Oh yes Fuji's development in colour was a process decades in the making
Alas, even Fuji made a kodachrome process film
Oh yes Fuji's development in colour was a process decades in the makingE4 was introduced in 1966. I didn't realize fuji made slide film as early as that - and I can't find references that predate 1966 for their first color reversal product. Internationally, Fuji color slide film only rose to prominence int he 1980s though, mostly at the expense of Agfa in Europe. Only in the 1990s they gained a strong foothold in the US, eating up Kodak's market share.
Alas, even Fuji made a kodachrome process filmKodachrome film is a B&W film with at least 9 different emulsions sensitive to Red, Green and Blue light and these emulsions are able to tell them apart and reproduce the original colors. The coatings are very thin to give good sharpness and the emulsions are very fine grained but still give good speed and grain. The coating is so complex than only Kodak remained active in this field even though Fuji once made a compatible film, as did Konica in Japan.
PE
Oh yes Fuji's development in colour was a process decades in the making
Alas, even Fuji made a kodachrome process film
Now this is fascinating. And a belt sander at that. I imagine the coating head is the most precise aspect of the operation, as would the perfectly flat surface contacting the base side of the film where the coater meets.Mark Osterman has been recreating 1920s period film for a Leica Anniversary. He is also participating here, just do not know his handle top of mind.
Recreating the film Oskar Barnack used: Mark Osterman's MO-1925 film project — Rust Magazine
In the centennial year for the first Leica camera, photographic Historian Mark Osterman has recreated the film used by Oskar Barnack in the Teens and Twenties when developing the Leica 35mm Rangefinder camera. Osterman is using exclusively historical processes and equipment to make the film. He is twww.rustmag.com
It doesn't surprise me at all that for b&w the only product evolution's came in the form of computer based production refinement.An old interesting thread, and I recommend you read many of Photo Engineer's contributions in APUG:
Where would film technology be now?
I'm curious to hear the opinions of some of the experts here... Where might film technology be now if digital had not come along. Film was a big business, with big money to invest in R&D. Digital has come pretty far in resolution and high ISO performance. How far might film have come along...www.photrio.com
Paraphrasing PE, Current TMX was not improved in 2007 because it was deemed almost as good as it would be for the diminishing returns; TMY-2 is the latest in B&W. They probably carry over from Color R&D as it was the main driver after the 80s. Ilford did some minor improvements in Delta 400 back ca 2007?
Yes, and "ektar" was reintroduced with kodaks plans to axe E-6 all together which they eventually did as we all know.The last big product change in still films was in 2008-11 with Ektar and the new Portra 160, 400. Portra 800 is referred to be based off Vision 2 and not overhauled then.
Desirable for some but certainly not all. people are under the impression that film always looked weird, with colour crossovers and just general expired behaviours. But that simply isn't the case and it's a shame so many take on this view.I would have loved to try other manufacturer's color film just for the different rendition. Agfa, Konica, Ferrania. Recall back then skipping on the latter because it was the "drugstore" brand. Now, as the OP asks about technical quality and photographer use, I recall as a newcomer then to look up for the Professional line or middle consumer films such as Superia. Fuji C200 and Kodacolor Plus 200 were the consumer films. Grainy, not the best color, 2-3€ a roll. Check contemporary reviews from the 90s up to 2012 or so, and these films were evaluated from a more technical perspective.
Now it's vibes and tones! So the grainyness and color rendition that deviates from neutral are actually desirable.
C41 is certainly the hardest to coat and produce. But it is the largest market, so they've willingly jumped into the deep end. I was hoping for more improvements in Pheonix II, looks like we've got a long road ahead there.It is interesting how the new color journey for Harman, Lucky, Adox and Orwo/Inovis are to leap into C41 Color as far good as possible.
Foma's greatest downfall is QC. their 100 speed emulsion is actually fairly decent. Have yet to try AdoxAbout contemporary B&W, would point classic films as Fomapan and Adox CHS 100. If quite a bit of them is mostly older 50-70s tech.
Now this is fascinating. And a belt sander at that. I imagine the coating head is the most precise aspect of the operation, as would the perfectly flat surface contacting the base side of the film where the coater meets.
It makes me wonder how hard a coating head would be to make or have made. precision is the name of the game.
the other factor is the environment you have around the coater, temp and humidity controlled.
he's rather fortunate to have access to old film formulas and the equipment to make it.
It doesn't surprise me at all that for b&w the only product evolution's came in the form of computer based production refinement.
Yes, and "ektar" was reintroduced with kodaks plans to axe E-6 all together which they eventually did as we all know.
Desirable for some but certainly not all. people are under the impression that film always looked weird, with colour crossovers and just general expired behaviours. But that simply isn't the case and it's a shame so many take on this view.
Foma films are damn good...learn to use them properly the 200 is the only straight line film out there
C41 is certainly the hardest to coat and produce. But it is the largest market, so they've willingly jumped into the deep end. I was hoping for more improvements in Pheonix II, looks like we've got a long road ahead there.
Foma's greatest downfall is QC. their 100 speed emulsion is actually fairly decent. Have yet to try Adox
About contemporary B&W, would point classic films as Fomapan and Adox CHS 100. If quite a bit of them is mostly older 50-70s tech. Adox have shared some details in the forums when they released it and includes some improvements compared to Efke's version, but otherwise the aim was to reproduce the classic Adox-Efke cubical grain films.
Check out the smarter every day Kodak video series where they go through manufacturing and R&D. It is quite impressive and really interesting to see what I read described here through PE's contribution.Now this is fascinating. And a belt sander at that. I imagine the coating head is the most precise aspect of the operation, as would the perfectly flat surface contacting the base side of the film where the coater meets.
It makes me wonder how hard a coating head would be to make or have made. precision is the name of the game.
I find Foma (100) and CHS 100 II as beautiful classic. Sadly the former has been having QC issues, the latter has intermittent availability and limited distribution. For dimensional and archival qualities I really like ESTAR/PET bases, and curiously in B&W roll films it is these smaller classic manufacturers coating film on them. Ilford and Kodak B&W are on Acetate.I’ve used CHS 100 II quite a bit and I would recommend it to anyone who is pining over Panatomic-X. It has a lot to offer and definitely has classic film type traits.
Agreed, despite being young I still have quite a lot of the old school philosophy of aiming for quality. But that there is a different, not so quality critical perception and appreciation of film is quite good and helping to finance the new films and experimental iterations. Not here, but specially there was some vitriol opinions about Harman Phoenix (II) in its thread!Desirable for some but certainly not all. people are under the impression that film always looked weird, with colour crossovers and just general expired behaviours. But that simply isn't the case and it's a shame so many take on this view.
This is super insightful. I've never shot efke but I remember hearing about them ceasing so to see what sort of equipment they were dealing with its really no wonder. Also shocking the methods in which they coated the emulsion and mixed everything. I totally believe that tech is pre WW2!The Efke thread is very interesting, regarding the older methods of manufacturing! Sadly they closed in 2012 as the factory fell apart and before the current resurgence of film. Understanding that their technology was rather simple, ADOX were able to reproduce it with their modern equipment. Top of mind I am not sure, but ADOX has Ilford's former Swiss machinery and maybe as well some Agfa Leverkusen coater?
This would certainly explain why I've experienced static discharge through foma 100 emulsion before in 35 where as anything else has never been an issue for me.I find Foma (100) and CHS 100 II as beautiful classic. Sadly the former has been having QC issues, the latter has intermittent availability and limited distribution. For dimensional and archival qualities I really like ESTAR/PET bases, and curiously in B&W roll films it is these smaller classic manufacturers coating film on them. Ilford and Kodak B&W are on Acetate.
I'd greatly think this would be the case. Acetate still lasts a very long time but it's off gassing after a few decades certainly isn't the nicest smell lol.Kodak has been making continuous R&D anyways, for changing components, and a big one is the AHU Cine films that recently were announced. For still films they have migrated the whole color film line to ESTAR base. Although the quote from Thomas Mooney is that B&W stays on Acetate due to antistatic properties, I wonder if that is also due to the engineering required for changing the base and honestly B&W surely does not have so much volume at Kodak so they keep the status quo.
I do plan on using a chip chart and printing phoenix ii to ra4 and assessing the colour response. It's going to be terrible but a valuable test regardless.Agreed, despite being young I still have quite a lot of the old school philosophy of aiming for quality. But that there is a different, not so quality critical perception and appreciation of film is quite good and helping to finance the new films and experimental iterations. Not here, but specially there was some vitriol opinions about Harman Phoenix (II) in its thread!
This is super insightful. I've never shot efke but I remember hearing about them ceasing so to see what sort of equipment they were dealing with its really no wonder. Also shocking the methods in which they coated the emulsion and mixed everything. I totally believe that tech is pre WW2!
(...)
This would certainly explain why I've experienced static discharge through foma 100 emulsion before in 35 where as anything else has never been an issue for me.
It has always been a given for someone who grew up in the 21st century, knowing the accepted limits of what to expect from a photographic emulsion.
Films technical refinement hasn't reached new heights in decades now, and there are different flavours for different shooters, whether that be conventional cubic emulsions or tabular grain films for example. and we also know exactly what QC and consistencies to expect from mainstream manufacturers too.
But something I've often wondered is, how has this changed over time? Especially during the early years when emulsions being coated onto "film" was a new concept in of itself. And ultimately how that translated for the shooter and processor.
Because no matter how good the camera was, the core limitation largely comes down to the film itself.
Over time I have heard about early emulsions, most recently for me was learning what the first emulsions kodak sold in 35mm were. It seems unbelievable to me that b&w stocks topped out around 50 iso, and given names such as "super sensitive". Even kodachrome was a mere 10 iso originally.
So, were these films that were once considered the best of the best that great by modern film standards?
Were they more delicate to handle? curl like buggery when drying? handle over and under exposure like modern stocks? entertain a level of sharpness and grain remotely comparable to now?
What was QC like? how did things evolve during and after major world events like both world wars? and when did evolution taper off to where we are today?
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?