From a Crawley article that I've posted here previously, talking about the new (as it was then) Delta 400 a comment about four emulsions being in D3200 if I'm reading it correctly:
<start of quote>
With the launch of Delta 3200 last year, Ilford came up with a
solution to the problem, evolved from 100 Delta. The same
principle is applied in the new Delta 400 reviewed here. In fact it
harks back to traditional know-how but in an updated guise. Delta
3200 is a bi-pack, and each of the two layers is made up of two
emulsions, four in all, of which three are new. The high-tech
halide crystals have a silver iodide rich core around which is the
bromide shell and sensitisers. The interfacing of the iodide rich
core with the bromide shell creates a larger number of possible
latent image centres in the shell to trap the incident light. So there
is enhanced sensitivity and pushability.
From Shanebrook, "Making KODAK Film", 1st Edition . Figure 3, page 8.
Andy, are you headed down an interesting chemistry route?
Also, how long have film "curves" been available as a data point?
From Shanebrook, "Making KODAK Film", 1st Edition . Figure 3, page 8.
The use of multilayers is more about product sensitometric control than having multilayers to improve the resulting image.
And also that they write "rollfilm" (no space) and "sheet film" (space).
Panatomic-X had a special hidden third layer which is what made it the most awesome film ever in the history of everything.
I wonder what this third layer was? I heard that this film contained Cadmium. I still have a box of 4x5, that I cracked open a couple of years ago, to compare with TMX 4x5. I was surprised at how well such an old film looked brand spanking new after processing. Could this special hidden third layer have something to do with this?
I doubt it because I made that all up.
But it’s interesting how well very old Pan-X seems to hold up based on peoples’ reported experiences. It doesn’t hurt that it was a slow film, but I’d still have expected fog /reduced sensitivity depending on how old it is.
Yes, that's what my dad used in his Kodak Target Six-16 box camera. What I'm trying to remember is if there was a Verichrome B&W film before VerichromePan B&W came out. I used to shoot VerichromePan in my Hasselblad 500C and develop it in Microdol-X or maybe it was plan Microdol. This old brain doesn't remember as well as it once did. Anyway, those negatives printed very nicely and seemed to hold the highlights from going into never, never land.If I remember correctly Kodak Verichrome Pan was a two layer film with each layer having its own ISO. That allowed simple box cameras such as the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye to take photographs over a wide range of lighting, and that allowed box cameras to be practical and useful.
Yes, that's what my dad used in his Kodak Target Six-16 box camera. What I'm trying to remember is if there was a Verichrome B&W film before VerichromePan B&W came out. I used to shoot VerichromePan in my Hasselblad 500C and develop it in Microdol-X or maybe it was plan Microdol. This old brain doesn't remember as well as it once did. Anyway, those negatives printed very nicely and seemed to hold the highlights from going into never, never land.
Before Kodak Verichrome Pan there was a Kodak Verichrome, but I never used it. I read about it, so the information is still available if you want it.
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?