Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

Nzoomed · Aug 28, 2017

MattKing said:
It has been more expensive to produce than the film itself for a significant time.

Which would be a huge anvantage to ferrania if theyhave the means to produce it, Im sure Kodak would be keen to find another supplier.

FILM Ferrania · Aug 28, 2017

Nzoomed said:
Which would be a huge anvantage to ferrania if theyhave the means to produce it, Im sure Kodak would be keen to find another supplier.

Our "means" - at this point in time - are a disassembled paper coating line and will require investment to convert to making backing paper, documentation for the carbon black coating (and a source), but no one yet who can print the coated rolls.

So making backing paper is really just a potential and distant-future proposition. We'll be buying it in for quite a while.

cmacd123 · Aug 28, 2017

Nzoomed said:
Which would be a huge anvantage to ferrania if they have the means to produce it, Im sure Kodak would be keen to find another supplier.

the format of the paper is proably different for every packing machine. you may have noted little lines and squares at seeming random places on your film backing, those are signals for the packing machine to take some action, and they may be a distance from where the action occurs. thus each factory has to have paper that works with that factories own equipment.

the Kodak backing if made in accordance with the description in "Making Kodak FIlm" but both Ilford and Foma seem to use paper with different construction (and different from each other) so it is unlikely that any of them would seek out such a critical product from a competitor, unless all other sources were unavailable.

BAC1967 · Aug 28, 2017

cmacd123 said:
the format of the paper is proably different for every packing machine. you may have noted little lines and squares at seeming random places on your film backing, those are signals for the packing machine to take some action, and they may be a distance from where the action occurs. thus each factory has to have paper that works with that factories own equipment.

the Kodak backing if made in accordance with the description in "Making Kodak FIlm" but both Ilford and Foma seem to use paper with different construction (and different from each other) so it is unlikely that any of them would seek out such a critical product from a competitor, unless all other sources were unavailable.

You mean they don't have elves with night vision googles taping film onto the backing paper and rolling it onto the spools? You just totally blew the image I had in my head of how a film factory works.

Wallendo · Aug 28, 2017

How is it that little old Foma has backing paper which looks cheaper than what the big boys use, but still seems to work well? It would probably be easier for Ferrania just to use that paper. Foma doesn't make color film and there is a chance their paper is not color-compatible.

Photo Engineer · Aug 28, 2017

Wallendo, keeping properties of films and papers vary. You may want to check some films out in less than ideal conditions and then repost. Oh, wait, it might take a year or so.

PE

lantau · Aug 28, 2017

Wallendo said:
How is it that little old Foma has backing paper which looks cheaper than what the big boys use, but still seems to work well? It would probably be easier for Ferrania just to use that paper. Foma doesn't make color film and there is a chance their paper is not color-compatible.

Photo Engineer said:
Wallendo, keeping properties of films and papers vary. You may want to check some films out in less than ideal conditions and then repost. Oh, wait, it might take a year or so.

PE

I don't use as much 120 film as I'd like to. Not that I don't have enough. Anyway the only time I had the problem was with a roll of TMY-2, which I bought and used in Hong Kong. My guess is that it experienced some elevated temps for a while. You'd think that the metal layer inside the wrapper keeps humidity out. But maybe it is too thin to be fully effective in all conditions?

The Foma wrapper, on the other hand, is heavy duty stuff. Makes it impossible to use them with a JCH film case and an uncomfortably tight fit for the Adox and Maco single film plastic cans. I bought a second Rolleiflex SLX and there where a few old expired films in the leather carry case. Two Agfa RSX slide films. They use the same wrapper as Foma. Were these common back then? There is also a beautiful single box of Kodak Gold 120 with expiration 2005. I don't dare open it. What kind of wrapper is inside there?

Still I love the look of the Kodak and Fuji Wrappers. It is a joy to open a film. And then use it.

Nzoomed · Aug 28, 2017

FILM Ferrania said:
Our "means" - at this point in time - are a disassembled paper coating line and will require investment to convert to making backing paper, documentation for the carbon black coating (and a source), but no one yet who can print the coated rolls.

So making backing paper is really just a potential and distant-future proposition. We'll be buying it in for quite a while.

Yes for sure, I totally agree. But its good to know you have the machinery for future use.
Its quite possible you may be able to partner up with other manufacturers to secure the investment needed to make this happen.
I think long term in the future the whole industry will end up working together to help each other out with keeping analog film a viable product.

cmacd123 · Aug 28, 2017

lantau said:
Were these common back then? There is also a beautiful single box of Kodak Gold 120 with expiration 2005.

Over the years I have seen -

1) foil with twisted ends pushed down
2) the sealed tripple layer foil, (plastic/Foil/paper all heat sealed - Like Foma currently
3) metal or plastic cans. often with screw lids which is what agfa used in the 1960s Efke used a plastic version which was not air tight in the 1980s
4) modern shiny plastic "candy Wrapper foil" like Kodak and Ilford currently seem to be using. THin but also heat sealed air tight.
5) snap lid Plastic Cans like used by some production from ADOX.de

MultiFormat Shooter · Aug 31, 2017

How does one contact Ferrania for processing advice? My lab said they tried to contact Ferrania (few weeks ago), but they have heard nothing back. I did provide them with a "best practices" sheet when I dropped the film off.

pbromaghin · Aug 31, 2017

Dave Bias posted this email address a few weeks ago as the best way to contact him help@filmferrania.it

FILM Ferrania · Aug 31, 2017

MultiFormat Shooter said:
How does one contact Ferrania for processing advice? My lab said they tried to contact Ferrania (few weeks ago), but they have heard nothing back. I did provide them with a "best practices" sheet when I dropped the film off.

help@filmferrania.it or using the contact form on our website

MultiFormat Shooter · Aug 31, 2017

FILM Ferrania said:
help@filmferrania.it or using the contact form on our website

Thanks! I'll tell them to try the email address you provided.

FilmCurlCom · Sep 1, 2017

FILM Ferrania said:
More than just useful! Until we have more staff devoted specifically to QA, this is the only way we know. So our team must see these things and understand their source and fix it.

As promised, I am back with more results.
To remind you guys, earlier I shot the first of 3 rolls of P30, I used a Rollei 35S at ISO 80, measuring with the internal as well as an external Gossen meter.
All shots were extremly underexposed plus most frames had these multiple scratches we discussed weeks ago.

Now on my vacation I shot the second roll, again with the same Rollei, but I was taking each shot twice at ISO 80 as well as at ISO 20.
The ISO 20 shots were much better. I used Rodinal 1+50 for 14 mins as proposed in Ferrania's document.
So from my results I cannot really understand the ISO 80 rating...

The third roll I shot in my Nikon F80, the results were similar to my Rollei, plus I saw the same scratches popping up on a few frames as well.

To summarize:
ISO 80 was never a correct rating for me, ISO 20 gave much better results.
Frames in all 3 films were scratched, independently of which camera I used, so I hardly think this would be an issue of the camera itself.
See attached an example where you can see the scratch quite well.

And as someone suggested checking the leader and that maybe the light trap velvet was causing problems:
When holding the film against a light in a certain angle, I can also see scratches on the leader of the film I used with the Rollei.
The Rollei does not automatically spool back the film into the catridge, so the leader was never pulled in through the light trap velvet.
Plus I can also see the scratches all along all of the films when tilting them back and forth at certain angles, much better than any of my scans could show.

PS: I was not able to upload the sample image here as an attachment, what is the current maximum size for attaching images? I reduced the size multiple times but always got "there was an error".

Bernhard

bvy · Sep 1, 2017

FilmCurlCom said:
And as someone suggested checking the leader and that maybe the light trap velvet was causing problems:
When holding the film against a light in a certain angle, I can also see scratches on the leader of the film I used with the Rollei.
The Rollei does not automatically spool back the film into the catridge, so the leader was never pulled in through the light trap velvet.
Plus I can also see the scratches all along all of the films when tilting them back and forth at certain angles, much better than any of my scans could show.

This is my experience too. I was invited to send images to Ferrania, and replacement film would be considered. But I only see the scratches on the physical film. On my prints, they're faint enough to be of no consequence. I did track the scratches to the cut end of the film inside the cassette though.

Further, I had the experience of the cassette jamming mid way through the roll and missed the opportunity to shoot the last 15 or so frames. I was more hopeful that this would be taken into consideration as sufficient reason for replacement. But I understand it's an alpha product.

MattKing · Sep 1, 2017

FilmCurlCom said:
PS: I was not able to upload the sample image here as an attachment, what is the current maximum size for attaching images? I reduced the size multiple times but always got "there was an error".

A maximum of 800 pixels on the longest side.

BAC1967 · Sep 1, 2017

I also noticed scratches on the film after using it in two different cameras. The scratches were on the leader so I'm pretty sure it wasn't caused by my equipment. I also noticed more dust than I usually experience, not sure where that is coming from.

I would like to know if anyone has had much luck with caffenol and what recipes and development times they used.

FilmCurlCom · Sep 1, 2017

MattKing said:
A maximum of 800 pixels on the longest side.

Ah, so similar to the limit we had on our gallery pictures.

RattyMouse · Sep 2, 2017

Any update on the update mentioned a few weeks ago?

airgrphx · Sep 5, 2017

any advice on P30 reciprocity at around 30sec?
to be souped in rodinal @box speed

FilmCurlCom · Sep 7, 2017

FilmCurlCom said:
Ah, so similar to the limit we had on our gallery pictures.
View attachment 185963

So, does anyone know where Dave is?
He said he was interested in my analyses of possible problems on P30s which is why I provide both that image and a more detailed decription a few posts above it.

FILM Ferrania · Sep 7, 2017

FilmCurlCom said:
So, does anyone know where Dave is?
He said he was interested in my analyses of possible problems on P30s which is why I provide both that image and a more detailed decription a few posts above it.

I have been pretty busy. I posted our email address.

twelvetone12 · Sep 9, 2017

Are there any plans to publish the spectral sensitivity of P30? I developed my first roll yesterday, and the images rated at 80iso came out very underexposed (I basically have dark edge markings and faint frames). In some frames I used a yellow filter and the film barely registered anything (it was outside at midday in full sunshine!). Overexposed frames by 1 or 2 stops came out more normally dense on the negative. I used my F3 and the same day I did a couple rolls of other film, developed them in the same developer so I don't think it was the camera/developer.

FilmCurlCom · Sep 9, 2017

FILM Ferrania said:
I have been pretty busy. I posted our email address.

So what does that mean? You want me to rather email you the same example shots and descriptions I have already posted a few pixels above your response now??

cmacd123 · Sep 9, 2017

FilmCurlCom said:
You want me to rather email you the same example shots and descriptions I have already posted a few pixels above your response now??

it means he has many folks wanting his limited time. Send him a detailed e-mail with your concerns, including where he can see the images that cause the issue, and he will have someone get back to you in due course.

I would imagine that their are a lot of fish frying at the LRF these days, and so you may not be able to expect the sort of fast response we used to get from Kodak, who had hundreds of folks assigned just to answer questions.

Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency