Film quality

[Photo Engineer]

Recently, there was a rather longish thread about the quality of a certain film. This thread is now locked. I am taking a risk here raising the subject again, but in a different context.

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.

An example is a chemical called TAI. It is becoming rare and expensive. It preserves film. The older chemical, MBT is cheap and readily available but not nearly as effective and is more difficult to use if one wishes to prevent coating defects.

Eastman Kodak and Fuji, I know, have their own synthetic chemicals divisions, but most other companies do not. I'm not sure about Ilford at the present time.

I think that we will have to take a hit from the quality of products offered by the smaller companies. It will probably vary from batch to batch.

I would add some of my previous comment. As film declines in importance (sales) and factories age, then it becomes more difficult to maintain or upgrade these factories as equipment fails or wears.

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

PE

 

[Lowell Huff]

We buy, use and sell only photo grade chemicals when they are available. If they are not available, then the next best grade is purchased.
It is easy to not to insist on QUALITY, that is why digital imaging is acceptable to some.

 

[Terence]

As we've already had the debate over the "aging" of fresh film, I'll push the topic to the aging of "old" film.

Even from a producer like Kodak, shelf life seems to vary dramatically depending on emulsion. Assuming a similar low (100 to 100, 400 to 400, etc) film speed, and proper cool or cold storage, why does one film "degrade" (fog, etc) faster than another, even within a company's catalog?

Pure IR film seems to degrade the faster than anything else, yet I find Kodak's aerial films with extended red sensitivity hold up better than their consumer B&W films.

If I'm looking to horde film against the Great Film Apocalypse, what films (or types of films) should I stockpile first, assuming I'm looking for longevity in cold or frozen storage? As I'm more of a trial-and-error photographer, rather than a lab technician-type, I can adapt to most any film.

 

[copake_ham]

There's something that just eludes me.

If film sales are indeed plummeting - shouldn't there right now be a glut (at least temporarily) of photo chemicals? :confused:

 

[Mark Layne]

Ron
I had an experience with a few 4x5 sheets exposed and forgotten since 1992. The TMX 100 was fine, The TXP 320 was not, FP4 was useable.

Is there any indication that T grain films will have better keeping qualities?

Mark

 

[Photo Engineer]

We buy, use and sell only photo grade chemicals when they are available. If they are not available, then the next best grade is purchased.
It is easy to not to insist on QUALITY, that is why digital imaging is acceptable to some.

Your response is totally off-topic.

I am referring to film manufacture only.

PE

 

[Mark Layne]

We buy, use and sell only photo grade chemicals when they are available. If they are not available, then the next best grade is purchased.
It is easy to not to insist on QUALITY, that is why digital imaging is acceptable to some.

Lowell
Are Clayton chemicals available in Canada?

Mark

 

[Photo Engineer]

As we've already had the debate over the "aging" of fresh film, I'll push the topic to the aging of "old" film.

Even from a producer like Kodak, shelf life seems to vary dramatically depending on emulsion. Assuming a similar low (100 to 100, 400 to 400, etc) film speed, and proper cool or cold storage, why does one film "degrade" (fog, etc) faster than another, even within a company's catalog?

Pure IR film seems to degrade the faster than anything else, yet I find Kodak's aerial films with extended red sensitivity hold up better than their consumer B&W films.

If I'm looking to horde film against the Great Film Apocalypse, what films (or types of films) should I stockpile first, assuming I'm looking for longevity in cold or frozen storage? As I'm more of a trial-and-error photographer, rather than a lab technician-type, I can adapt to most any film.

As film speed increases, the emulsion becomes more sensitive to ambient heat and radiation. In addition, different emulsion types keep differently just due to the chemistry involved.

I am in no position to suggest any film to anyone. I suggest that you use what works for you.

Different IR films have different sensitizing dyes which are active in different regions of the IR spectrum. This leads to having some IR films keep better than others.

In addition, military specs may not match consumer specs. This will also induce a big price differential between military spec products and consumer spec products.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

There's something that just eludes me.

If film sales are indeed plummeting - shouldn't there right now be a glut (at least temporarily) of photo chemicals? :confused:

Not really. One example is the fact that a particular chemical is almost exhausted in the EU and is critical for manufacture of one type of film. The manufacturer has asked an exorbitant price for synthesizing a new batch and this batch could supply the world of film manufacturing for nearly eternity due to the low quantities needed in a run of film.

