Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[fdonadio]

No, it's been few years, but I think I was shooting Velvia 400. Either one would be fine.

There has never been Velvia 400.

I agree with Roger. No Velvia in ISO 400. There was also Sensia 400...


Flavio

 

[kb3lms]

But i think the "void" is for an affordable 100-speed slide film.

If you're hoping for a cheap product from FF, I think you are in the wrong department.

However, something less than Velvia pricing would be nice.

 

[kb3lms]

It's (crystal archive) only a substitute for Ilfochrome if you scan a transparency and then output it to Crystal Archive using one of the devices that exposes the paper to laser light from a digital source.

WARNING - REALLY OT (but while we hang out waiting for the next bit of news, so what, right?)

Has there ever been a consumer (well, less than industrial) device into which you can put color or B/W photographic paper and expose a digital print from your computer? After exposure it would then be processed normally. One would have to convert the original image to the corresponding negative on their computer, of course, before exposure.

I've never heard of such a thing, but I'd wonder with all of these parts and pieces suitable to build 3D printers if it would be possible to build such a device?

 

[flavio81]

If you're hoping for a cheap product from FF, I think you are in the wrong department.

However, something less than Velvia pricing would be nice.

I said "affordable", not "cheap". Velvia and Provia have both increased their prices substantially over the last 5 years.
The goal of FF has already been stated as being "the color Ilford", that is, giving good quality products at fair prices.

 

[miha]

The goal of FF has already been stated as being "the color Ilford", that is, giving good quality products at fair prices.

This sounds a bit strange; I see Ilford as a company that supplies products of extreme quality at elevated prices, at least here in Europe. But then again you would have to do some darkroom work to be able to really appreciate the quality of the the whole portfolio.

 

[pbromaghin]

There has never been Velvia 400.

Oops. Provia.

 

[skorpiius]

WARNING - REALLY OT (but while we hang out waiting for the next bit of news, so what, right?)

Has there ever been a consumer (well, less than industrial) device into which you can put color or B/W photographic paper and expose a digital print from your computer? After exposure it would then be processed normally. One would have to convert the original image to the corresponding negative on their computer, of course, before exposure.

I've never heard of such a thing, but I'd wonder with all of these parts and pieces suitable to build 3D printers if it would be possible to build such a device?

The only thing I've heard of is this, try not to cringe too much

Dead Link Removed

 

[Arctic amateur]

WARNING - REALLY OT (but while we hang out waiting for the next bit of news, so what, right?)

Has there ever been a consumer (well, less than industrial) device into which you can put color or B/W photographic paper and expose a digital print from your computer? After exposure it would then be processed normally. One would have to convert the original image to the corresponding negative on their computer, of course, before exposure.

I've never heard of such a thing, but I'd wonder with all of these parts and pieces suitable to build 3D printers if it would be possible to build such a device?

There was this thing: Dead Link Removed
but I think it never got off the ground.

But printing an inkjet negative on transparency (overhead projector) film and contact printing it in the darkroom is perfectly possible. I read about it in some alt process thread, but of course you could do it with regular darkroom process too.

 

[flavio81]

This sounds a bit strange; I see Ilford as a company that supplies products of extreme quality at elevated prices, at least here in Europe. But then again you would have to do some darkroom work to be able to really appreciate the quality of the the whole portfolio.

Kodak film prices, at least in my country, are far more expensive.

And Ilford's Kentmere and "PAN 100/400" films are inexpensive.

 

[MattKing]

But printing an inkjet negative on transparency (overhead projector) film and contact printing it in the darkroom is perfectly possible. I read about it in some alt process thread, but of course you could do it with regular darkroom process too.

The resolution of inkjet printer produced negatives tends to be a lot less than the inherent resolution of film, so using them with a regular "silver gelatin" paper will probably disappoint.

 

[Arctic amateur]

MattKing: If you were to print negative-sized and enlarge, sure. But does it matter if you contact print? Of course, you'd be limited to the maximum paper size your printer can take and the maximum size of projection foils.

 

[MattKing]

MattKing: If you were to print negative-sized and enlarge, sure. But does it matter if you contact print? Of course, you'd be limited to the maximum paper size your printer can take and the maximum size of projection foils.

It does matter with contact prints, because the ink drops on the transparency material are a lot coarser than the grain on film. And that difference is accentuated when you print from the transparency on to the much finer grained photographic material.

 

[Roger Cole]

This sounds a bit strange; I see Ilford as a company that supplies products of extreme quality at elevated prices, at least here in Europe. But then again you would have to do some darkroom work to be able to really appreciate the quality of the the whole portfolio.

Ilford isn't at elevated prices in the US. It's comparable to, often slightly less than, Kodak B&W in rolls (though far less expensive than Kodak sheet film, a market Kodak has priced itself out of as far as I'm concerned) and also way less in bulk. It's a bit more than Foma. Fair pricing I would say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[onre]

Here in Finland Foma is about half price compared to Ilford, and Kodak is slightly more expensive (10%-20% or so).

 

[AgX]

Maybe relevant, maybe not, but today I bought 4 films in a local drugstore: Agfa Vista Plus (200 ASA, 36 exposure) for 2.49 each and it's a decent film.

AgfaPhoto Vista Plus

 

[onre]

AgfaPhoto Vista Plus

Who actually makes that? I've heard the OEM would be Fuji.

 

[AgX]

Fuji

Seemingly the same film drugstore chains sell/sold under their own name.

 

[TheToadMen]

Originally Posted by TheToadMen (there was a url link here which no longer exists)Maybe relevant, maybe not, but today I bought 4 films in a local drugstore: Agfa Vista Plus (200 ASA, 36 exposure) for 2.49 each and it's a decent film.

AgfaPhoto Vista Plus

Yes, this one (expiring 2017):

 

[Nzoomed]

Fingers crossed, waiting in anticipation for announcement from Film Ferrania!

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Hey David,
In years past, Ilford has done a "ULF" run where they do special runs of film (for example, bulk 46mm wide film suitable for rolling 127 film), or film sizes larger than 8x10. Any chance of Ferrania doing something like that for your color films, once you guys are up and running? I realize you'd be limited on how wide you could go due to the use of the research coater, so probably no 11x14 or larger, but special once-a-year runs of color roll fims might have a market.

Sorry for the delayed response.

For the near-term, we will be limited to 8x10 and smaller, which doesn't quite qualify for "ULF" - but we fully intend to make sheet films.

To make anything bigger, we'll need a new "head" for our coater. We have the plans that were drawn up to build a bigger one, and we've identified a manufacturer - but this won't happen until it must happen. Not until we have totally maxed-out the capacity of the current coater head in every other possible way - running it more often, longer, with more staff, etc.

With regard to everything 8x10 and smaller:

Since we are small, all film we make will be in batches with specific cutting patterns that we can change (to some degree) for each miniJumbo we make. This allows us to be quite flexible in terms of formats and output volume.

Of course, we'll need to lean heavily on the four formats we've already announced for at least our first 12-18 months - especially 35mm - but our flexibility will allow us to react to the market efficiently and quickly.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

I suspect that a resurrection of Ektachrome would simply wipe out Ferrania. I'm sure in their start up calculations they never included the possibility that they would have a second competitor for E-6.

There's simply not enough demand to justify 3 suppliers of E-6 film in today's world.

I just wanted to chime in on the whole Kodak Super 8 thing...

• We are not at all worried about being "wiped out" by anyone. (We're even less worried about discontinued stocks being reintroduced. It's just not so simple to un-flip that switch.)
• The market has been pulling out of its nose-dive for at least 5 or 6 years now. A lot of us think it's still correcting, but we've been bouncing across the bottom as the industry tries to haul it's huge and complicated rear-end into the 21st century.
• We're actually pretty thrilled about Kodak putting some new gear into the market. And we all know that their cinema films are amazing.
• Bottom line - any news about NEW FILM is amazingly good news for FILM Ferrania!

More power to them!

 

[Nzoomed]

• Bottom line - any news about NEW FILM is amazingly good news for FILM Ferrania!

More power to them!

+1

I completley agree, the more films out there for people to shoot, the better!

 

[Roger Cole]

Sorry for the delayed response.

For the near-term, we will be limited to 8x10 and smaller, which doesn't quite qualify for "ULF" - but we fully intend to make sheet films.

To make anything bigger, we'll need a new "head" for our coater. We have the plans that were drawn up to build a bigger one, and we've identified a manufacturer - but this won't happen until it must happen. Not until we have totally maxed-out the capacity of the current coater head in every other possible way - running it more often, longer, with more staff, etc.

With regard to everything 8x10 and smaller:

Since we are small, all film we make will be in batches with specific cutting patterns that we can change (to some degree) for each miniJumbo we make. This allows us to be quite flexible in terms of formats and output volume.

Of course, we'll need to lean heavily on the four formats we've already announced for at least our first 12-18 months - especially 35mm - but our flexibility will allow us to react to the market efficiently and quickly.

That's awesome to read.

Of course I know people shoot larger than 8x10 (though mostly in black and white but I'm not sure how much of that fact is due to availability) but as long as you make it in 4x5 I'll be happy. 8x10 would be a great thing in case I ever get one but my guess is that the vast majority of sheet film use is 4x5.

However, I can, barely but I can, afford to shoot some color in 4x5. Assuming prices comparable to the offerings still made by other companies, and I've no reason to think otherwise, 8x10 would just be too dear for my blood anyway.

 

[TheToadMen]

That's awesome to read.

+1

Of course I know people shoot larger than 8x10 (though mostly in black and white but I'm not sure how much of that fact is due to availability) but as long as you make it in 4x5 I'll be happy. 8x10 would be a great thing in case I ever get one but my guess is that the vast majority of sheet film use is 4x5.

However, I can, barely but I can, afford to shoot some color in 4x5. Assuming prices comparable to the offerings still made by other companies, and I've no reason to think otherwise, 8x10 would just be too dear for my blood anyway.

I agree. I like ULF very, very much but due to the costs of materials I've decided to go for the 5x7" format with film. Just big enough for analogue contact printing and still (somewhat) affordable & available.
For larger formats I will use paper negatives or even make my own negatives the way Fox Talbot did: making Calotype( a.k.a. Talbotype) to be used as negatives for making albumen prints.

 

[Роберт]

OK, next time on Ferrania color then .......