Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Nzoomed · Oct 27, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Let us assume that an old formula, as mentioned by Ferrania themselves, used methyl mercuric iodide or cadmium nitrate. Both possible in products made in Europe (AFAIK at the time), but forbidden in the US. Today, they are forbidden in Europe and the US. This makes manufacture of the product impossible and the sale of a product containing them impossible.

There are grandfathered products that were made by companies that went out of business, that used banned chemicals and are allowed to be sold but not made (again AFAIK).

These are fairy tales made up to show real chemicals in an unreal situation. The fact is that whatever chemicals were used in Ferrania / Scotch products are no longer available or manufactured for one reason or another. So, here is the premise - make a cake with no flour! Too hard, I'll give you the flour and take away the eggs! If you can't do this in 30 mins, you are chopped!

Simple as that. You have to make a product missing a critical ingredient and you have to find a substitute. I hope they do at Ferrania or the product may be quite a bit more like TIP products that we would like.

Now, as for Ektar. Someone earlier said that Ektar was improved - no, it was re-invented using new emulsion and coupler technology and was more akin to the ECN MP negative stock than to any previous C41 product. It now uses a mixed t-grain and cubic grain emulsion. The latter is familiar to my old standby "gencube" with which I have had a lot of experience. Gencube was under development in R&D by an associate many years ago and I was made familiar with it. It did wonders for ECN and now is making Ektar a hit. Add to that, new couplers for improved dark and light keeping and you have a film that no one can touch until the patents expire.

PE

I can see this potentially being an issue with their older B&W films, although their latest E6 and C41 films should be OK, since they only stopped production in the last decade, long after such regulations in the EU came into force.
I know you mentioned that you studied the formula for P30 and said it looked quite similar to a standard B&W formula.
see here https://www.facebook.com/filmferran...0.1414456891./369695133132921/?type=3&theater
Anyway, its all in Italian, and i cant identify any chemical symbols for mercury or cadmium in that photograph, is there anything of concern you can see there?
Of course, there could be more pages to that formula that we cant see. Im unsure when this film was last made, but i think i read somewhere it was finished in the 1980's, i could be wrong though.
Either way, im interested to know if that film used any chamicals that are now banned.

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 27, 2014

I'm always leery of the subtly implied sense that only Kodak can do the hard work necessary to make film. Or at least do it correctly. I'm willing to bet the Ferrania guys have a fair shot at pulling this off. In fact, I was willing to bet $140.

Ken

Truzi · Oct 27, 2014

It is difficult to imagine they structured the Kickstarter as they have without having done small test runs. I'm sure they had the chemical part (availability as well as formulae) worked out some time ago. They may be offering the first "official" batch, but I find it hard to believe they don't already have some slides floating around somewhere.

Roger Cole · Oct 27, 2014

ME Super said:
My Imperial Debonair uses 620 film. Don't know if it's a rebadge or not, but it doesn't say Kodak anywhere on it. It was manufactured for the Herbert George Company of Chicago, Illinois.

Could have just been they wanted you to use Kodak film for whatever reason. I dunno.

RattyMouse · Oct 27, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
I'm always leery of the subtly implied sense that only Kodak can do the hard work necessary to make film. Or at least do it correctly. I'm willing to bet the Ferrania guys have a fair shot at pulling this off. In fact, I was willing to bet $140.

Ken

Film is nothing but science and engineering. If Ferrania have good scientists and engineers, they'll get there.

Roger Cole · Oct 27, 2014

flavio81 said:
Don't forget 220!! We need more 220!

There may have been a few cameras that used 220 but not 120 - wasn't there a model of Yashica TLR that did before the 124 came out that could take either? Anyway, with the exception of people wanting to use such unusual cameras no one really needs 220, though they may want it. The other might be the remaining pros shooting weddings on film, but then they can get Portra 160 and 400 in 220. It costs more than the same amount of film in 120 (that is, a 220 roll is more than twice as much as a 120 roll) but it is available and the price difference shouldn't matter to them or be significant given that type of shooting.

