Film quality

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 5, 2006

Having participated in PE's workshop and tried out the coating blade, I think I can see the problems associated with rollfilm at home. I don't know that the support is such a problem--you could use, say, clear 35mm movie film leader.

The coating blade method as I've seen it--correct me if I'm wrong, Ron--depends on the properties of gelatin to spread when warm and set fairly quickly as it cools. So say you've taped down a 6.5 foot strip of 35mm film on a long flat level surface (a little extra for the start and end points). You've got to fill the reservoir of the coating blade with enough emulsion and keep it warm enough to draw it from one end of the strip to the other without the gelatin setting. Maybe increasing the size and mass of the blade would allow it to hold enough emulsion and stay warm long enough for this to work, but it seems it would be tricky to get an even enough coating by hand methods to stand the enlargement factor expected of a 35mm film.

Photo Engineer · Oct 5, 2006

David, yes you have pinpointed another problem, but this one can be moderated by warming the coating surface gently. I have under design a coating 'block' that not only does this but has a vacuum hold down for film. So, I had not listed that as another problem, as it is one I can address (I think). Thanks for bringing this up.

In the long run, I think that 20" or so is about the limit with hand coatings, so a 16x20 print or 20" of film would max out the coating blade. To go larger, you would have to re-design it. Of course, narrower film is possible, but the blade would have to be designed for the film size (width) and the length would have to be in mind as well.

The longest 35mm that I ever coated and tested for uniformity at EK was about 18" or so. I coated 4" wide and cut two 35 mm strips from the center. They were unperfed.

As for coating on glass, yes, glass can be used quite nicely. Any size glass plate coated in the past can be coated now with more modern emulsions. I find that some gelatins don't adhere well to the glass and some salt concentrations have to be avoided, but otherwise yes, it works.

PE

juan · Oct 5, 2006

And some folks thought I was crazy when I snapped up some old 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Graflex plate holders. They fit not only my Graflex RB Series B, but also my much newer Mamiya RB67. Glass for me.
juan

Photo Engineer · Oct 5, 2006

juan said:
And some folks thought I was crazy when I snapped up some old 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Graflex plate holders. They fit not only my Graflex RB Series B, but also my much newer Mamiya RB67. Glass for me.
juan

Now, all you need is a good emulsion and then you have to learn how to coat glass plates.

PE

juan · Oct 6, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
Now, all you need is a good emulsion and then you have to learn how to coat glass plates.

PE

Yes, it's always something, isn't it?
juan

nworth · Oct 7, 2006

PE's main thrust for this thread has been the increasing unavailability of photo grade chemicals for manufacturing film. The same applies to other photographic products as well. It should be noted that photographic chemicals are somewhat special. Some have no other use. Others have special purity requirements. Although chemicals of what Eastman used to call "practical" grade are sufficiently pure for most photographic purposes, some are more particular. They may need a particular synthesis route, not used for non-photographic versions of the chemical, or special testing to avoid certain detrimental impurities. Even going to reagent purity chemicals may not satisfy these requirements.

Although it may be possible and fun to produce an emulsion that is workable, most of us appreciate the quality and consistency of the products we have been receiving from the major photographic manufacturers in the past. If the proper chemicals are not available and the demand is not sufficient to justify the required synthesis, we are faced with a serious loss of quality and variety in the future.

Sal Santamaura · Oct 7, 2006

nworth said:
...If the proper chemicals are not available and the demand is not sufficient to justify the required synthesis, we are faced with a serious loss of quality and variety in the future.

It would be most interesting to hear from Simon Galley and John at J&C about what they've done to stockpile critical items for the future.

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2006

Sal Santamaura said:
It would be most interesting to hear from Simon Galley and John at J&C about what they've done to stockpile critical items for the future.

Didn't someone post a note that Ilford got chemicals via Agfa? Or that they essentially 'rode Agfa's coat tails"?

If true, then the fall of Agfa might be a telling stroke that hurts Ilford, but I have no idea either way whether this is true or not, or whether it would have any effect on Ilford.

I am clueless on this particular subject.

PE

Bob F. · Oct 7, 2006

I think it fairly safe to assume that Ilford know what they are doing and will take steps to procure the chemicals they need, even if it means paying more and buying in larger quantities. All that means is that prices will go up.

As relayed to us at the Ilford visit, in the past Ilford was able to buy a few chemicals in low volume because the supplier was making a lot of the stuff for Agfa. When Agfa went under, Ilford became the major customer and had to buy in larger quantities for it to be worthwhile for the supplier to make a batch. As long as there is a demand, there is no reason to expect a supplier will stop making a particular chemical: you may simply have to buy enough of it for them to make a reasonable profit on a batch. Previously, that may have meant buying 6 months worth but now having to buy five or more years worth. Puts your costs up, but probably not by much compared to the total cost of running a large manufacturing plant coating paper and film with a few hundred employees at UK wage rates...

The demise of Agfa, a great pity as that indeed was, may in fact have a very positive effect on Ilford as people switch from Agfa to Ilford films and paper. No doubt it will get more difficult if B&W film sales continue to decline (although it seems the curve has flattened out to some degree) but difficult does not equate to impossible.

Cheers, Bob.

crispinuk · Oct 7, 2006

It occured to me today that there is still one BIG user of film: the 'movie' industry. As I understand it most productions intended for theatrical release are still shot on celluloid, even if post production is all digital, and distributed to cinemas all over the world as a celluloid print. My point is (assuming the aforementioned is correct) that there may not be that much difference between chemicals used to make movie films and colour reversal and negative films ? I've no doubt cinema projection will eventually go digital but not for a long time, especially in places like India which have a HUGE cinematic film industry.
I realise this is in the B&W forum so are the dire warnings just related to B&W film ? If not I can't see the Hollywood and Bollywood studios shrugging and switching the lights off as they leave because a chemical company won't make a batch of something for Fuji or Kodak. If they're making it for the big players then, as has been suggested already happens, the smaller players should be able to get a slice of the batch one way or another ?

Photo Engineer · Oct 7, 2006

crispinuk said:
It occured to me today that there is still one BIG user of film: the 'movie' industry. As I understand it most productions intended for theatrical release are still shot on celluloid, even if post production is all digital, and distributed to cinemas all over the world as a celluloid print. My point is (assuming the aforementioned is correct) that there may not be that much difference between chemicals used to make movie films and colour reversal and negative films ? I've no doubt cinema projection will eventually go digital but not for a long time, especially in places like India which have a HUGE cinematic film industry.
I realise this is in the B&W forum so are the dire warnings just related to B&W film ? If not I can't see the Hollywood and Bollywood studios shrugging and switching the lights off as they leave because a chemical company won't make a batch of something for Fuji or Kodak. If they're making it for the big players then, as has been suggested already happens, the smaller players should be able to get a slice of the batch one way or another ?

To an extent you are correct.

But, just to give an example that fits B&W only, I bring up Infra Red film. The cost of the sensitizing dye is way up there, and it goes bad sitting on the shelf even if refrigerated. At present, B&W film production is the biggest consumer of this item.

Another example would be the toners used to adjust the color of a B&W silver image, whether used in film or paper. They are useless in color products.

So, although there is truth in what you say, there are exceptions.

The reverse situation is also important. There is a huge list of chemistry used in color that has no application anywhere else but in color film manufacture.

PE

Simon R Galley · Oct 9, 2006

ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Dear All,

A very interesting thread.....since we took over the business in February 2005we ( and other manufacturers ) have faced various 'challenges' related to raw materials and not just chemicals, I am pleased to say ILFORD Photo have managed to overcome all these issues so far, we have done this by proactively managing the supply situation we face, and yes it has meant on occasions buying in larger quantities than we would wish...and by and large prices are going up not down, but I am pleased to say our quality has risen ( although it was always excellent ) since we took over on both paper and film ( both yield and quality complaints ).

Its about focus, and ensuring we keep 'ahead of the game' our chemists and R&D do not just develop new products, they assess the current raw material issues and manufactureability as well, in addition our purchasing team spend many hours backing up our purchasing regime with second and third strings of suppliers and establishing contact with them, should we need them in the future.

I am sure we will face additional challenges in the future, and I am confident that we will continue to produce the highest quality monochrome products for many, many years to come.

Simon Galley ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Alex Hawley · Oct 9, 2006

Thanks for that insight Simon.

rpsawin · Oct 9, 2006

Simon,

Thank you for your comments. As an aside have you noted an increase in film sales? I have heard from a few retail people comment that film sales are noticeably on the rise. No one expects film sales to return to their former levels but it may be that the decline has leveled off and starting to reverse itself.

Bob

Simon R Galley · Oct 10, 2006

Dear Bob,

We have a Worldwide business, and as always some markets are up and some are down, I think its best to describe mono film sales as 'flattening'
and we continue to gain market share so we are not complaining...
thanks to everyone who buys our products..

Simon.

Black Dog · Oct 11, 2006

Well, that's good to hear and I certainly will keep buying!

kjsphoto · Oct 11, 2006

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Bob,

We have a Worldwide business, and as always some markets are up and some are down, I think its best to describe mono film sales as 'flattening'
and we continue to gain market share so we are not complaining...
thanks to everyone who buys our products..

Simon.

What wonderful news! So I will continue to buy HP5+ !! Excellent. Thank you very much Simon for the insight.

Kev

Film quality

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency