thank you for your reply.
Please understand that I do not doubt the credibility of B&H. I simply need a clou as to finding some proof that the film inside is really Agfa Scala.
P.S. I can sell you tons of Tasma film in old Kodak or Fuji cartriges and by the price of T-Max or Neopan Acros. See what I am driving at?
If you process it and the film sez Scala on the edges, and it is higher in contrast than you expected (processed as a neg), then it is probably Scala.
I would try one roll rated at EI 100. Shoot it in flat light, and develop it for 5 or 6 minutes in something like D-76 1:1 or HC-110 dil B. See what you get. If it lacks edge marking, it still could be Scala. Sometimes relabelled film does not have edge markings. If it is low in contrast, it probably is not Scala.
I would have no reason to doubt B&H's claim, however.
Good luck. It is a great film if used for the right things.
I find that this film's best use is as a very high contrast negative film to be used in very flat light. Most recently, two 120 rolls of it that I have had for years (waiting for the right conditions) turned some very dull shots of mine shot in the Smokey Mountains in winter into beautiful, contrasty, sharp pictures without having to overdevelop the film, like I would have had to have done with FP4, Delta, etc.
If all you want is a black and white transparency film, you can use any normal b/w film developed to higher than normal contrast. Ilford has a published reversal process, and so do some other folks. You can also send it to DR5 lab in Colorado, U.S.A., and they can do it for you.
There was nothing special about Scala that made it a transparency film specifically. It was simply a negative film built with contrast characteristics that were well suited to reversal processing.
thank you for your reply.
Please understand that I do not doubt the credibility of B&H. I simply need a clou as to finding some proof that the film inside is really Agfa Scala.
P.S. I can sell you tons of Tasma film in old Kodak or Fuji cartriges and by the price of T-Max or Neopan Acros. See what I am driving at?
If you have some fresh Tasma, I have some 35mm Scala in my freezer (it has been there since I bought it and it still gives excellent results, even though it expired a few months ago) that perhaps we could exchange some rolls? It is the real film in the real Scala cartridge, even inside an AGFA canister with their official Scala 200x sticker on the lid. No worries about this film (not that I would not trust B&H, but I have shot this film and it is definitely Scala).
Let me know if you are interested in trading films. I always wanted to shoot some fresh Tasma film. Thank you for your helpful consideration.
In case of suspicion on any film bearing the the Agfa-rhomb logo contact Agfa in Flanders.
"So the question is open: can anyone think of a good proof that I (or B&H) was not fooled?"
Have you tried a roll yet? Is it ultra contrasty or not? As mentioned before, it is easily identifiable just by the contrast, when processed as a neg.
At this point, we should not be coming up with evidence that leads you to believe you were *not* "fooled". You should be the one that should be coming up with evidence that leads you to believe you *were* "fooled". Knowing that Scala is a dead film, and that anything being sold as new Scala is going to be a relabel, there is no reason not to trust B&H until something you see in the film proves otherwise. If you feel they made a mistake, I'd contact their customer service and ask them what happened; not hope to find the answer on the Internet.
Additionally, as mentioned before, any b/w film can be reversed. You do not need Scala to get a b/w transparency, so I would not pay premium prices for it, unless you want to use it as an extremely high contrast, sharp, and fine grained negative film.
1) The matter is I have never seen the original Agfa before.
2) I don't think one can rely upon "contrast" when assessing such a thing as "Scala" look.
3) I wanted to find an answer of the kind: "if you apply a drop of that and that chemical to the film it will turn red if it is original Agfa Scala and anything else if it was a forgery.
Or, for instance, "check the numbers printed on film perforation. They must belong to that and that range.
4) From what I have seen around, it is my strong belief that no other film can give true "Scala" look.
5) B&H are professional dealers, not photography geeks. They don't care much whether they sell original stuff or a forgery, since they know that there is no absolutely valid proof of originality in this particular case.
1) The matter is I have never seen the original Agfa before.
2) I don't think one can rely upon "contrast" when assessing such a thing as "Scala" look.
3) I wanted to find an answer of the kind: "if you apply a drop of that and that chemical to the film it will turn red if it is original Agfa Scala and anything else if it was a forgery.
Or, for instance, "check the numbers printed on film perforation. They must belong to that and that range.
4) From what I have seen around, it is my strong belief that no other film can give true "Scala" look.
5) B&H are professional dealers, not photography geeks. They don't care much whether they sell original stuff or a forgery, since they know that there is no absolutely valid proof of originality in this particular case.
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?