Dr Croubie · Oct 27, 2014

Roger Cole said:
The other might be the remaining pros shooting weddings on film, but then they can get Portra 160 and 400 in 220.

And don't forget the 70mm shooters, although we're few and far between. So far I'm only shooting expired aviphot/konica/portra on my RH50 + 4x5, and even then not much because I can't develop long bits (at least not yet, I'm gonna get one of Polyglot's 3D-printed jobo-extenders one day).
Making 70mm-perf would be good to break out the Hassy back I've just got, sitting all useless because I only have unperf film.
I'd buy a roll of E6 70mm Ferrania NewChrome if it were available and decently priced.

Does Kodak or anyone else still make any MP film in 65/70mm? IMAX used a lot of it but I think the're all digital now. But just like 8mm and 16mm, there'll be a hell of a lot of old equipment lying around rusting otherwise. Once the hardware falls cheap enough for independents and experimenters to buy then there could be a good market for Ferrania to service there too...

Prof_Pixel · Oct 27, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
I'm always leery of the subtly implied sense that only Kodak can do the hard work necessary to make film.

It's not about Kodak, it's about resources.

It takes time, lots of money and lots of technical expertise to develop a family of film and paper products. Kodak and Fuji had those at one time; I'm not sure any film company will have a huge amount of such resources (time, money and expertise) again.

I wish Ferrania well, and I'm sure they understand the need to limit the scope of the project they are undertaking. They can't 'be all things for all people'.

Photo Engineer · Oct 27, 2014

Remember that C41 and E6 (film and process both) were engineered by Kodak and copied by Fuji and Agfa. D76 was engineered by Kodak and copied by others. The list is long and the list is true that little innovation has come from the other film companies after the original work by Agfa. Kodak, at that time, had a parallel set of projects that were realized at about the same time as that of Agfa and using a totally different method for achieving color imaging. In fact, AFAIK, gold sensitization was the only thing that Agfa developed that was unknown to Kodak.

In any event, the formula in that notebook is incomplete. It shows one step basically, the precipitation step. It does not even tell me the gelatin type (bone or pig). It does not give the sensitization steps (if any), nor information on finals for preservation and coating weight. These would all have to be worked out by trial and error if I were to attempt anything with this emulsion. I could use the basic formula to make an emulsion that could be developed into a good one with work. Remember that it took me several pounds of Silver Nitrate to make the Azo type emulsion that is given in my book. Oh, that includes the Kodabromide type as well. The Plus X / Super XX type is a modernized version of a high speed negative emulsion by Baker as noted in the book. His did not work with modern materials. And that is my major point. This Ferrania emulsion would have to be modernized with much work.

PE

Nzoomed · Oct 27, 2014

Prof_Pixel said:
It's not about Kodak, it's about resources.

It takes time, lots of money and lots of technical expertise to develop a family of film and paper products. Kodak and Fuji had those at one time; I'm not sure any film company will have a huge amount of such resources (time, money and expertise) again.

I wish Ferrania well, and I'm sure they understand the need to limit the scope of the project they are undertaking. They can't 'be all things for all people'.

It wouldnt even bother me if all they made was E6! lol
But i think its safe to say that they are not going to stop there, its just a matter of time really to wait for them to get everything up and running smoothly before they can bring back some other films, im expecting they will work on Solaris once the E6 line is up and running smoothly. They have indicated in an interview that they would like to see films such as P30 come back, so that says alot, but lets not rush them, they will do everything in their own time as they see fit.
Since they still have all the equipment for making 126, 127 and other film formats, and them stating they want to bring back as many formats as possible, I can only see that as a good thing. They have made a big deal about all the machinery they have saved for doing such work, so i doubt they would give everyone false hope.

Im confident they will produce E6 and C41 film if nothing else, making the film is the hard bit, cutting, spooling and packaging the film is the easy bit.
If there is enough demand for the format, they will sell it.

Nzoomed · Oct 27, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Remember that C41 and E6 (film and process both) were engineered by Kodak and copied by Fuji and Agfa. D76 was engineered by Kodak and copied by others. The list is long and the list is true that little innovation has come from the other film companies after the original work by Agfa. Kodak, at that time, had a parallel set of projects that were realized at about the same time as that of Agfa and using a totally different method for achieving color imaging. In fact, AFAIK, gold sensitization was the only thing that Agfa developed that was unknown to Kodak.

In any event, the formula in that notebook is incomplete. It shows one step basically, the precipitation step. It does not even tell me the gelatin type (bone or pig). It does not give the sensitization steps (if any), nor information on finals for preservation and coating weight. These would all have to be worked out by trial and error if I were to attempt anything with this emulsion. I could use the basic formula to make an emulsion that could be developed into a good one with work. Remember that it took me several pounds of Silver Nitrate to make the Azo type emulsion that is given in my book. Oh, that includes the Kodabromide type as well. The Plus X / Super XX type is a modernized version of a high speed negative emulsion by Baker as noted in the book. His did not work with modern materials. And that is my major point. This Ferrania emulsion would have to be modernized with much work.

PE

Im pretty sure that Ferrania would have tweaked that formula over the years anyway, especially if they had to change it do to introduced regulations on toxic chemicals etc, IDK when Ferrania stopped making the stuff, but that formulation i think is dated 1958 in that book, does anyone here know when this film was last produced?
Im guessing it was sometime in the 1980's but i could be wrong.

RattyMouse · Oct 28, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Remember that C41 and E6 (film and process both) were engineered by Kodak and copied by Fuji and Agfa. D76 was engineered by Kodak and copied by others. The list is long and the list is true that little innovation has come from the other film companies after the original work by Agfa. Kodak, at that time, had a parallel set of projects that were realized at about the same time as that of Agfa and using a totally different method for achieving color imaging. In fact, AFAIK, gold sensitization was the only thing that Agfa developed that was unknown to Kodak.

In any event, the formula in that notebook is incomplete. It shows one step basically, the precipitation step. It does not even tell me the gelatin type (bone or pig). It does not give the sensitization steps (if any), nor information on finals for preservation and coating weight. These would all have to be worked out by trial and error if I were to attempt anything with this emulsion. I could use the basic formula to make an emulsion that could be developed into a good one with work. Remember that it took me several pounds of Silver Nitrate to make the Azo type emulsion that is given in my book. Oh, that includes the Kodabromide type as well. The Plus X / Super XX type is a modernized version of a high speed negative emulsion by Baker as noted in the book. His did not work with modern materials. And that is my major point. This Ferrania emulsion would have to be modernized with much work.

PE

Sounds like VERY poor laboratory notebook practices at Kodak! As my former manager once said, "If it's not in your lab notebook, it *never* happened!".

Xmas · Oct 28, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Remember that C41 and E6 (film and process both) were engineered by Kodak and copied by Fuji and Agfa. D76 was engineered by Kodak and copied by others. The list is long and the list is true that little innovation has come from the other film companies after the original work by Agfa. Kodak, at that time, had a parallel set of projects that were realized at about the same time as that of Agfa and using a totally different method for achieving color imaging. In fact, AFAIK, gold sensitization was the only thing that Agfa developed that was unknown to Kodak.

In any event, the formula in that notebook is incomplete. It shows one step basically, the precipitation step. It does not even tell me the gelatin type (bone or pig). It does not give the sensitization steps (if any), nor information on finals for preservation and coating weight. These would all have to be worked out by trial and error if I were to attempt anything with this emulsion. I could use the basic formula to make an emulsion that could be developed into a good one with work. Remember that it took me several pounds of Silver Nitrate to make the Azo type emulsion that is given in my book. Oh, that includes the Kodabromide type as well. The Plus X / Super XX type is a modernized version of a high speed negative emulsion by Baker as noted in the book. His did not work with modern materials. And that is my major point. This Ferrania emulsion would have to be modernized with much work.