I might add that some changes are due solely to the chemical being forbidden today due to environmental reasons. Examples include Cadmium and Mercury which are were still used untl recently in Europe in some products and which is now being gradually forbidden in these products.

So, supplies dwindle and chemical product range becomes more restricted and prices skyrocket.

PE

 

[Jerevan]

The supply problem - is that a raw chemical supply problem or does it lie somewhere else in food-chain (legislation, etc)?

As an aside:

I think we slowly are moving towards a situation where the analog community may be gaining more by open discourse; the why, where and how-to to maintain a minimum level of expertise, which in turn may gain us enough to do things in a repeatable way, if things would go pear-shaped.

The early history had a period loosely between late 1830s and mid 1850s where at least some of the recipes and results were shared and discussed openly among those who worked with photography.

In the 1860s it seems standards had been set, the issues of image permanence had been solved, the practice of photography had reached a critical mass and people made a living out of it and I suppose, tended towards non-sharing and copyright of materials.

As long as we have APUG as a meeting ground, I think we can at least do something. And as long as we are open about the issues and challenges at hand.

 

[Ole]

Yes - Simon galley mentioned something similar: Ilford now has a 40 years' supply of one particular chemical. They used to "tag along" with AGFA, and buy a kilo or so when AGFA bought a ton. Then suddenly Ilford was the main consumer of this chemical in Europe...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I wonder if it would make sense to have an "open source" or even public domain recipe for a film product, in which all the chemicals and reactions are documented. It may not have to tell all the production secrets necessarily (e.g. if you want to scale coating to 10,000 ft/s you need to do this and that), but it would be like a chemical blueprint for the emulsion.

Maybe all the knowledge already exists in publication form? Ron, I know you reserve some information about your emulsions to the people who attend your workshop, so I'd be curious to have your opinion on the practicality of "full disclosure" formulae.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I wonder if it would make sense to have an "open source" or even public domain recipe for a film product, in which all the chemicals and reactions are documented. It may not have to tell all the production secrets necessarily (e.g. if you want to scale coating to 10,000 ft/s you need to do this and that), but it would be like a chemical blueprint for the emulsion.

Maybe all the knowledge already exists in publication form? Ron, I know you reserve some information about your emulsions to the people who attend your workshop, so I'd be curious to have your opinion on the practicality of "full disclosure" formulae.

This is quite possible, and I intend to do so.

As soon as the "Articles" section goes up, I am going to post an improved version of AJ-12, the Kodak film formula that should get a real camera speed.

I will also post some "lessons" on the emulsion making and coating forum.

A film making and coating "kit" is under development as is a pipeline with most major chemicals. This is in the hands of several potential suppliers for their consideration.

PE

 

[RobertP]

It appears that John's move to start producing his own films is becoming a smarter business move all the time.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

This is quite possible, and I intend to do so.

As soon as the "Articles" section goes up, I am going to post an improved version of AJ-12, the Kodak film formula that should get a real camera speed.

I will also post some "lessons" on the emulsion making and coating forum.

A film making and coating "kit" is under development as is a pipeline with most major chemicals. This is in the hands of several potential suppliers for their consideration.

PE

That's seriously nice, even though I'm not personally likely to do my own coating soon. I suppose sheet film is the obvious choice, but would 120 or 35mm be a practical reality as well?

 

[Photo Engineer]

That's seriously nice, even though I'm not personally likely to do my own coating soon. I suppose sheet film is the obvious choice, but would 120 or 35mm be a practical reality as well?

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

 

[Neal]

Dear PE,

Just to give me a timeline perspective, roughly when did "TIA" replace "MBT"?

TIA, ;>)

Neal Wydra

 

[sanking]

How film ages is indeed hard to pin down. A couple of weeks ago I found a roll of 35mm Kodak color negative film, ASA 200, in an old suitcase. The film had obviously been exposed quite some while ago. I had it developed, with prints, and it turns out that it was a roll I exposed on a trick to France in the summer of 1996. The colors were perfect, as if the film were completely fresh. Those folks at Kodak obviously know something about how to make film that keeps well.

Sandy King

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dear PE,

Just to give me a timeline perspective, roughly when did "TIA" replace "MBT"?

TIA, ;>)

Neal Wydra

TAI (not TIA) began replacing MBT in the 50s IIRC. Many companies did not convert due to the expense (again IIRC)

PE

 

[3Dfan]

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

How about some of the smaller sheet film/plate sizes like the kind old magazine hand cameras used to use (i.e. quarterplate and various odd plate sizes for antique stereo cameras)?

 

[Photo Engineer]

How about some of the smaller sheet film/plate sizes like the kind old magazine hand cameras used to use (i.e. quarterplate and various odd plate sizes for antique stereo cameras)?

I don't care what size you make.

Coat 8x10 sheets and cut it any way you want.

PE

 

[dbltap]

gloom and doom

I guess I get no more than a little perturbed about the premature demise, or, in fact, the timely demise of processing chemicals. There seem to be more than a few suppliers of chemicals to meet the needs of todays photographers. And, as I read other forums, the increasing number of analog photographers (maybe not as many as those abandoning traditional for digital). but maybe enought to keep the present suppliers interested in providing the chemicals MOST desired. Myself, I am not a mix-it-yourself guy, but I realize that there are more than a few who do prefer to delve into the exotic. All well and good. My personal favorite is Acufine. I hope it will be around for a long time. If not, I will probably revert to IDll/D-76. If it goes away, then I may go to do-it yourself. If some of the key ingrediants disappear there, then electronic it is. My point is, as I look through a haze of vodka and Squirt, is, that we adapt. If we don't, then photography is doomed, as we know it. The result is the image, no matter how it is produced.
Jim

 

[Photo Engineer]

I guess I get no more than a little perturbed about the premature demise, or, in fact, the timely demise of processing chemicals. There seem to be more than a few suppliers of chemicals to meet the needs of todays photographers. And, as I read other forums, the increasing number of analog photographers (maybe not as many as those abandoning traditional for digital). but maybe enought to keep the present suppliers interested in providing the chemicals MOST desired. Myself, I am not a mix-it-yourself guy, but I realize that there are more than a few who do prefer to delve into the exotic. All well and good. My personal favorite is Acufine. I hope it will be around for a long time. If not, I will probably revert to IDll/D-76. If it goes away, then I may go to do-it yourself. If some of the key ingrediants disappear there, then electronic it is. My point is, as I look through a haze of vodka and Squirt, is, that we adapt. If we don't, then photography is doomed, as we know it. The result is the image, no matter how it is produced.
Jim

Jim;

Again, I note that this is not about processing chemicals, but rather the chemicals to make the film and paper. There is an abundant supply of the processing chemistry around.

PE

 

[jbj]

Dear PhotoEngineer,

What are the chemical names of these compounds (and/or CAS numbers)? Thanks!

 

[don sigl]

I guess I get no more than a little perturbed about the premature demise, or, in fact, the timely demise of processing chemicals. There seem to be more than a few suppliers of chemicals to meet the needs of todays photographers. And, as I read other forums, the increasing number of analog photographers (maybe not as many as those abandoning traditional for digital). but maybe enought to keep the present suppliers interested in providing the chemicals MOST desired. Myself, I am not a mix-it-yourself guy, but I realize that there are more than a few who do prefer to delve into the exotic. All well and good. My personal favorite is Acufine. I hope it will be around for a long time. If not, I will probably revert to IDll/D-76. If it goes away, then I may go to do-it yourself. If some of the key ingrediants disappear there, then electronic it is. My point is, as I look through a haze of vodka and Squirt, is, that we adapt. If we don't, then photography is doomed, as we know it. The result is the image, no matter how it is produced.
Jim

Spoken by someone who has no clue when it comes to mixing your own, or the seriousness of the condition being discussed in this thread. I find your comments through the haze to be exactly that "lost and without direction". Photography as a medium is critically important to me and others. The process and the experience through it are just as important. Its called "Craft". If you really think you can have the same experience using digital equipment, you might just want to try it. Obviously, the craft of photography is not that important to you. Or you may want to try using some of that Squirt when you can't find D-76 on the shelf.