Film quality

dbltap · Oct 4, 2006

Now that I have been soundly lashed, I do apologize. A moment of indiscreet action.
But since it has been suggested that I am "clueless", I will rerfrain from further comments.
Jim

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Oct 4, 2006

The world has a funny habit of changing, and it's interesting to hear how photography as an industry as well as the photographers have adapted. But I'm always sort of lost as to how little information there is available on the industry - I have a set of the Encyclopedia of Photography from the 40's that has an article detailing Kodak's lens making process, with photos of piles of optical glass and polishers at work. It's just strange to see things like that, when today everything is under lock and key and is a trade secret. Globalisation for you, I guess.

Coming from a rather nerdy background of programming, I can say that if the information's there as well as the support, there'll always be someone around to try it. Pong and Tetris probably wouldnt still be so prevalent if not for the fact that they're traditionally programmer's first projects - if information for a simple developer and emulsion were available you'd probably get the same effect. Maybe not from herds of bored 13 year olds, but from someone. So I'm very pleased to see so much work being done and information provided for this sort of thing by people who clearly know their game. And I'll continue to shut up and listen curiously.

don sigl · Oct 4, 2006

dbltap said:
Now that I have been soundly lashed, I do apologize. A moment of indiscreet action.
But since it has been suggested that I am "clueless", I will rerfrain from further comments.
Jim

Perhaps "clueless" was too strong a term. You are entitled to expression of your opinions and positions. It is not my intent to shout down or suppress them. If some of the comments in this thread perturbed you, yours had an immediate reaction with me. If my reply seemed harsh, I apologize for my hair trigger reaction.

Regards,

Rolleijoe · Oct 4, 2006

Lowell Huff said:
It is easy to not insist on QUALITY, that is why digital imaging is acceptable to some.

Absolutely correct! Even the digiheads can't argue that a MF neg has more MP than they could ever dream of.

Rolleijoe · Oct 4, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
35mm would be impractical for a number of reasons. I expect sheet films from 8x10 to 4x5 or long panoramic sheets.

I have a 120 coating blade, but I really don't suggest it due to the paper backing problem.

PE

Then what's the point?

Speaking with a EK service rep not too long ago, it was mentioned that Tri-X and Plus-X would continue for at least the next few decades. (Remember they put in all new coating machines not too long ago)?

If Ilford crawled up & died I wouldn't notice, as I stopped using any of their products years ago. Agfa's demise had an effect on my film/paper options. But now Efke 25 can be used for an array of subjects, Foma papers are nice, but the Fotokemika Varycon fiber comes closest to the old Agfa types from the 30s-50s.

Should Tri-X ever go, there's always Fomapan.

Photo Engineer · Oct 4, 2006

Rolleijoe said:
Then what's the point?

Speaking with a EK service rep not too long ago, it was mentioned that Tri-X and Plus-X would continue for at least the next few decades. (Remember they put in all new coating machines not too long ago)?

If Ilford crawled up & died I wouldn't notice, as I stopped using any of their products years ago. Agfa's demise had an effect on my film/paper options. But now Efke 25 can be used for an array of subjects, Foma papers are nice, but the Fotokemika Varycon fiber comes closest to the old Agfa types from the 30s-50s.

Should Tri-X ever go, there's always Fomapan.

Joe;

I think a few points are in order.

1. Getting paper backing for 120 and 220 is no small problem. See the posts by Simon Galley here on APUG.

2. Foma may be nice and who cares about the other companies? Well, the problem is that if Foma cannot buy a critical chemical, or the price goes out of sight, then they stop making the product, or the quality goes out the window. All of the companies but Fuji and Kodak are in the position of having to buy critical chemistry from outside sources. This is even changing for Kodak and Fuji. So, the end result WILL impact on you eventually. Let us know when a box of Foma film suddenly ends up at the wrong speed, wrong contrast, or has defects all over it. Then I can say "I told you so".

3. Again, this has NOTHING to do with processing chemistry whatsoever. This thread is completely related to film and paper manufacture.

PE

gainer · Oct 4, 2006

Would it be any easier to use the 220 method of paper leaders? At least most recent 120 cameras can handle it. It seems to me that the leaders would not have to be as special as for 120.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 4, 2006

Hmmm... should I be saving all my 120 spools and backing paper for the day when I have to roll my own?

Photo Engineer · Oct 4, 2006

gainer said:
Would it be any easier to use the 220 method of paper leaders? At least most recent 120 cameras can handle it. It seems to me that the leaders would not have to be as special as for 120.

Patrick;

I really have no idea. I've never tried it.

PE

BradS · Oct 4, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
I want to explain to all and sundry that there is a severe supply problem involving quality photo chemicals. They are becoming harder to get, they are becoming much more expensive, and the second tier or third tier suppliers often don't have photo grade chemicals.

As the photo companies find it more and more difficult to get these chemicals or decent quality chemicals, then I believe that quality will suffer. This goes to raw stock keeping, speed, reciprocity failure and latent image keeping.

----snip---

IMHO, all of this will lead to slowly deteriorating quality from these smaller photo product producers.

PE

Ron, I mean no disrespect but, honestly, I just don't understand what you're driving at here? Is this a lesson in Econ-101? It's that old supply-demand-pricing triangle...right?

So what?

The fact that pricing is increased indicates that demand is ahead of supply. At some point, competition MUST enter the market to supply the excess demand...resulting in reduced prices...and on and on and on...Markets are dynamic. We don't need to get all upset about it. It just works.

If consumers are willing to accept inferior quality products, that is what they will get. If consumers are willing to pay for quality, they will find it in the market place. As far as I can tell, Kodak still produces high quality products...Ilford too. People, apparently, still buy those high quality products. Why worry about it?

Dave Parker · Oct 4, 2006

Higher prices don't always mean demand is up..

Dave

BradS · Oct 4, 2006

Obviously. That's why I was careful to phrase it as "demand is ahead of supply".

Photo Engineer · Oct 4, 2006

BradS said:
Ron, I mean no disrespect but, honestly, I just don't understand what you're driving at here? Is this a lesson in Econ-101? It's that old supply-demand-pricing triangle...right?

So what?

The fact that pricing is increased indicates that demand is ahead of supply. At some point, competition MUST enter the market to supply the excess demand...resulting in reduced prices...and on and on and on...Markets are dynamic. We don't need to get all upset about it. It just works.

If consumers are willing to accept inferior quality products, that is what they will get. If consumers are willing to pay for quality, they will find it in the market place. As far as I can tell, Kodak still produces high quality products...Ilford too. People, apparently, still buy those high quality products. Why worry about it?

Brad;

Please look again at the thread regarding the recent changes in quality of EFKE film. You will see that some fine products are being produced, but we see a deterioration in quality for one reason or another.

I know that EFKE is a fine organization, albeit old, but all film companies are having a hard time finding good quality ingredients for making film. I find it is getting harder and harder and more costly.

As this happens, quality will inevitably decrease, while prices rise.

I am having difficulty getting Rhodium salts, Iridium salts, TAI and PMT, as mentioned before. The prices are sky high and they are hard to come by. Some of the sensitzing dyes are running over $100 / gram, and some supplies are running out.

AAMOF, if the rumors I hear are true, one major B&W product may vanish due to the fact that one of the chemicals is no longer being made, and the manufacturer of the film has little left of this chemical at the plant. No one will make it for them in reasonable quantity at a reasonable price.

So, it is I who feel that you are missing the point. If these chemicals vanish, we will have no way to make any of the existing products. Now, I admit that Rhodium salts or Iridium salts will not vanish, but at $200 - $300 / gram, this is not something I wish to invest in, and yet they are essential for making good films and papers.

I go to the web site of the leading manufacturers of sensitizing dyes, and the dyes are no longer even listed! They will sell existing stocks at a premium, but only if you know what you are looking for. If these dyes vanish, then one-by-one, pan, ortho and IR films will vanish from the market. If TAI vanishes, and a few others, then there will be no way to make the film stable on the shelf for more than a few weeks.

Demand is NOT ahead of supply. Demand is so small now that no one wants to supply these hard to make chemicals.

PE

mikebarger · Oct 4, 2006

Ron

I've been sticking away Tri-x 120 and HP5 in 4x5, both about a two year supply, in the deep freezer.

Should we now increase that practice? I'm always a little confused if I should keep buying and shooting, or buy, shoot, and freeze extra film.

Thanks

Mike

Photo Engineer · Oct 4, 2006

mikebarger said:
Ron

I've been sticking away Tri-x 120 and HP5 in 4x5, both about a two year supply, in the deep freezer.

Should we now increase that practice? I'm always a little confused if I should keep buying and shooting, or buy, shoot, and freeze extra film.

Thanks

Mike

Mike, I wish I had an answer for you.

PE

3Dfan · Oct 4, 2006

So let me see if I'm getting this right. The lack of photo grade chemicals not only prevents good quality film production in factories, but also the homemade sort of emulsions you make in workshops. However, because a homemade emulsion could presumably be made within a week or so of use, the lack of good film preservatives is less critical of an issue with the homemade stuff, but the lack of good dies would still be a major problem. Is that correct?

On a more theoretical level, am I correct in assuming the dyes work fluorescently by absorbing photons of the desired color to be sensed and emitting photons in the blue range? I assume the dyes in use are chosen not only for their effectiveness, but for their stability for a good shelf life. That leads me to question if there may be alternatives for sensetizing dyes (ie chlorophyll type substances) that are readily obtainable and could be used when long shelf life is not required.

varjag · Oct 5, 2006

Rolleijoe said:
Should Tri-X ever go, there's always Fomapan.

This is not even funny.

Black Dog · Oct 5, 2006

Ouch!

Photo Engineer · Oct 5, 2006

3Dfan said:
So let me see if I'm getting this right. The lack of photo grade chemicals not only prevents good quality film production in factories, but also the homemade sort of emulsions you make in workshops. However, because a homemade emulsion could presumably be made within a week or so of use, the lack of good film preservatives is less critical of an issue with the homemade stuff, but the lack of good dies would still be a major problem. Is that correct?

On a more theoretical level, am I correct in assuming the dyes work fluorescently by absorbing photons of the desired color to be sensed and emitting photons in the blue range? I assume the dyes in use are chosen not only for their effectiveness, but for their stability for a good shelf life. That leads me to question if there may be alternatives for sensetizing dyes (ie chlorophyll type substances) that are readily obtainable and could be used when long shelf life is not required.

Paragraph #1, essentially correct. However, we can get some of the chemistry to stabilize emulsions and adjust curve shape, so things are good for us at our scale but are becoming critical for some large scale manufacturing processes.

Paragraph #2, No, sensitizing dyes are not fluorescent. They do absorb energy and transmit it to the grain. A blue sensitizing dye is therefore yellow, absorbing all light but blue.

I have posted elsewhere that chlorophyll was used as one of the earliest sensitizing dyes. It is very inefficient and does not have the right spectral distribution to make a reasonable sensitizing dye, nor is it very stable. There are other simple dyes, and I'm trying to use them in my work.

PE

varjag · Oct 5, 2006

PE, in your opinion is it possible to produce in garage an emulsion that would be at least barely usable in 35mm format? Apparently coating own rollfilm would be next to impossible, but I wonder if I should get that plate back for my Contax, just in case.

ZorkiKat · Oct 5, 2006

varjag said:
PE, in your opinion is it possible to produce in garage an emulsion that would be at least barely usable in 35mm format? Apparently coating own rollfilm would be next to impossible, but I wonder if I should get that plate back for my Contax, just in case.

What would make making material for rollfilm difficult? As I see it, it's not much different from coating a sheet of paper, albeit a longer one, and on a plastic film base. Then strips 6, 6,5 -cm or wider can be cut, taped to backing paper and spooled, resulting in a product which would be similar to any factory made roll film.

In theory, this would sound quite simple to do, and much simpler than for 35mm. I too would like to see if it's possible to home-produce some form of 35mm film which my Zorki and FED can use. Edison's technicians got 70mm film
originally made for the first Kodak box camera, split it in the middle and spliced the strips to make a longish (about 15 mtr?) strip of 35 mm film. I wonder how Edison and Co put the perforations on both sides of the strip to enable them to feed the film into their Kinematograph.

Jay

varjag · Oct 5, 2006

Jay, by rollfilm here I meant just film in rolls, as opposed to flat film of larger formats. My understanding was that it requires fairly different adhesive and mechanical properties from emulsions, and those are fairly hard to attain in one's basement. So I was rather interested if it was possible to make emulsion fine enough for enlargements from small format.

ZorkiKat · Oct 5, 2006

varjag said:
Jay, by rollfilm here I meant just film in rolls, as opposed to flat film of larger formats. My understanding was that it requires fairly different adhesive and mechanical properties from emulsions, and those are fairly hard to attain in one's basement. So I was rather interested if it was possible to make emulsion fine enough for enlargements from small format.

I'd be interested in those too. I wouldn't mind having a film with an emulsion with pre-1930s or even 1930s qualities in terms of grain, contrast, and colour sensitivity. Or maybe even the sort which went on the NC Kodak films for the Autographics. Its so exciting to imagine shooting with one of these with an old 35mm camera, with all the so-called 'bugs' which bothered people in those times, but now considered as charming now by 'angry artist' types

Photo Engineer · Oct 5, 2006

There are a number of problems associated with roll film as opposed to sheet film.

1. Roll film is coated on 5 mil or thinner support while sheet film is 7 mil or thicker. Handling of thinner support in total darkness is more difficult especially trying to keep the film support flat and not scratching it.

2. Scratches at small sizes are more important as are small defects.

3. Cutting to size is more difficult for roll film due to the thinner support and the tendency to curl.

4. Perfing 35mm film is difficult if not impossible without special equipment and attaching the paper backing to 120 and 220 is quite difficult.

Hows that for starters?

PE

varjag · Oct 5, 2006

But, on a 40x24mm glass plate?

Film quality

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency