Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Hi,

I have just joined the forum, but i have followed this thread and read ALL the pages. I think Henning's message is of paramount importance, or at least this part:

Henning Serger said:

Do you have the real numbers? No, you don't have.
Only Fujifilm has the numbers. And they don't have published any data.
Some people here on apug are telling that, but no one of this group has any reliable data.
Its the same people who are saying there is a availability problem with E6 chemistry (which is completely wrong).

(...)

Click to expand...

The guys at Ferrania, Marco and Nicola, are taking this seriously. Thus they must have hired a top-level business consultancy firm to take a deep look at what the chances are for viable E6 production. And they wouldn't be doing this project if Ferrania E6 wasn't commercially viable.

As mentioned before, there is a reason for E6 to exist, and we should support E6 as much as we can. E6 is not dead yet, and there are, if i recall correctly at least three manufacturers of E6 chemistry at the present moment.

B&W film is already saved from doom, now it's our duty to save E6 as well, by using it, and by not spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

My brick shop still stocks Fuji, Lomo, and Agfa and several different E6 kits.

But they don't stock raw chemicals any more, would need to get from Ge they stopped last summer.

An acquaintance who does lab work says his boss is going to put up E6 price even more or stop. But there are other local labs here. None really convenient for drop and pick up any more last convenient one closed during summer.

It would be difficult for me to go back to E6 or even C41.

I'll be clearing my fridge next.

flavio81 said:

Hi,

I have just joined the forum, but i have followed this thread and read ALL the pages. I think Henning's message is of paramount importance, or at least this part:



The guys at Ferrania, Marco and Nicola, are taking this seriously. Thus they must have hired a top-level business consultancy firm to take a deep look at what the chances are for viable E6 production. And they wouldn't be doing this project if Ferrania E6 wasn't commercially viable.

As mentioned before, there is a reason for E6 to exist, and we should support E6 as much as we can. E6 is not dead yet, and there are, if i recall correctly at least three manufacturers of E6 chemistry at the present moment.

B&W film is already saved from doom, now it's our duty to save E6 as well, by using it, and by not spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

Click to expand...

Thats right, on another note i just visited a local photographer who processes in his own darkroom to buy some portra from him.
He tells me that he is wanting to start shooting E6 and is ordering some chemicals to process it, so its far from over.
Film Ferrania want to make processing more accessible, so im guessing they will be putting together Kits so that DIY'er can do it easy.

Nzoomed said:

Thats right, on another note i just visited a local photographer who processes in his own darkroom to buy some portra from him.
He tells me that he is wanting to start shooting E6 and is ordering some chemicals to process it, so its far from over.
Film Ferrania want to make processing more accessible, so im guessing they will be putting together Kits so that DIY'er can do it easy.

Click to expand...

The E6 kits already exist, the Tetenal one makes developent cost about $4.6 to 5.4 USD per 35mm roll. The current E6 slide sold around here, Fuji Provia 100F, is technically excellent, but very expensive ($12 USD per 35mm roll).

A significantly cheaper E6 film could lure more people into E6, perhaps.

One of the founders wants E6 for movie film. If they can find enough 16mm and 8mm buyers they can certainly find enough people to justify cutting 35mm rolls.

flavio81 said:

The E6 kits already exist, the Tetenal one makes developent cost about $4.6 to 5.4 USD per 35mm roll. The current E6 slide sold around here, Fuji Provia 100F, is technically excellent, but very expensive ($12 USD per 35mm roll).

A significantly cheaper E6 film could lure more people into E6, perhaps.

Click to expand...

Well it is 6.37 £ for 35mm x 36 cassette here for the agfa, which seems reasonable and E6 kits are available too but lab access inconvenient. Be ok for a wedding.

Fuji and Lomo also in brick shop too.

There is a lot of impossible sold here people say it is expensive but impossible would like more volume.

A price point and distribution difficult decision.

Xmas said:

It would be difficult for me to go back to E6 or even C41.

Click to expand...

Why should it be difficult?
There are many labs in the UK offering mail order service. And lots of these labs offer both excellent quality and service.
Just put your films in the next mail box, and a short time later you have your developed films back.
Very easy and convenient.
I am working with professional mail order labs for more than 30 years. Always excellent quality and service. And it is indeed more convenient than using my three local labs (two of them I use, too, but for different reasons).
Mail order is saving time and cost for me.

And besides using one of the excellent UK professional mail order labs you can also develop your E6 and C41 at home.
It is easy.
And the chemicals are available from Silverprint, AG-Photographic, Firstcall etc.

Best regards,
Henning

Hi Flavio,

flavio81 said:

I think Henning's message is of paramount importance....

As mentioned before, there is a reason for E6 to exist, and we should support E6 as much as we can. E6 is not dead yet, and there are, if i recall correctly at least three manufacturers of E6 chemistry at the present moment.

Click to expand...

Even four.
There is no problem at all getting E6 chemistry for your film development.
There are enough committed, high-quality chemistry manufacturers to serve our needs.

flavio81 said:

B&W film is already saved from doom,

Click to expand...

Well, not quite.There is still a lot to do:

1. BW film manufacturers like Ilford, Adox, Foma are producing more BW paper (on a m² basis) than film. They need this business to keep film production running, operating the machines at the highest capacity possible.
Unfortunately lots of BW film photographers currently go for the by far lowest quality possible:
Scanning BW film with an amateur scanner and looking at the pictures on the computer monitor (with its bad tonality and extremely low resolution).
Much better it would be to go for the best quality:
Making real silver-gelatine prints in the darkroom.
Gives the best quality, the most fun, and is the best support for these manufacturers.

2. Shoot also colour film (!!) (reversal and negative) to support BW film:
At Kodak and Fujifilm colour film is the film type with the highest production volume.That is needed to get the lines running.
The BW film production there is completely dependant on colour film production.
In simple words:
Without Ultramax and Portra, no Tri-X at all, no TMX and TMY-2.
Without Provia, Velvia, Pro 400H, the Superias there will be no Acros 100.

If the colour films stay alive, the chances are much better that then the BW films at Kodak and Fuji also can be kept in production.
And if Tri-X + Co and Acros stay alive, than that will also have positive effects on Ilford, Adox and Foma:
Because the Tri-X, TMX and Acros shooters are making BW prints on Ilford, Adox and Foma BW paper.

We've talked about that at last years Ilford factory tour with Simon Galley: They are well aware of that. They don't want Kodak or Fuji leaving the market, because the net effects on Ilford will probably be negative.

That is the point I've tried to express in my posting above:
The film ecosystem has lots of dependencies.
If one part is dying, it will have negative effects on all other parts of the system, too.

Therefore for example the "BW fundamentalism" ("I shoot only BW"; or "I shoot BW on film, colour with digital") lots of apuggers here have, is not helpful at all.
It is not a sustainable strategy for film.
A sustainable strategy for film is
- using different types of film: BW and colour, negative film and positive / reversal film, and instant film.
- making real prints on silver-gelatine paper, BW and colour.
Use the excellent choices and options we have.
Don't be so one-sided.
Support the whole film-ecosystem.

flavio81 said:

now it's our duty to save E6 as well, by using it, and by not spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

Click to expand...

Exactly!
Let's keep this extremely important part of the photographic culture alive.
By using it on a regular basis.
By educating new, young photographers.
By getting others interested in it.
And with that we even indirectly support the other parts of the film ecosystem (see above).
So in the end, we all will have a benefit from that!

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Therefore for example the "BW fundamentalism" ("I shoot only BW"; or "I shoot BW on film, colour with digital") lots of apuggers here have, is not helpful at all.
It is not a sustainable strategy for film.
A sustainable strategy for film is
- using different types of film: BW and colour, negative film and positive / reversal film, and instant film.
- making real prints on silver-gelatine paper, BW and colour.
Use the excellent choices and options we have.
Don't be so one-sided.
Support the whole film-ecosystem.

Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as "Reversal film fundamentalism?" Because I primarily shoot the E-6 films. Sure, there's the occasional C-41 and B&W roll, but I shoot mostly E-6. To tell the truth, I shoot more B&W film than I do C-41! It is this way because E-6 films give me the look I want more often than not. PE has said that color negative films have more accurate color than E-6, and of course he's right when your end result is a print, however, there's that orange mask, and the colors are all wrong when projected. Yellow skies! Blue suns! Magenta grass!

The photos I do have printed, I try to have printed on real photo paper, not inkjet. I don't really trust the longevity of inkjet prints, but RA-4 and B&W photo papers use mature technology that has stood the test of time for the most part. I have home inkjet prints from my solely digital days, and they have not stood the test of time the way the RA-4 prints have. Shoot, I have poorly stored slides made from color negative film from 20 years ago that look better than home inkjet prints from the last 10 years!

Nzoomed said:

I completley agree. There is no reason not to shoot E6, its just that there is a majority who shoot only C41, some of those want E6 gone it seems, why i dont know, i shoot very little, but thats just me.

Click to expand...

No reason not to shoot E6 except for the disappearance of anything faster than 100 (if you don't count the Witnerchrome) and the disappearance of realistic looking films like Astia and the disappearance of all direct positive print materials...

Don't get me wrong, I shoot E6 for projection and certainly want it to survive but for me projection is really the ONLY reason to shoot it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

I agree with Roger completely. Plus, I can't afford to shoot as much of E6 as I would like to - €15 vs €5 for b&w including developing.

I do like it. Give me something like Astia and especially something like Provia 400x and I will shoot more. Give me Ilfochrome again (or, even less likely, a good type R) and I'll shoot it in larger format than 35mm.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Henning is quite right in his comments above.

The bottom line is that at Fuji and Kodak, color drives B&W.

PE

Roger Cole said:

No reason not to shoot E6 except for the disappearance of anything faster than 100 (if you don't count the Witnerchrome) and the disappearance of realistic looking films like Astia and the disappearance of all direct positive print materials...

Don't get me wrong, I shoot E6 for projection and certainly want it to survive but for me projection is really the ONLY reason to shoot it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Click to expand...

What's Whitnerchrome?

Hi Roger,

Roger Cole said:

and the disappearance of realistic looking films like Astia .....

Click to expand...

with Provia 100F (and its amateur version AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100) there is one of the best natural looking films on the market we've ever had.
Extremely accurate, neutral colors.
I am using this film for years, as well as Astia 100F, Provia 400X (and the Kodak films, I've used them all).
I am using it for all kind of subjects, including professional portrait and fashion shoots (the clients have always been very satiesfied with the results).
Besides that we've tested all these films (as well as the colour negative films) in our test lab.

The differences between Astia and Provia are not so big:
- Astia is a bit warmer in the colour balance than Provia, Provia is very neutral
- Astia a bit lower in gradation, but not very much, about half a stop. We've got 8 stops range with Provia, and 8,5 stops with Astia 100F (range where you can still see a bit detail in both the shadows and the highlights)
- Provia looks a little bit sharper due to a higher MTF in the 5-20 lp/mm range.

I've often used Astia and Provia parallel in fashion shootings and even I had often problems to distinguish both films on the light table.

The colour temperature of the light
and
the colour transmission of the lens
have both much more influence on the colour than the small differences of these both films.
The differences of the films are negligible compared to the colour differences caused by colour temperature of light and spectral transmissions of the lens (e.g. when I take pictures on the same film with my Nikon or Zeiss glass, and two of my Sigma zooms, the shots look like they were shot on completely different films).

If you like the bit more warm colour balance of Astia more, then just
- prefer shooting at times with a bit lower colour temperature (before noon, afternoon)
- or use a Skylight filter (1A or 1B) at noon
- or use a lens with a bit warmer spectral transmission.

Then your shots with Provia 100F will be extremely close to Astia.

Best regards,
Henning

miha said:

I agree with Roger completely. Plus, I can't afford to shoot as much of E6 as I would like to - €15 vs €5 for b&w including developing.

Click to expand...

