Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

[StoneNYC]

I fail to understand what Stone's latest filmic agonies have to do Film Ferrania and their production plans ...

It's not about me, other people want to pick apart my comment to make drama, I'm just saying FILM Ferrania won't partner with kodak to re-create E100G or any other Kodak E-6 ... The rest is just people wanting to start an argument because they have nothing better to do.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sooo...

According to the text at the bottom of the video link I posted, Film Ferrania is set to make a "big announcement" in mid-September. That's only four weeks away. How cool is that? Anyone wanna' bet whether there is a companion announcement by a certain large west coast (USA) film retailer shortly afterwards? Just a WAG (wild ass guess).

My guess is that Ferrania announces E-6 compatible cine film first, as that seems to have been their original motivation. Followed relatively closely by some 135 E-6. I don't expect to see 120 or sheet films for quite a while, even though they were quick early on to say they could do those as well.

I find it interesting that they seem to claim the delay thus far has been to work within a timetable for demolition of unneeded older manufacturing space, but on a schedule that will allow them to seek funding to "save" some of the production equipment they say they will need.

Originally I thought they said they didn't need any of that older (larger?) infrastructure. Rank speculation here, but I wonder if they took note of the abandonment of E-6 film by Kodak, followed by the continuing reduction of C-41/E-6 lines by Fujifilm, and decided their original plan wasn't likely to be able to handle the entire remaining residual worldwide color film demand after the other players eventually quit the market entirely.

So maybe they changed plans in the middle of the process and decided to preserve some of the other equipment? And they didn't have the capital under their original plan to do that, so the Italian government stepped in to lend a hand? The prospect of having a potential worldwide monopoly on color film in the near future, even at only residual volumes, might have sounded just too good to pass up?

Just thinkin' out loud...



Ken

 

[Nzoomed]

Sooo...

According to the text at the bottom of the video link I posted, Film Ferrania is set to make a "big announcement" in mid-September. That's only four weeks away. How cool is that? Anyone wanna' bet whether there is a companion announcement by a certain large west coast (USA) film retailer shortly afterwards? Just a WAG (wild ass guess).

My guess is that Ferrania announces E-6 compatible cine film first, as that seems to have been their original motivation. Followed relatively closely by some 135 E-6. I don't expect to see 120 or sheet films for quite a while, even though they were quick early on to say they could do those as well.

I find it interesting that they seem to claim the delay thus far has been to work within a timetable for demolition of unneeded older manufacturing space, but on a schedule that will allow them to seek funding to "save" some of the production equipment they say they will need.

Originally I thought they said they didn't need any of that older (larger?) infrastructure. Rank speculation here, but I wonder if they took note of the abandonment of E-6 film by Kodak, followed by the continuing reduction of C-41/E-6 lines by Fujifilm, and decided their original plan wasn't likely to be able to handle the entire remaining residual worldwide color film demand after the other players eventually quit the market entirely.

So maybe they changed plans in the middle of the process and decided to preserve some of the other equipment? And they didn't have the capital under their original plan to do that, so the Italian government stepped in to lend a hand? The prospect of having a potential worldwide monopoly on color film in the near future, even at only residual volumes, might have sounded just too good to pass up?

Just thinkin' out loud...



Ken

Personally, im feeling along the same lines as this.
Its not a bad thing, but will the equipment being used still be too big for the production? Or are they expecting that they will sell plenty of volume?

It really sucks that kodak has dropped everything E6, we should campaign hard on their facebook page. It would be good if they could licence the product for ferrania to produce, but i hope that their E6 lines replace what was taken away by kodak and Fuji, and that is high speed E6 film.
I even submitted an awesome photo for their photo of the day, which was taken on ektachrome e100g and it never got selected, partially because of it being a discontnued film i guess. This is the photo here:

I would like to see a film that is a good replacement for e100g and e100vs if nothing else.

 

[AgX]

Ok send me your 8x10 projector and I'll use that.... *facepalm*

Projectors for even larger formats are still offered.


That is high power projectors, not in-front-of-wall overheads.

 

[ME Super]

Projecting your sheet film with an overhead? For one what use is that if you're trying to sell prints.... and two, you'll end up scratching your film... No thank you...

I don't shoot film to sell prints. If you are, hey that's great. And if you're using E-6 for the initial, then yes the scanning method is probably the easiest. I've had some Velvia 100 lab scanned and made into prints and the saturation, while not exactly the same as the original slide, isn't bad.

Would love to see Ferrania do some high speed color film, but I think that realistically they're gonna go for cine film first, which will probably be slower speed. IIRC the first couple of films they were working on were 100 speed emulsions.

