Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[railwayman3]

Keeping in mind that even Kodak is having a Dickens of a time bringing back its own Ektachrome after it has only been out of production a few years. One would think they just have to mix up a new batch of goo from their own recipe and let the machines rip.

Not knocking, but I'm afraid that this was the original impression which Ferrania gave, doubtless and with hindsight inadvertently. Kodak and, especially, Adox seem much more conservative in their predictions and suggested timetables.

 

[Agulliver]

Not knocking, but I'm afraid that this was the original impression which Ferrania gave, doubtless and with hindsight inadvertently. Kodak and, especially, Adox seem much more conservative in their predictions and suggested timetables.

It is quite clear to those of us who choose to read the original kickstarter and the subsequent updates that this *was* the original plan....but that there was a small window of opportunity in which to achieve making one last batch of Chrome from the "goo". That window was closed when the asbestos was discovered and the building was forcibly shut down. Then the government decided to build a road through the campus and cut off the electricity, gas and water supplies. Nobody could have foreseen this. In the time taken to safely remove the asbestos, the "goo" expired.

Ferrania did not deceive anyone, or give false impressions. Had it not been for entirely unforeseeable circumstances they would have delivered that batch of E6 films as the rewards. As it stands, they now need to start from scratch....getting the severed services back to the building, getting the machinery working, making B&W to prove that everything works....then formulating colour. Now the government is making further renovations to the building which ultimately should help....but it's all adding to the delays. Anyone who knows even a little about Italian governments knows there is not a single thing that Film Ferrania can do about this.

 

[Fin]

there was a small window of opportunity in which to achieve making one last batch of Chrome from the "goo"

In the time taken to safely remove the asbestos, the "goo" expired.

But Shirley making a film from old "Goo" would have been far worse for the bigger picture? Can you imagine the reams of complaining comments from the braying morons of 'teh internets', moaning how their film made from old stuff lying around in a disused factory, gave them slightly odd and/or less than perfect results straight out of the can?

You know when you have a film to develop, a film with important wage paying and reputation reinforcing shots on it... And you think your developer is a bit old and tired so you could use it, but it might just be far better and easier to mix a new batch? That.

 

[cmacd123]

But Shirley making a film from old "Goo" would have been far worse for the bigger picture?

At the tiime, the materials that they had available were sufficiently "raw" enough that they expected to purify sufficient amount s to allow mixing a batch of the needed solutions from the old recipe. If you read closely, they were well into that process when the work was interrupted, and the materials that they had prepared ended up going past usable. Mr. Bias referred to a 2 month waste of time. (and one assumes a fair amount of resources)

I get the impression that the plan would have used some of the machinery that they were purchasing while it was still installed in the buildings that it had been used in back in the 3M days. After the first batch, THEN the machines would have been de-istalled and placed into storage while the LRF was converted into a film factory. The delay forced the quick removal of the machinery just ahead of the demolition of the old buildings.

All problems do create learning opportunity, and that is when they decided to try to make a simpler product, a Two layer B&W film to find the path to reasonable production methods, while also generating some actual sales. Once serial production of the B&W film is well established, then returning to the two pass coating of the more complex colour stock could be contemplated.

REread the post Dead Link Removed to get an idea of the learning curve that they have gone through.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The "goo" you speak of is probably emulsion. If so, it goes bad in an obvious manner, forming mold and becoming slushy. If you are going to use anything, emulsion is the last thing you want to keep and use. You make new. As for chemicals, you just recrystallize them and purify them. Simple to a chemist. These arguments don't sway me. The ones that do are the obvious. The plant would not work due to asbestos, heat and cold.

PE

 

[Harry Callahan]

Not knocking, but I'm afraid that this was the original impression which Ferrania gave, doubtless and with hindsight inadvertently. Kodak and, especially, Adox seem much more conservative in their predictions and suggested timetables.

But i belive there is a reason for Kodak being more conservative. I think i read somewhere that Kodak had to reformulate E100D because some chemicals now are forbidden or unobtainable, which also could explain why they dropped it though some demand was still there.
Ferrania had everything they needed for a last batch, but then they also had/have to reformulate due to some chemicals being unobtainable today. They wrote about that, also that they´re allready having ideas about improving the emulsion.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

OTOH, I believe that Ferrania contributed to the misunderstanding by suggesting that machinery, film,chemicals and knowhow were all on hand, ready-and-waiting to produce rewards within months, without any indication of possible problems in fulfilling this part of the program.

The simple fact is that film and chemistry and know-how WAS on hand and ready to produce rewards. And we had agreements with third-parties who would have converted the film in all four formats. We even made a series of posts about the progress that was being made to prepare for color reversal coating. There was literally no way to anticipate the discovery of asbestos, and that the time it took to remediate the asbestos basically erased our window for production. There was no reason to anticipate such a thing. The building had been operational within the 21st century and any reasonable person would have expected that ANY such issues about the building would have been known before we moved in.

I've said it many times before, but it cannot be understated - when our work was interrupted in late March 2015 it literally changed everything about the company and our working process. I won't bore you with repeating it here but basically - we had a window of time that everyone was comfortable with and when that window was closed, it was a shock to the system that required a complete reboot.

 

[Agulliver]

While it's not unusual for buildings of the era to contain asbestos within the walls and sometimes ceilings, it's also not unusual for this to be undocumented. As long as the asbestos just sits there inside the walls it's perfectly safe and doing it's job. As soon as anyone started working on the fabric of the building - by which I mean drilling holes in walls/ceilings and certainly any structural alterations - the asbestos would have been discovered and become a hazard. Additionally it would have become necessary to shut down all work, forbid access and probably enshroud the entire building in plastic while the asbestos was removed.

This could not have been foreseen and as Dave Bias says, it totally threw out the intended activities and timescale.

 

[wlodekmj]

Interesting that they have just changed the Shop page to say that: The Shop will Return in Fall 2018.

I guess that means those of us who have any P30 left should use it slowly. I shall use my remaining rolls at ISO 50, after I recently developed a roll _exactly_ according to their instructions - D96 for 8 minutes at 21 Celsius, in a Jobo CPE2 processor set to gentle rotation (rotation number 1, not 2), but exposures taken at ISO 80 were still thin, whereas at ISO 50 they were as I would wish. Has anyone else tried following their preferred process like this; exactly as they specify?

 

[Urmonas]

I sent some P30 to "The Darkroom" who were one of the recommended processing labs (and I believe involved in early developing tests). So the film should have been developed as required. I found the film had a long toe which results in negatives which look thin with poor shadow detail, though as best as I could measure the exposure based on 0.1 above FB+F was close to correct.

 

[Nzoomed]

As for chemicals, you just recrystallize them and purify them. Simple to a chemist. These arguments don't sway me.
PE

Yes thats correct, Ferrania themselves had said this in an update a while back that this is that they were doing.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

But Shirley making a film from old "Goo" would have been far worse for the bigger picture?

Just to be clear, we have no goo.
The materials we have in hand are either raw or in stable composites - and all in powder form.
Some of these components have a nearly infinite shelf life because Ferrania long ago perfected a technique of creating "shelf-stable" intermediate compounds of key components.
For those that do go bad over time, purifying them is not so difficult, as PE points out.

We have massive amounts of a few components - enough to last years. Others we have only enough for testing purposes, and we will need to synthesize more. Still others, like silver for example, we buy as needed.

Rest assured that no Ferrania film will be made from old goo.

And don't call me Shirley.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Interesting that they have just changed the Shop page to say that: The Shop will Return in Fall 2018.

Thanks for noticing!
We have some really good news (finally) and we'll be posting a public update shortly.
I'll add a link here when it is posted.

 

[wlodekmj]

We have some really good news (finally) and we'll be posting a public update shortly.

Great, thank you and looking forward to it already.

RE: D96, you might check this article by our friend Scott Miccichey.

I read it as soon as you posted the link to his page! He repeats what you have said - constant gentle agitation - but he used repeated inversions whereas I tried to copy exactly the process you said Ferrania (meaning Nicola?) used, by using the same model of Jobo processor. Maybe thin-looking shadows are ok, as member Urmonas wrote in post #3985 on Saturday.

We also updated our Dead Link Removed using his timings and techniques,

This link is to Version 2.0, from Feb 12, which is what I used for timing and temperature - if you have updated since then, it is not yet live.

Anyway, grazie mille, and looking forward to more.

 

[flavio81]

Thanks for noticing!
We have some really good news (finally) and we'll be posting a public update shortly.
I'll add a link here when it is posted.

Mmmm... i'm still hoping for the bright day where the news update say:

"Good news, the 220 rolls of Ferraniachrome 640T are going out of the packaging line like sausages from the factory, and will look excellent when developed with our E6 kit, which, being powder only, can be shipped anywhere via air mail..."

 

[fdonadio]

(...) our E6 kit, which, being powder only, can be shipped anywhere via air mail...

Dreaming is still free, right?

 

[bvy]

Dreaming is still free, right?

I want a pony.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, always the optimist, so since I have 3 cubic meters of horse manure so there must be a horse nearby!

This is a joke and is not intended as a negative comment about Ferrania in any way.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

I want a pony.

OH MY GOD, PONIES!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Beating a dead pony?

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Mmmm... i'm still hoping for the bright day where the news update say:

"...and will look excellent when developed with our E6 kit, which, being powder only, can be shipped anywhere via air mail..."

Unfortunately this won´t happen. It does not matter if it is powder or liquid. It can´t go by airmail/postal if it´s a hazmat substance. No matter which aggregate state this is in. If fixes were this easy we (and I am sure Ferrania as well) would have applied them already

Mirko

 

[fdonadio]

It does not matter if it is powder or liquid. It can´t go by airmail/postal if it´s a hazmat substance.

Not sure, Mirko. I’ve seen many stores shipping powdered C-41 kits, but not liquid ones. I am not sure which component in E-6 is hazmat, though.

 

[flavio81]

Not sure, Mirko. I’ve seen many stores shipping powdered C-41 kits, but not liquid ones. I am not sure which component in E-6 is hazmat, though.

Exactly the reason I asked. A friend of mine received a C41 powder kit from FPP, supposedly via air mail.

 

[Agulliver]

Is the bleach in E6 different to the C41 blix?

EU regulations on transport of dangerous goods encompass more than traditional "hazardous materials". Some delivery companies won't handle liquids as a matter of course now. Or simply posting liquids is uneconomical due to the volume and weight of the liquid and the cost of postage.

 

[Diapositivo]

Years ago I bought my last batches of liquid C-41 and 6-bath-E6 liquid kits, and they were sent by normal courier, Italy to Italy, which means Italy to EU.

I think hazardous materials restrictions are mainly a US or Canadian problem. The EU seems to be more tolerant toward this kind of substances in small packages.

EDIT: I see the problem only relates to air shipping. There is no air shipping need within the EU. Maybe restrictions are in place, and chemicals are delivered entirely through surface means. In any case, for chemical substances, "shipping" (with ships) to the Americas is just as effective as air shipping. I don't see a real problem.