PE

maybe but Kodak bought out lots of competitors like verichrome.
Agfa commercialized embedded couplers?
Ilford discovered Phenodine and commercialized?
Afga Rodinal?
I don't use d76 and I know ID68 is a near clone.
Polariod instant using an Agfa process but lots of their own patents.

Fuji sold cheap film and they still are

1GBP for 200 ISO 24 135 c41 on our high streets
3GBP for 400 ISO 36 in photo shops

that has EK by neck KA won't be selling gold at gold prices, the bw400cn is stuck on our pharmacy shelves too

Ferranni don't need to innovate (I was happy with Ferranni Efke Foma and Adox film) merely to stay legal for hazmat
I have scratch mixed pre E6 and pre c41 Agfa soups.
The risks are that Ferranni can not break even with 35mm and 120 in E6. Impossible are struggling.
Ferranni might have been better to go with c41 for the commercial dependence on local E6 labs.

But I've dug out my 110 found three cartridges and can use a 16mm roll of cine from Foma (or Ferranni if they do mono).

Xmas · Oct 28, 2014

RattyMouse said:
Sounds like VERY poor laboratory notebook practices at Kodak! As my former manager once said, "If it's not in your lab notebook, it *never* happened!".

Mine said 'if you don't tell me in typescript memo you did not tell me' he had forgotten he needed staff to be able to manage staff.

They used to sign our notebooks.

Nzoomed · Oct 28, 2014

Xmas said:
maybe but Kodak bought out lots of competitors like verichrome.
Agfa commercialized embedded couplers?
Ilford discovered Phenodine and commercialized?
Afga Rodinal?
I don't use d76 and I know ID68 is a near clone.
Polariod instant using an Agfa process but lots of their own patents.

Fuji sold cheap film and they still are

1GBP for 200 ISO 24 135 c41 on our high streets
3GBP for 400 ISO 36 in photo shops

that has EK by neck KA won't be selling gold at gold prices, the bw400cn is stuck on our pharmacy shelves too

Ferranni don't need to innovate (I was happy with Ferranni Efke Foma and Adox film) merely to stay legal for hazmat
I have scratch mixed pre E6 and pre c41 Agfa soups.
The risks are that Ferranni can not break even with 35mm and 120 in E6. Impossible are struggling.
Ferranni might have been better to go with c41 for the commercial dependence on local E6 labs.

But I've dug out my 110 found three cartridges and can use a 16mm roll of cine from Foma (or Ferranni if they do mono).

E6 is ever increasing in popularity for lomography, i dont care how people use it, as long as people are buying the stuff it doesnt really matter to me.
Kodak E6 was becoming very popular in lomography in the end, and sales probably would have picked up if kodak stuck with it.
Ferrania will get good E6 sales in the cine film market and it was a popular lomo film and people are still shooting old stock of scotchchrome.
Its obvious they will start C41 films when they are up and running, but E6 is essential to get started with, it needs all the support it can get.

georg16nik · Oct 28, 2014

Prof_Pixel said:
It's not about Kodak, it's about resources.

It takes time, lots of money and lots of technical expertise to develop a family of film and paper products. Kodak and Fuji had those at one time; I'm not sure any film company will have a huge amount of such resources (time, money and expertise) again...

Kodak and Fuji might seem big shots, but only outside Europe and Russia or pre-1990 Soviet Union.
On the global scale, its always surprise surprise.

Simon R Galley · Oct 28, 2014

Interesting thread, great good look to FERRANIA I wish them well in their endeavours, science, engineering and passion will hopefully get them to their objectives.

Chemicals : Someone mentioned chemical legislation is 'in the past' no it is'nt, never will be, in the ever increasing ( and quite correct ) requirement to protect our environment, our citizens and our planet we will be under ever increasing levels of legislation and control, nothing wrong with that if you can 'manage' the level of legislation and develop and introduce alternatives etc, etc. The 'PHOTO' industry as a whole had a set of sub-suppliers who developed and supplied a myriad of products to the 'PHOTO' industry, as 'chemical' based photo manufacture has declined many of these suppliers ( not all ) have gone off and done other things, you need your own R&D, your own materials technology support and your own capability to manufacture if needed, now more than ever. You need the knowledge of the past, the ability of the present and the vision and expectation of what the future will or may bring.....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Xmas · Oct 28, 2014

Nzoomed said:
E6 is ever increasing in popularity for lomography, i dont care how people use it, as long as people are buying the stuff it doesnt really matter to me.
Kodak E6 was becoming very popular in lomography in the end, and sales probably would have picked up if kodak stuck with it.
Ferrania will get good E6 sales in the cine film market and it was a popular lomo film and people are still shooting old stock of scotchchrome.
Its obvious they will start C41 films when they are up and running, but E6 is essential to get started with, it needs all the support it can get.

Kodak stopped cause the the volume was no longer profitable for their company, accounts rule.
Too many people were going to digital and C41. E6 was the commercial film that buried Kchrome for volume.
C41 is better and cheaper and there are more mini labs.

Ferranni could not make sufficient profit in 2009. They need to make enough money to break even with E6 to keep going. They need to make a lotta profit to fund C41 production startup.

If Fuji and Kodak stop they may have an ecological niche from extant E6 labs.

Lomo camera users are a small % of film camera people in London streets (<5%) and I've not seen one take a snap yet.

C41 volume >>> E6 volume this is apparent from lab availability and grumbles from lab staff. eg from lomo staff before they closed their penultimate brick? shop, they only did c41 on site (mono and E6 sent out).

But to cheer you up this week I buy 3x E6 films this is the cheapest way to get new reasonable 110 cartridges to load with mono 16mm cine.

Nzoomed · Oct 28, 2014

Xmas said:
Kodak stopped cause the the volume was no longer profitable for their company, accounts rule.
Too many people were going to digital and C41. E6 was the commercial film that buried Kchrome for volume.
C41 is better and cheaper and there are more mini labs.

Ferranni could not make sufficient profit in 2009. They need to make enough money to break even with E6 to keep going. They need to make a lotta profit to fund C41 production startup.

If Fuji and Kodak stop they may have an ecological niche from extant E6 labs.

Lomo camera users are a small % of film camera people in London streets (<5%) and I've not seen one take a snap yet.

C41 volume >>> E6 volume this is apparent from lab availability and grumbles from lab staff. eg from lomo staff before they closed their penultimate brick? shop, they only did c41 on site (mono and E6 sent out).

But to cheer you up this week I buy 3x E6 films this is the cheapest way to get new reasonable 110 cartridges to load with mono 16mm cine.

But what exactly makes C41 "better" than E6?
It seems everyone's opinions vary somewhat, is C41 better for prints, or because it is finer grained?
Personally i like the colour rendition alot better with E6 than C41 films, although the new ADOX colour implosion film is the sort of C41 films i want to shoot, although i wouldnt mind if it had finer grain. But at least that gives us 4 companies producting colour negative (Kodak, Fuji, AGFA and ADOX)
We really need another player for E6, as i dont know how long AGFA will continue its production of Aviphot chrome and its hard to say what Fuji plan to do.

Ricardo Miranda · Oct 28, 2014

Hi Nzoomed!
Remember that the Adox Colour Implosion is what one could call a "boutique" film made in a small batch. I bet it was coated by InovisCoat.
It is my understanding that Agfa isn't coating Aviphot any more or at least not for the time being, but doing with frozen master rolls. They (Agfa Belgium) are also not interested in returning to photographic emulsions. Nor does Inoviscoat, although they do all the colour film for Impossible Project.

Lomo camera users are a small % of film camera people in London streets (<5%) and I've not seen one take a snap yet.

Yeap! Even that chap we saw with a 6x12 Lomo Belair was just holding it around the neck.

Xmas · Oct 28, 2014

Nzoomed said:
But what exactly makes C41 "better" than E6?
It seems everyone's opinions vary somewhat, is C41 better for prints, or because it is finer grained?
Personally i like the colour rendition alot better with E6 than C41 films, although the new ADOX colour implosion film is the sort of C41 films i want to shoot, although i wouldnt mind if it had finer grain. But at least that gives us 4 companies producting colour negative (Kodak, Fuji, AGFA and ADOX)
We really need another player for E6, as i dont know how long AGFA will continue its production of Aviphot chrome and its hard to say what Fuji plan to do.

It does not have to be better merely more successful!

Support ie more C41 mini labs, for convenience...
Dynamic range C41 has more dynamic range I only ever shot E6 with single coated lenses and more careful metering - Weston with invercone on brides nose or OM4 spot.
Complementary colour mask with similar dye/filter set you get 'better' colour
Cibachrome dead and long gone
Cheaper 1.0 GBP/cassette on high streets (dumping over production)

(note before fan boys flame cine pros use ECN)

In effect market forces eg C41 killed kodachrome, polariod, and E6 commercially before digital shot C41 in the back.

C41 is in ECU.

Digitalising proofs (scanning and email) and desk top displays drove the final nail in E6 fashion and similar high volume commercial use, digital had killed it already.

Ferranni may be able to support E6 long term, (depends on number of staff they need).

No weddings people here don't bother the vicar much and the few that do get their mates to email the iPhone shots/video.

People don't admit to be Christians on the census form. Weddings used to be the bread and butter of pros. Christenings...

Only fine art left donno the split E6/C41/mono not shot any colour in two years myself, and the last was just a film test for a chum.

georg16nik · Oct 28, 2014

Ricardo Miranda said:
....They (Agfa Belgium) are also not interested in returning to photographic emulsions....

Well, Agfa.com page for their Aerial Photography products reads: Film technology is alive and kicking!
Then, go to http://www.agfa.com/sp/global/en/internet/main/solutions/microfilm/index.jsp and you can read

Analogue microfilm is still the best media for long term archiving: proven since years and cost efficient.

As your provider of Microfilm products it has always been AGFA's aim to serve you in the best possible way. In order to assure long-term continuity at the highest possible quality standards AGFA transferred its worldwide distribution channels into the hands of Eastman Park Micrographics (EPM) who will sell the products manufactured by AGFA under their own brand IMAGELINK. This transfer took place on JUNE 3rd, 2013.

Thats hardly not interested as you verse it

Xmas · Oct 28, 2014

Ricardo Miranda said:
<snip>

Yeap! Even that chap we saw with a 6x12 Lomo Belair was just holding it around the neck.

Id forgotten him - did you ask what film he was using?
You only get six shots per 120 with wide option.

miha · Oct 28, 2014

Ricardo Miranda said:
Hi Nzoomed!
Remember that the Adox Colour Implosion is what one could call a "boutique" film made in a small batch. I bet it was coated by InovisCoat.
It is my understanding that Agfa isn't coating Aviphot any more or at least not for the time being, but doing with frozen master rolls. They (Agfa Belgium) are also not interested in returning to photographic emulsions. Nor does Inoviscoat, although they do all the colour film for Impossible Project.

Yeap! Even that chap we saw with a 6x12 Lomo Belair was just holding it around the neck.

InovisCoat are interested in photographic emulsions: http://www.inoviscoat.de/en/markets/photography

Sal Santamaura · Oct 28, 2014

Roger Cole said:
...no one really needs 220, though they may want it...

I disagree, and herein lies the crux of everything related to ongoing manufacture of all gelatin silver film/paper. No one needs any of it. The entire chemical imaging industry exists today only to supply wants. Unless those wants are great enough to sustain operating costs plus whatever level of profit each manufacturer's owners deem sufficient, production will end.

Although my instincts provide a guess, I am unable to predict with any accuracy what and how much the world population of gelatin silver product users will "want" going forward. That information alone, and not all the postings of desire or Kickstarter projects imaginable, will determine the industry's future. In the meantime, I carry a substantial doomsday stockpile and continue regularly refreshing it with new stock as the old is used. There's not really anything APUG bleating can do to change things.

Note to Roger. I started off this post quoting one of yours, but my thrust isn't directed at you. You conveniently provided a good jumping off point for my sermon.

Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency