° film. But never as highest resolution or sharpest ISO 100/21° negative film.
They know why: Because Ektar 100 was designed with focus on grain, but not with priority for resolution and sharpness.
Here are the results for Ektar and other ISO 100/21° CN films from my standardized resolution tests (you know my procedure, so I don't repeat it here again):

- CineStill 50D: 105 – 115 lp/mm
- Kodak Ektar 100: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Kodak Farbwelt 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm (Gold 100 for the German speaking market)
- Fujicolor 100: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 NC-2: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 VC-2: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 New: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

And for your opinion that "Ektar is not very far off from T-Max 100": My test results demonstrate a completely different result, as TMX has achieved 135 - 150 Lp/mm in my test. Ektar cannot compete at all concerning resolution and sharpness with TMX. TMX has the highest resolution of all ISO 100/21° BW films (but Delta 100 coming close).
Same is valid for ISO 100/21° colour reversal films: Former E100G, Elitechrome 100, Provia 100F, Sensia 100, Astia 100F , the Velvias, all are in the 120-135 Lp/mm range, surpassing Ektar significantly. Also new E100, with about 110-120 Lp/mm.
Resolution is the weak spot of Ektar compared to all other colour films in that class. To be absolutely sure I have done the Ektar tests 6x, all with different batches. Always the same result.

As for Portra 400:
- Kodak Portra 400 NC-3: 100 – 110 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 400 (new): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

Why have these three newer / younger Kodak films finer grain than their forerunners, but worse resolution (and sometimes also less sharpness)?
I don't know for sure, but that may be a possible reason:
All these films were advertised as "optimized for scanning". Generally I don't care much for marketing statements. Especially if it is not further underlined with details as in this case.
But Kodak is well aware that most of the films, especially CN films, are scanned nowadays. But they of course also know that all current scanners fail concerning higher resolution. None of it is capable to fully resolve all the detail which is really on the film (I have tested that several times over the years, too). Even the highest resolving scanners - drum scanners - cannot fully resolve all details on the film, and have lower resolution capacity than classic optical enlarging and slide projection.
So maybe Kodak decided "if the majority of photographers destroy the high resolution on film anyway by using the lower resolving imaging chain scanning, then we don't need to care for high resolution anyway."
But finer grain is even seen on 'bad scanners'. Even on the very low resolution flatbed scanners.
So they decided to concentrate on finer grain, and 'sacrificed' resolution. Well, again as said above, that is a hypothesis, a possible reason why they went that way.

I am not a fan of this approach, and prefer those films in Kodak's film programme which combine excellent fineness of grain with excellent resolution and sharpness, like TMX, TMY-2, TMZ and Portra 160. Because I like larger prints.

Best regards,
Henning

That was fascinating, thanks. I'm sure these balancing acts are not easy for manufacturers.

 

[Henning Serger]

That was fascinating, thanks.

"Gern geschehen", as we say in German .

I'm sure these balancing acts are not easy for manufacturers.

Well, yes and no. At least the combination of very fine grain, very high resolution and very good sharpness is not so difficult thanks to modern emulsion technology. Kodak has demonstrated that with lots of their films (just not with some of the recent ones).
The same is valid for Fujifilm, Agfa and Ilford. All have (or had) films in their line which have combined these three parameters successfully.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Helge]

Even Kodak themselves have advertised Ektar 100 only as "finest grain ISO 100/21° color negative film". But never as highest resolution or sharpest ISO 100/21° negative film.
They know why: Because Ektar 100 was designed with focus on grain, but not with priority for resolution and sharpness.
Here are the results for Ektar and other ISO 100/21° CN films from my standardized resolution tests (you know my procedure, so I don't repeat it here again):

- CineStill 50D: 105 – 115 lp/mm
- Kodak Ektar 100: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Kodak Farbwelt 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm (Gold 100 for the German speaking market)
- Fujicolor 100: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 NC-2: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 VC-2: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 New: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

And for your opinion that "Ektar is not very far off from T-Max 100": My test results demonstrate a completely different result, as TMX has achieved 135 - 150 Lp/mm in my test. Ektar cannot compete at all concerning resolution and sharpness with TMX. TMX has the highest resolution of all ISO 100/21° BW films (but Delta 100 coming close).
Same is valid for ISO 100/21° colour reversal films: Former E100G, Elitechrome 100, Provia 100F, Sensia 100, Astia 100F , the Velvias, all are in the 120-135 Lp/mm range, surpassing Ektar significantly. Also new E100, with about 110-120 Lp/mm.
Resolution is the weak spot of Ektar compared to all other colour films in that class. To be absolutely sure I have done the Ektar tests 6x, all with different batches. Always the same result.

As for Portra 400:
- Kodak Portra 400 NC-3: 100 – 110 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 400 (new): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

Why have these three newer / younger Kodak films finer grain than their forerunners, but worse resolution (and sometimes also less sharpness)?
I don't know for sure, but that may be a possible reason:
All these films were advertised as "optimized for scanning". Generally I don't care much for marketing statements. Especially if it is not further underlined with details as in this case.
But Kodak is well aware that most of the films, especially CN films, are scanned nowadays. But they of course also know that all current scanners fail concerning higher resolution. None of it is capable to fully resolve all the detail which is really on the film (I have tested that several times over the years, too). Even the highest resolving scanners - drum scanners - cannot fully resolve all details on the film, and have lower resolution capacity than classic optical enlarging and slide projection.
So maybe Kodak decided "if the majority of photographers destroy the high resolution on film anyway by using the lower resolving imaging chain scanning, then we don't need to care for high resolution anyway."
But finer grain is even seen on 'bad scanners'. Even on the very low resolution flatbed scanners.
So they decided to concentrate on finer grain, and 'sacrificed' resolution. Well, again as said above, that is a hypothesis, a possible reason why they went that way.

I am not a fan of this approach, and prefer those films in Kodak's film programme which combine excellent fineness of grain with excellent resolution and sharpness, like TMX, TMY-2, TMZ and Portra 160. Because I like larger prints.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks Henning! You’re a prince. Really!
Of course TMax 100 is king among 100 ISO films.
But 100 Lp/mm is not bad at all. Never shot test patterns though.
I’d have a difficult time seeing a difference of 15 Lp/mm. 25, we’re probably starting to talk.

Grain is the most common “complaint” or observation from people not accustomed to film though. So perhaps Kodak made a wise decision for the time being.
Of course people who love film know better.

C41 versions of Vision3, or more readily available ECN2 dev plus still confectioned Vision3 would be brilliant.

I’m surprised that you say slide is generally higher resolution than C41. That has been rebuffed by many people in the know over the years, including PE AFAIR.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thanks Henning! You’re a prince. Really!

Thank you.

I’m surprised that you say slide is generally higher resolution than C41.

Well, just project a slide from the current reversal films in your home on 1.5m - 2m width, and make a print from a colour negative film of the same size, and compare them side by side. Then you will see it immediately that the reversal film offers significantly better detail rendition.
Professional photographers have made slide / audiovision shows in front of big audiances for decades, with slides projected on several meters width in excellent quality. A print of that size from CN film (yes, that is made for certain applications) offers less detail in comparison.
The excellent detail rendition of colour reversal film is also one of the reasons why reversal film has been the dominant film type in professional photography for decades before digital. All advertizing shots (e.g. for products and catalogs), prof. travel photography, architecture, nature and wildlife has been almost exclusively shot on reversal film. Negative film was only used as main medium for weddings (as prints were wanted by the couples), portraits when prints were wanted, and in the 90ies and early 00ies for newspapers.

When prof. photographers wanted the best detail rendition and resolution they used Kodachrome 25, or Kodachrome 64 when higher sensitivity was needed. Both were then replaced by Velvia, Provia, Astia and the latest Ektachromes which all surpassed Kodachrome in detail rendition (and other parameters).
Those who tested films on a scientific basis all get the result of the resolution advantage of reversal film. That is also partly because one strengths of them is the excellent resolution at low object contrasts. For example all Velvias can resolve about 80-85 Lp/mm at an object contrast of only 1.6:1. No colour negative film has ever come close to that outstanding value.

That has been rebuffed by many people in the know over the years, including PE AFAIR.

That has been rebuffed by people who have never done proper tests by themselves.
And for example Carl Zeiss has tested Velvia 50 and 100 and got 160 and 170 Lp/mm (they have used a bit higher object contrast than I have in my tests, therefore their higher values). None of the colour negative films they have tested with identical film speed have reached such high values.
And concerning Ron Mowrey / PE:
He retired in 1997. But all of the current reversal films we have today with their significantly improved technology (with Velvia 50 being a special case because of its slight overhaul and reintroduction in 2006/07) were introduced later.
Ron has never done detailed resolution tests of Provia 100F, Astia 100F, Velvia 100F and 100, E100G(X), Provia 400X, RVP 50. I have talked to him. He had stopped using reversal film even before his retirement. He found prints more convenient for his personal use.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Helge]

Thank you.



Well, just project a slide from the current reversal films in your home on 1.5m - 2m width, and make a print from a colour negative film of the same size, and compare them side by side. Then you will see it immediately that the reversal film offers significantly better detail rendition.
Professional photographers have made slide / audiovision shows in front of big audiances for decades, with slides projected on several meters width in excellent quality. A print of that size from CN film (yes, that is made for certain applications) offers less detail in comparison.
The excellent detail rendition of colour reversal film is also one of the reasons why reversal film has been the dominant film type in professional photography for decades before digital. All advertizing shots (e.g. for products and catalogs), prof. travel photography, architecture, nature and wildlife has been almost exclusively shot on reversal film. Negative film was only used as main medium for weddings (as prints were wanted by the couples), portraits when prints were wanted, and in the 90ies and early 00ies for newspapers.

When prof. photographers wanted the best detail rendition and resolution they used Kodachrome 25, or Kodachrome 64 when higher sensitivity was needed. Both were then replaced by Velvia, Provia, Astia and the latest Ektachromes which all surpassed Kodachrome in detail rendition (and other parameters).
Those who tested films on a scientific basis all get the result of the resolution advantage of reversal film. That is also partly because one strengths of them is the excellent resolution at low object contrasts. For example all Velvias can resolve about 80-85 Lp/mm at an object contrast of only 1.6:1. No colour negative film has ever come close to that outstanding value.



That has been rebuffed by people who have never done proper tests by themselves.
And for example Carl Zeiss has tested Velvia 50 and 100 and got 160 and 170 Lp/mm (they have used a bit higher object contrast than I have in my tests, therefore their higher values). None of the colour negative films they have tested with identical film speed have reached such high values.
And concerning Ron Mowrey / PE:
He retired in 1997. But all of the current reversal films we have today with their significantly improved technology (with Velvia 50 being a special case because of its slight overhaul and reintroduction in 2006/07) were introduced later.
Ron has never done detailed resolution tests of Provia 100F, Astia 100F, Velvia 100F and 100, E100G(X), Provia 400X, RVP 50. I have talked to him. He had stopped using reversal film even before his retirement. He found prints more convenient for his personal use.

Best regards,
Henning

Well, I love to project slide. No realistic print I’ll make for personal use, will ever get close to the size I can project.
Even half frame slide holds its own at wall projection sizes. 6x6 is out of this world.
And (real) contrast is better than any other display medium. Full stop.

If you say so, I believe you.
Funny though that PE did work on Kodachrome, and not being that interested or even having tested slide.
Maybe he was more into colour science?

I always thought that the CN look was due to it not being a first generation copy like slide.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, I love to project slide. No realistic print I’ll make for personal use, will ever get close to the size I can project.
Even half frame slide hold its own at wall projection sizes. 6x6 is out of this world.
And (real) contrast is better than any other display medium. Full stop.

If you say so, I believe you.
Funny though that PE did work on Kodachrome, and not being that interested or even having tested slide.
Maybe he was more into colour science? But

I always thought that the CN look was due to it not being a first generation copy like slide though.

Get off your soapbox! PE did a lot of work testing slides films including Ektachrome. How about sticking to the facts instead of making things up.

 

[Helge]

Get off your soapbox! PE did a lot of work testing slides films including Ektachrome. How about sticking to the facts instead of making things up.

Soapbox‽ Where did that come from?
I don’t know what exactly PE did or didn’t do.
It just seems weird that he was so relatively dismissive of slide in his posts here, when pressed for an opinion.

 

[MattKing]

I think Henning's comments respecting PE make sense.
After all, he did prefer modern Ektachrome to Kodachrome!
I doubt that he did line pair comparative resolution tests after his retirement.
As a resource, he could offer a lot more about how and why then about detailed comparisons between current offerings. That is definitely more in Henning's area.

 

[Helge]

- CineStill 50D: 105 – 115 lp/mm
- Kodak Ektar 100: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Kodak Farbwelt 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm (Gold 100 for the German speaking market)
- Fujicolor 100: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 NC-2: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 VC-2: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 New: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Which Fujicolor 100 is that?
And do you have any idea about how it achieves such high resolution?
Quite amazing from what is normally regarded as a budget(ish) film.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hallo Matt,

I think Henning's comments respecting PE make sense.
After all, he did prefer modern Ektachrome to Kodachrome!

yes, correct. Because he of course knew very well the technological progress made over the years. And that the modern Ektachromes and Fujichromes had surpassed Kodachrome.

I doubt that he did line pair comparative resolution tests after his retirement.
As a resource, he could offer a lot more about how and why then about detailed comparisons between current offerings. That is definitely more in Henning's area.

Right. The direct film comparison tests were not his focus after his retirement. But I have reported him my results, we exchanged information, and I have learned a lot from him. Such an excellent person, he is really missed.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Which Fujicolor 100 is that?
And do you have any idea about how it achieves such high resolution?
Quite amazing from what is normally regarded as a budget(ish) film.

Well, this film - which is most probably the original Superia 100 version - has been offered by Fujifilm in different names and boxes on different markets and in different periods. Here in Germany and Europe it was offered as Fujicolor 100 about a decade ago. And it has been offered in Japan as Fujicolor "Industrial / Business" 100 in bigger packs to wholesalers. Meanwhile it has got a new name and box design and is sold as Fujicolor S100 in Japan.
Concerning resolution this is currently the colour negative film which come closest in resolution of middle object contrast detail to ISO 100/21° colour reversal films (the reversal films keep their advantage at low and very high object contrast details).
This is an "amateur film", and these have generally a bit higher contrast as the professional line films. And that has a positive impact on resolution. And in general all the Fujifilm amateur films are very good concerning resolution and sharpness (and surpassing their Kodak counterparts a bit).
The Fujicolor 100 / S100 is a kind of "hidden treasure" on the current market, because besides its excellent detail rendition this film also has a very natural, pleasant colour rendition.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Prest_400]

Good timing to run into this thread after discussing with a photo friend about Lomo F2, which was old Ferrania 400 color neg. The last note was wondering about when Ferrania would be able to release some color product given all the accumulated difficulties.

No, they have not stopped. So far they have operated as a contract / OEM manufacturer for other brands like e.g. Lomography and Bergger. Because of changed ownership structure and new cooperation with FilmoTec (see their official announcements) it can be expected that in the future some of their products are also offered under the ORWO brand name (if the development efforts are successful).

Henning

The Orwo news I saw online, and it would be interesting that the Inoviscoad/FIlmoted (?) product to be re-released under an Orwo brand, even if the rest is avaialble as Lomography at a very marked up price. As a comment to the appreciation of cameras, I am even trying to find a cheap, as in very cheap decent m42 standard lens (Helios 44, Takumars) and so far haven't been lucky at the giveaway prices one would have gotten them years ago.

I know one of the projects that has had difficulties is Adox Polywarmtone, finally released as an emulsion but not as a coated paper. I am looking forward to the finished product when it is possible, and its gorgeous qualitites.

 

[Helge]

Well, this film - which is most probably the original Superia 100 version - has been offered by Fujifilm in different names and boxes on different markets and in different periods. Here in Germany and Europe it was offered as Fujicolor 100 about a decade ago. And it has been offered in Japan as Fujicolor "Industrial / Business" 100 in bigger packs to wholesalers. Meanwhile it has got a new name and box design and is sold as Fujicolor S100 in Japan.
Concerning resolution this is currently the colour negative film which come closest in resolution of middle object contrast detail to ISO 100/21° colour reversal films (the reversal films keep their advantage at low and very high object contrast details).
This is an "amateur film", and these have generally a bit higher contrast as the professional line films. And that has a positive impact on resolution. And in general all the Fujifilm amateur films are very good concerning resolution and sharpness (and surpassing their Kodak counterparts a bit).
The Fujicolor 100 / S100 is a kind of "hidden treasure" on the current market, because besides its excellent detail rendition this film also has a very natural, pleasant colour rendition.

Best regards,
Henning

I've been wanting to try S100 for some time.
Do you know of a good source?
It seems it renders reds somewhat crimson/maroon though.

 

[Minolta93]

Can you get Fuji S100 in the United States? I've never seen it for sale.

 

[cmacd123]

meantime, Italy is under a third wave lock down, so expect even more delays.. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/wor...-pandemic-triggers-another-lockdown-in-italy/

 

[Helge]

Can you get Fuji S100 in the United States? I've never seen it for sale.

No of course not. And if you do, you'll probably have to pay through the nose, because some poor sap thought he made a conniving investment by buying home a brick of S100, and is trying to sell it as an exotic specialty at triple the price.
These posts will probably help that.

Fuji should really distribute it widely. It would be an awesome competitor to Kodak Imagepro 100.