Film emulsions evolutionary development, and how that translated for the photographer and printer

[BurntOutElectronics]

E4 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.

Oh yes Fuji's development in colour was a process decades in the making

Kodachrome 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

Alas, even Fuji made a kodachrome process film

 

[MattKing]

Oh yes Fuji's development in colour was a process decades in the making

Alas, even Fuji made a kodachrome process film

Fuji did make a film with a process that had some similarities to the process employed in Kodachrome, but it wasn't the film that made Kodachrome so successful, it was the combination of the film and the processing infrastructure.
And it was only movie film - particularly home movie film - that made that infrastructure economically viable.
Much of the impetus behind many of the improvements in film technology came from the requirements and desires of the film processing industry. And Kodak made a lot of its profit from serving that industries needs.

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

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 t

www.rustmag.com

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yes, and "ektar" was reintroduced with kodaks plans to axe E-6 all together which they eventually did as we all know.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Foma's greatest downfall is QC. their 100 speed emulsion is actually fairly decent. Have yet to try Adox

 

[Peter Schrager]

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

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

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.

 

[Prest_400]

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.

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.
Also, there was some coating discussions in the Efke threads as well as one with the 1958 Kodak manufacturing video. Back then
IIRC the modern coating methods are using curtain coating which is described in the Smarter Every day video.

Some relevant or interesting things I found searching for references to the above:

Experimental Emulsion Lab (old photo)

Attached is a photo of an experimental Emulsion Lab. Note the water bath, stirrers and dropper funnel. If there is any interest in more emulsion related photos from this era I'll post more.

www.photrio.com

Adox/Efke coated using "dip and dunk"??

On the Adox website, English pages, it states that the traditional Adox films and papers are coated on the "last coating line" using "dip and dunk" coating as opposed to the horizontal coating methods used for more modern materials. I associate "dip and dunk" with the large tank method of...

www.photrio.com

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?
For Polywarmtone, they did need to acquire Forte's emulsion equipment, otherwise that would not be a product to reproduce. Quite fascinating and interesting. Recommend you to delve into their website where they posted in the process of building their current factory, and some info is also shared in their partner forum.
I like that this thread is taking me to those technical discussion memories and finding them!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

It is curious as to how the consumer films are quoted as "older emulsion tech" aka Kodacolor VR 200 (plus) vs Gold vs Portra. Technology wise, there must be some costly components and processes that differentiate it. And that is a good question eg. if in B&W a tabular grain is cheaper to produce vs a cubical grain film; then in color if something like Portra is cheaper to produce than Gold than Kodacolor Plus.

Anyways, the market war of Kodak vs Fuji must have pushed a lot of improvements during its time; but generally it appears that film has been already very good quality wise since the late 90s/2000s. Digital then halted most of the big leaps, and then Digital itself is in the similar sufficiency and diminished returns nowadays. I recently renewed a camera body and essentially went for a model that has 2018-20 tech.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The differences in coating method between Efke and more modern methods are interesting but it appears that the main difference in the results between old and newer emulsions is the result of the change of the amounts of iodide in the emulsions:

film categories: which are "retro" and which are not?

The film manufacturers aren't going to test every developer, so you are going to have to rely on the experiences of others as reported in forums like this. I can't agree more.

www.photrio.com

 

[BurntOutElectronics]

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 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!

I've gone down a rabbit hole on coaters and how hard it would actually be to achieve acetate coating. I've found photos of a homemade single layer coater made from acrylic so it's certainly possible. Ultrasonic bubble removal also should be pretty simple. Finding a source for acetate material that's not crazy industrial quantities would be hard.

Also finding and refining emulsion formulas for a particular setup configuration would be somewhat hard.

I remember New55 apparently used a panatomic x emulsion so that's gotta be known out there somewhere. Certainly not a bad goal to make something of that nature

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.

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.

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'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.

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!

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.

 

[Prest_400]

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.

I forgot Forte. They were set up in 1922 by Kodak and folded due to the digital revolution and by selling out to some real estate (IIRC) investors for the land. Probably they upgraded their manufacturing technology but don't know how far off or advanced they must have gone. I would assume whichever manufacturer that made color within the FSU sphere of influence was the most technically advanced (Orwo, Svema?).

But then there were also many more smaller and now forgotten film manufacturers. And more recently, plants owned by Kodak and Fuji.
Carestream's Colorado plant made Kodak's color paper and sadly shut down in 2023-24. Kodak Harrow, Fuji's facility in the Netherlands and so. Chinese Manufacturers (Shantou Era), etc etc.

Had a quick Google about Atomic-X, and it is just that they found the emulsion similar to Panatomic-X. It is interesting as to how simple or hard, specially referring to B&W, it might be to reproduce another film. Adox did it with CHSII, Fuji-Harman? did it with Acros II

About Foma, the 35mm films are coated on acetate. I find reasonable to believe that the material per se might come with some hard qualities/defects ie. PET as more static prone and light piping; but then some engineering to mitigate this.

Anyways, about the technology topic, would probably assume color to be more taxing in the manufacturing front. Though they well could make it with whatever coating technology they had in the 1930, 40, 50s and so up to the point that color took over the film market.

 

[FredK]

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?

If I ever get around to it, I'll write the book which will answer all of these questions from the Kodak perspective. Each that you ask is very complex and would require many paragraphs to explain, as the film's technology changes are interwoven with changes to equipment, process changes, and of course, environmental requirments for health & safety.

As a brief example, all films emulsion coated in Building 38 became distinctly different than all of the other coating processes within Kodak worldwide. This was seen less with the still films vs. those in the motion picture family, but because the coating technology of Building 38 utilized far less water in each of the emulsion and dispersion layers, there was an immediate improvement in the film's widthwise and lengthwise uniformity. The thicker layers also reduced the movement of any particles within a layer such that the overall size of any imperfection was reduced by 3 to 5x in overall size. Those T-grained films saw a greater number of grains that would sit flat in each layer allowing better receptor sites, and the neccessary matching of gel types, viscosities, and simultaneous coating of more layers led to a fim structure that would be more consistent with less refraction leading to a cleaner appearance (improvement in sharpness).