 

[StoneNYC]

Personally, im feeling along the same lines as this.
Its not a bad thing, but will the equipment being used still be too big for the production? Or are they expecting that they will sell plenty of volume?

It really sucks that kodak has dropped everything E6, we should campaign hard on their facebook page. It would be good if they could licence the product for ferrania to produce, but i hope that their E6 lines replace what was taken away by kodak and Fuji, and that is high speed E6 film.
I even submitted an awesome photo for their photo of the day, which was taken on ektachrome e100g and it never got selected, partially because of it being a discontnued film i guess. This is the photo here:
View attachment 92644
I would like to see a film that is a good replacement for e100g and e100vs if nothing else.

E100G = Provia100f

E100VS = Velvia50 / Velvia100

Not the same, but especially Velvia100 is sort of the same (I think better).

Your opinions may differ

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

IIRC the first couple of films they were working on were 100 speed emulsions.

That's correct. First an E-6, then a C-41. But at this point I'll take anything color. They just need to get back into the game before the remaining processing infrastructure dries up completely. By that I mean larger regional processors like, say, Dwayne's, for example.

We could all exist just fine with a three-day mail order turnaround cycle. Heck, before the advent of the 1-hour grocery store machines, by sending it off to Kodak that's what we all did anyway.

Ken

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

E100G = Provia100f

E100VS = Velvia50 / Velvia100

Not the same, but especially Velvia100 is sort of the same (I think better).

Your opinions may differ

Yes they do.
How on earth have you put E100VS and Velvia 50 on the same or like basket? They are definitely not comparable, nor like-for-like nor "sort of the same". The palettes are worlds apart. A good example would be to view an Ilfochrome print of Kodak's stuff vs one produced on RVP 50 (but not RVP 100F!): note the BIG differences. Kodak's pasty E6 palette was widely panned as a dud amongst landscape photographers, especially those printing to Ilfochrome Classic media. I predict somebody is now going to compare Ektar with Provia 100F — again, a story in itself.

 

[ME Super]

I can project Provia 100F. It looks great. When I project Ektar, the colors are all wrong, and there's this hideous mask too.

There. There's your comparison. But seriously, both films are nice, but for different reasons.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ok send me your 8x10 projector and I'll use that.... *facepalm*



Thanks PE when the time comes to do it in school I will.

We used to have overhead projectors in school. I bet you could pick one up now cheap, and I bet it would project 8x10 transparencies very nicely.

But seriously, if prints are what you want to end up with, shoot negative film in the first place.

 

[Roger Cole]

It really is, a lot of people here just like to argue for no reason just to be difficult. I highly doubt if you took Portra and made an interneg if a Velvia50 image, and then optically printed it, that the saturation of color apparent in the original transparency would be at all comparable to the print.

Color film developing and printing is hard enough already without adding more complications to the process.

And projecting your sheet film with an overhead? For one what use is that if you're trying to sell prints.... and two, you'll end up scratching your film... No thank you...

If you're trying to sell prints, use print film.

Oh yeah, you want jazzed up over the top color - ok, shoot Vevlia and scan it. But that's not "the only option" it's just the only one for the very specific thing you are trying to do, and of course that's ok.

True enough we don't have Ilfochrome or Type R anymore of course, and I'm as sad about that as anyone. Well maybe not "as anyone" but I wish we did. I've printed with both over the years but, you know what? With the improvement of materials by the mid 90s I already gave it up for neg/pos. Of course I also had Ultra 50 for jazzed up color from negatives in those days too. Sigh.

 

[Nzoomed]

I can project Provia 100F. It looks great. When I project Ektar, the colors are all wrong, and there's this hideous mask too.

There. There's your comparison. But seriously, both films are nice, but for different reasons.

LOL, i agree!
Thats the main reason im not really interested in C41 negative film, there is just something special about holding up a transparency and actually seeing a real image captured on the film.
They can be printed perfectly from scans, ive done so without any issues.
Oddly enough in the past before digital cameras were commonplace, if i was sending in photos for adverts in magazines etc, the publishers always preferred me to send them the photos on a slide, they said it was alot easier than using negative film or the actual print of a photograph, go figure!

 

[Xmas]

Yes E6 was popular cause the editor's could review it on a light box.

Today Jpeg rules cause the editor clicks on the email attachment from the smart phone.

C41 gives more accurate high and low colours.

Every dog has its day.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes they do.
How on earth have you put E100VS and Velvia 50 on the same or like basket? They are definitely not comparable, nor like-for-like nor "sort of the same". The palettes are worlds apart. A good example would be to view an Ilfochrome print of Kodak's stuff vs one produced on RVP 50 (but not RVP 100F!): note the BIG differences. Kodak's pasty E6 palette was widely panned as a dud amongst landscape photographers, especially those printing to Ilfochrome Classic media. I predict somebody is now going to compare Ektar with Provia 100F — again, a story in itself.

Different yes... But the closest thing you can get NOW.... That's the point...

 

[Prest_400]

I don't know if you have noticed, but a comment has appeared that uncovers the identity of "the mystery american".
I've taken a quick look at his web and he is an artist and marketing man.

Dead Link Removed

Hello all! We just wanted to drop in and say that we have been working furiously over the past few months and we will have an announcement very soon. Stay tuned to our blog and our new social media channels (you can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Vimeo - with more to come!). And if you haven't already signed up for our email list, please do it soon...

 

[AgX]

Dave Bias

Seemingly having exchanged the ready-made Impossible nest for the Film-Ferrania nest.

 

[snowblind]

What really sucks is that Kodak (and apparently now Fuji too) are essentially abandoning film but, as market leaders, they are holding on tight to their knowledge bases, even though they think them economically useless, and not allowing anyone else who might want to try and make a go of it to try, even under strict license. Actual human knowledge prevented from being known, despite the fact the holders of that knowledge don't want to use it anymore. Worse, actual human achievements being kept secret from the annals of history.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

What really sucks is that Kodak (and apparently now Fuji too) are essentially abandoning film but, as market leaders, they are holding on tight to their knowledge bases, even though they think them economically useless, and not allowing anyone else who might want to try and make a go of it to try, even under strict license.

I have not seen anything that justifies such a statement. In addition, as PE has often pointed out here, such knowledge is NOT a single 'thing' that can be easily moved from point A to point B.

 

[StoneNYC]

What really sucks is that Kodak (and apparently now Fuji too) are essentially abandoning film but, as market leaders, they are holding on tight to their knowledge bases, even though they think them economically useless, and not allowing anyone else who might want to try and make a go of it to try, even under strict license. Actual human knowledge prevented from being known, despite the fact the holders of that knowledge don't want to use it anymore. Worse, actual human achievements being kept secret from the annals of history.

Like that 3 cylinder engine that got 60 miles to the gallon and had 250 horsepower that was invented in the 60's/70's by that race car driver before GM bought the patent from him and then buried it...?

Yea, companies do smart things...

 

[lxdude]

Don't forget the 100 mile-per-gallon carburetor that the oil companies bought up all those years ago!

 

[StoneNYC]

Don't forget the 100 mile-per-gallon carburetor that the oil companies bought up all those years ago!

Yea but mines a real story, it was an article in car and driver from like the 70's.

Such is life...

 

[Xmas]

What really sucks is that Kodak (and apparently now Fuji too) are essentially abandoning film but, as market leaders, they are holding on tight to their knowledge bases, even though they think them economically useless, and not allowing anyone else who might want to try and make a go of it to try, even under strict license. Actual human knowledge prevented from being known, despite the fact the holders of that knowledge don't want to use it anymore. Worse, actual human achievements being kept secret from the annals of history.

Rubbish film coating process like any manufacturing process is a black art, Kodak could not restart Plusx film manufacture from Harrow UKs plant, if they wanted to unless you gave them a few tens of million pounds.

They stopped 2005.

Try the new impossible film it still does not compare with Polariod yet... although it is a lot better.

It is like getting a man back on the moon again.

We buried Fotokemia cause we fed a dying yellow dinosaur...

 

[StoneNYC]

Rubbish film coating process like any manufacturing process is a black art, Kodak could not restart Plusx film manufacture from Harrow UKs plant, if they wanted to unless you gave them a few tens of million pounds.

They stopped 2005.

Try the new impossible film it still does not compare with Polariod yet... although it is a lot better.

It is like getting a man back on the moon again.

We buried Fotokemia cause we fed a dying yellow dinosaur...

The impossible example is a bad one.

The reason that the company couldn't immediately make a really good polaroid film was because the old chemists were brought in to work on the new films however they were not allowed to use the same processes as they use with Polaroid because of licensing and patents... If they were allowed to use the same exact process as Polaroid, they would have the same exact stuff Polaroid film today, it's the patents that are owned by someone else that they can't easily procure, it's not financially feasible to buy them, thats preventing them from having the older Polaroid films in stock

Thought I agree the machines kodak use probably have as much to do with quality as the chemistry behind the emulsions.

Then again ilford can easily coat the Rollie IR films... So...

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Then again ilford can easily coat the Rollie IR films... So...

I thought the Rollei IR films are Agfa product?

Tom

 

[miha]

I thought the Rollei IR films are Agfa product?

Tom

They are.