But it is a wrong calculation if you only count the price for film and development:
With reversal film you already have a finished picture which can be used: You can look at it holding it just to the light, using a slide viwer, a slide loupe on the light table, or the projector.
With BW negative film film developmet is not enough. You have to make prints. So you have to include the prints in your calculation.
And then you will have higher costs in total for BW negative in most cases.

I am using all types of film on a regular basis: Colour negative and colour reversal, BW negative and BW reversal, instant film.
And I am doing my own BW prints in my darkroom. And my professional lab is making RA-4 prints for me.

Concerning total costs, my use of reversal film is in most cases that with the lowest total costs.

Best regards,
Henning

Hi Henning, excluding labour, BW is still cheaper for me. I print small, usually 5x7 FB from 135 and 120, not from every snap of course, contacts from 4x5. My E6 lab is 10 km away, time and gas, then there are mounts...

StoneNYC said:

What's Whitnerchrome?

Click to expand...

I think I misspelled it but the 200 speed stuff on the acetate base made in Germany.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Roger Cole said:

I think I misspelled it but the 200 speed stuff on the acetate base made in Germany.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Click to expand...

You mean Rollie Digibase CR200?

Wittner Chrome 200, Rollei CR200 and others are all the same film: Agfa (Belgium) Aviphot chrome 200.

Henning Serger said:

With Provia 100F (and its amateur version AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100) there is one of the best natural looking films on the market we've ever had. Extremely accurate, neutral colors.

Click to expand...

OK Henning... So you realize your words are not falling on deaf ears...

I just returned from a 2-hour workout session at the gym. I'm eating something, then it's off with a Mamiya C330S, several lenses, a tripod, some autumn colors (if any are left after last night's windstorm), and half a dozen rolls of 120 Provia 100F. If the next rain/wind storm can hold off for a couple of hours I'm good.

Processing will be a breeze. I'll drop them in the mail for Dwayne's Photo, and beautiful finished transparencies will magically appear at my doorstep in about 4-5 days. No muss, no fuss, no bother. And there's no way I can complain about that.



Ken

Henning Serger said:

But it is a wrong calculation if you only count the price for film and development:
With reversal film you already have a finished picture which can be used: You can look at it holding it just to the light, using a slide viwer, a slide loupe on the light table, or the projector.
With BW negative film film developmet is not enough. You have to make prints. So you have to include the prints in your calculation.
And then you will have higher costs in total for BW negative in most cases.

I am using all types of film on a regular basis: Colour negative and colour reversal, BW negative and BW reversal, instant film.
And I am doing my own BW prints in my darkroom. And my professional lab is making RA-4 prints for me.

Concerning total costs, my use of reversal film is in most cases that with the lowest total costs.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

No you don't have to make prints from mono or c41

In olden days a projector or light table or 8x10 cibachrome made proofing of transparency easier.

Now days a lap top, computer projector or large display and cheap live view scanner can proof either film type as easily.

In olden days it was easy to make cibachromes from transparency alas long gone - it was just as easy as mono for me using simple step wedges.

drop of at E6 labs is more difficult here now and postal access is not practical here

I have proceeded C41 and E6 scratch mixed at home but the chemicals like CD4 are now more difficult.

I've given up when I see a shot that needs colour I ignore walk on bye.

I might cross process my E6 stache or give it away.

Noel

Where in the UK do you live Noel?

I have friends who live in the UK. I want to check with them to see why the UK postal services cannot be relied upon to correctly deliver small packages of film to and from your location.

Ken

Photo Engineer said:

Henning is quite right in his comments above.

The bottom line is that at Fuji and Kodak, color drives B&W.

PE

Click to expand...

PE,

With the recent announcement at Kodak about new employee layoffs earlier this month, there was news that movie film production for 2014 is down 90% compared to last year.

That's a stunning drop in film production. Very few products can survive a drop of such enormous magnitude.

Do you see any hope, from a technical point of view, that still film (color and/or b & w) can survive this huge drop in production?

Yes, I see hope. Provided such as you and others buy Kodak products and quit bashing Kodak. They are hardworking people trying to make a living, and they have the best C41 products on the market and the best MP stocks on the market. They can make it with just a tad of support here!

PE